BBC⁠0%

Michael review: ‘A bland and barely competent daytime TV movie' ★☆☆☆☆ ⁠94%

By Nicholas Barber⁠0%

4/21/2026, 7:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 86.8% saturation with 541 hits. Analysis detected 2,464 faulty-reasoning hits from 623 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 90.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,331 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.90% of the article peer group.

This saccharine, reverential biopic about controversial music legend Michael Jackson is set to be one of the worst films of 2026 – removing "everything that might be deemed dramatic". 
It's bad. 
It's bad. 
It's really, really bad. 
The new Michael Jackson biopic, Michael, is produced by several of his relatives and close associates, so no one expected it to be a searing portrait of the controversial star. 
But it's still surprising that they've made such a bland and barely competent daytime TV movie. 
A chronological plod through Jackson's time in the Jackson 5, and his subsequent solo success, the film's narrative stops in the mid-1980s, before he was accused of child abuse, and it removes everything from the story that might be deemed contentious. 
It removes everything that might be deemed dramatic, too. 
What's left is scene after scene of record-industry bigwigs telling Jackson how amazingly talented he is, and of his horrible dad (Colman Domingo, barely recognisable under prosthetic make-up) scuttling over like an evil goblin and snarling: "Remember your family, Michael!" 
Whatever you think of Jackson, he was driven to create spectacular and innovative entertainment – and yet the film has none of that spirit 
The man himself is played by his own nephew, Jaafar Jackson, who must have been cast for his physical resemblance to the real person. 
He certainly wasn't cast for his ability to express emotion – not that he's required to do much of that. 
When he's not on stage or in a recording studio, Jackson smiles as he watches television with his mother (Nia Long), smiles as he visits sick children in hospital, and smiles as he buys animals for his private menagerie. 
"They're not my pets, they're my friends," he smiles. 
When he sings Billie Jean, the viewer is left to wonder how this sweet and saintly innocent could possibly have written such an urgent, paranoid and sexually charged song. 
Still, Jackson is a fascinatingly multi-layered character compared to the supporting cast. 
Miles Teller wears a perma-smirk as the staunchly supportive lawyer, John Branca, who, in real life, happens to be one of the film's producers. 
And Jackson's brothers are forgettable – bizarrely so, considering that some of them are producers of the film too. 
Jackson's sister Janet Jackson is written out completely. 
Michael 
Director: Graham King 
Cast: Jaafar Jackson, Colman Domingo, Nia Long, Miles Teller 
Run time: 2hr 7m 
Release date: 22 April in the UK, 24 April in the US 
The main producer of this hagiography is Graham King, who was behind another pop biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody. 
But while that one won four Oscars, Michael is more likely to be a Razzie contender. 
Other key crew members include its director, Antoine Fuqua, who made Training Day, and its screenwriter, John Logan, whose screenplays include Gladiator and The Aviator – although you would never guess that anyone outside the Michael Jackson Fan Club was involved. 
The functional dialogue has all the nuance of a road sign, and the visuals are so lacking in flair that even the reconstructions of Jackson's groundbreaking videos and concerts are a snooze. 
That's the irony of the whole project. 
Whatever you think of Jackson, he was driven to create spectacular and innovative entertainment. 
And yet the film has none of that spirit. 
It was clearly intended as a tribute to him as a person, but it's a grievous insult to him as an artist. 
★☆☆☆☆ 
-- 
If you liked this story, sign up for The Essential List newsletter – a handpicked selection of features, videos and can't-miss news, delivered to your inbox twice a week. 
For more Culture stories from the BBC, follow us on Facebook and Instagram. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.0%Nicholas Barber: 5.5%BBC: 3.0%Confirmation Bias21.0%This article: 2.7%Nicholas Barber: 0.9%BBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 6.6%Nicholas Barber: 3.8%BBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 4.8%Nicholas Barber: 2.3%BBC: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 2.1%BBC: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 2.0%BBC: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 33.1%Nicholas Barber: 6.6%BBC: 4.7%Framing Effect33.1%This article: 4.7%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.3%Loss Aversion4.7%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.5%BBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.3%BBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 2.6%BBC: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Nicholas Barber: 1.0%BBC: 0.9%Pessimism Bias16.5%This article: 65.2%Nicholas Barber: 8.0%BBC: 4.4%Negativity Bias65.2%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.7%BBC: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Nicholas Barber: 1.3%BBC: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Nicholas Barber: 1.9%BBC: 1.0%In-Group Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.4%BBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Nicholas Barber: 7.1%BBC: 4.6%Halo Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.6%BBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.6%Nicholas Barber: 2.3%BBC: 1.1%Recency Bias0.6%This article: 3.7%Nicholas Barber: 0.5%BBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Nicholas Barber: 1.1%BBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem6.4%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.7%BBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.2%Nicholas Barber: 5.6%BBC: 5.5%Appeal to Authority13.2%This article: 7.9%Nicholas Barber: 1.6%BBC: 1.1%False Dilemma7.9%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.3%BBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Nicholas Barber: 7.9%BBC: 5.5%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 1.3%BBC: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.4%Nicholas Barber: 3.8%BBC: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion15.4%This article: 8.2%Nicholas Barber: 0.9%BBC: 0.5%Begging the Question8.2%This article: 4.8%Nicholas Barber: 3.7%BBC: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.1%Nicholas Barber: 0.7%BBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof7.1%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.2%BBC: 0.6%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%Nicholas Barber: 0.4%BBC: 0.4%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 6.4%Nicholas Barber: 2.7%BBC: 3.5%Anecdotal6.4%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.5%Nicholas Barber: 1.4%BBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.5%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.0%BBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.9%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Middle Ground1.9%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.2%BBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.3%BBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.4%Nicholas Barber: 1.1%BBC: 1.2%Unattributed Quote14.4%This article: 7.9%Nicholas Barber: 0.9%BBC: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection7.9%This article: 86.8%Nicholas Barber: 11.0%BBC: 5.8%Biased Writer Voice86.8%This article: 3.5%Nicholas Barber: 0.7%BBC: 1.4%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Barber: 0.1%BBC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Nicholas Barber: 3.0%BBC: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.7%

623 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers4.3%attributed speech596writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageMiles Teller • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageGraham King • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Miles Teller

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words89% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+13.3 ptsWriter: 86.7%Miles Teller: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-15.1 ptsWriter: 15.1%Miles Teller: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Miles Teller: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Miles Teller: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Miles Teller: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.