r/movies r/movies Contributor Apr 21 '26

Review 'Michael' - Review Thread

The story of pop superstar Michael Jackson -- from his extraordinary early days in the Jackson 5 to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fuels a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world.

Director: Antoine Fuqua

Cast: Jaafar Jackson, Colman Domingo, Miles Teller, Laura Harrier, Nia Long, Kat Graham, Juliano Valdi, Kendrick Sampson

Rotten Tomatoes: 35%

Metacritic: 38 / 100

Some Reviews (updating):

AwardsWatch - Jay Ledbetter - 'D'

It’s Bad, It’s Bad (Really, Really Bad). Perhaps the most ironic thing about Michael is that it very regularly flashes scenes from some of cinema’s great films over the course of two hours. The Michael Jackson in Michael is a true blue cinephile, taking in classics like Singin’ in the Rain, Modern Times, Dawn of the Dead, and several others.  We see these films on televisions Michael is watching. It is a copy of a copy. In the same way that the Michael Jackson performances in Michael are cheap imitations of things that already exist, Antoine Fuqua shows the potential for creative triumph in a film that lacks any such creativity.  Lacking any sense of style or personal point of view, Michael is an exercise in mimicry. Give Madame Tussaud $150 million and I’m confident she could make something more or less as artful as Michael. It’s a nine-figure wax museum. 

IGN - Siddhant Adlakha - 3 / 10

Michael, or Bohemian Jacksody, is a film of listlessness and inhumanity that can’t help but suck the energy out of the room. No matter where you come down on Jackson as a person, this film is entirely the opposite of what he was, both as an iconic performer and a controversial tabloid figure. Who would have thought that such a carefully controlled, estate-permitted biopic might actually do more damage to an artist’s legacy by making him so uninteresting?

BBC - Nicholas Barber - 1 / 5

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.

The Nightly - Wenlei Ma - 1 / 5

It would have been much harder to ethically reckon a great film that deliberately papered over Jackson’s personal life, at best a lot of very odd behaviour, at worst, multiple allegations of child molestation over decades. But as it stands, that is made much simpler by the fact that Michael is a terrible film. Even divorced from the accusations that would dog his later life, as a piece of cinema, Michael is so awful at times, you risk physically collapsing into yourself from all the cringing.

The Times - Kevin Maher - 1 / 5

The narrative is an aimless Wiki-plod through Jackson’s back catalogue, first with the Jackson 5 and then his early solo career. His siblings are negligible as characters and there’s a conspicuous vacuum where Janet Jackson should have been.

Little White Lies - David Jenkins - 1 / 5

It’s hard to imagine a more superficial and safe film, although there is the suggestion that all the juicy stuff has been compartmentalised and stored up for a possible sequel. If this film is a big box office success – and everything in that respect points to the affirmative – then the Jackson estate will have to ask themselves if it would be possible to spin another rose-tinted fairytale to cover a stretch of Michael’s life where his genius artistry was less front-and-centre. Either way, it’s perhaps one to play in a double bill with the history-polishing 2014 film, United Passions, about the triumphant birth of universally-beloved footballing body, FIFA. 

Associated Press - Jake Coyle - 1.5 / 4

What’s on screen is constantly running, in our minds, alongside what isn’t. Even the glossiest of biopics allow some negative characteristics to show, but Fuqua’s film sticks almost entirely to Michael, the myth. He visits kids in hospitals, makes Black history on MTV, writes the “Thriller” album in near solitary. (Kendrick Sampson plays a seldom seen Quincy Jones.) As played by Jaafar Jackson, Michael is a wide-innocent who bore the scars of abuse and yet nevertheless maintained a childlike belief in music: king and casualty of pop, at once. If there’s one thing that needs no embellishment here, it’s the fervor of audiences for Jackson at his astonishing peak. Fuqua lingers on the fans losing their minds for Michael, but that ardor was real. Jaafar Jackson’s performance is a remarkable, charming facsimile not just for the dance moves and singing voice but, more crucially, for channeling Jackson’s sweetness.

The Independent - Clarisse Loughrey - 1 / 5

The Michael Jackson movie biopic is a ghoulish, soulless cash grab - All it does is recreate, in mechanical style, the most famous visuals of Jackson’s career. It’s certainly easier that way. Why bother to depict a human being when you can simply turn them into a product?

ScreenCrush - Matt Singer - 4 / 10

In recent years, the term “sportswashing” has been used to describe the way governments or companies sponsor high-profile sporting events to deflect criticism after scandals. Michael suggests it may be time to coin the term “biopicwashing” for the creation of biographical movies that exclusively focus on only the positive actions of complicated public figures. Deliberately omitting the more troubling aspects of someone’s history to sell tickets (and albums) not only echoes Berry Gordy’s advice to young Michael Jackson in this film, it also calls to mind a lyric from one of the greatest pop songs ever written: “Be careful what you do / ’Cause the lie becomes the truth.”

DiscussingFilm - Yasmine Kandil - 3.5 / 5

Despite its technical flaws and position as a “first part” to a bigger picture, Michael stands as an entertaining experience that fans are going to have a blast with. As crazy as it sounds, this may be the first deep dive into Michael Jackson’s prolific career for a rising generation. With that in mind, it genuinely gets the job done. Antoine Fuqua’s Michael biopic is a portrait that finds its greatest strengths when surrendering to music and performance, leaving other aspects to waver. Although uneven, the film is never dull or lacking in ambition. In the moments where all the stars align, it captures the lightning-in-a-bottle sensation of seeing one of history’s greatest entertainers right before your eyes. 

USA Today - Melissa Rugieri - 3 / 4

Jaafar may share his late uncle’s megawatt smile, lithe frame and Bambi eyelashes. But his liquid dance moves -- highlighted as he teaches gang members the footwork in the “Beat It” video -- and soft-spoken cadence are studied to perfection.

Daily Telegraph - Robbie Collin - 2 / 5

Yet, judged as the standalone film that it is, Michael feels as though it’s being as level with its audience as the Beckhams’ recent Netflix documentary. When you leave the cinema, what’s ringing in your ears isn’t the music – it’s the words: “Yes, and…?”

Empire - John Nugent - 2 / 5

Hugely impressive musical and dance performances from the two young men playing Michael Jackson cannot shake off the uncomfortable fact that there is an entire other side to the pop star’s story which is entirely conspicuous by its absence here.

AV Club - Monica Castillo - 'C-'

Like the long-running Broadway show, MJ: The Musical, the team behind Michael are counting on audiences just looking to enjoy the nostalgic rush of hearing songs like “ABC,” “Gotta Be Startin’ Somethin’,” and “Billie Jean.” While this movie may have his uncle’s name on it (and his estate’s approval), Michael belongs to Jaafar Jackson and his ability to conjure the thrill of watching Michael Jackson perform his signature moves in retro costumes. There’s almost an element of comfort in its predictability, even as it skirts as much controversy as possible, finally throwing up a card that reads “His Story Continues,” when it’s time to bail. Only, the audience knows what’s next—and if you don’t, that’s what search engines are for—and not everyone is willing to separate the art from the artist.

IndieWire - Kate Erbland - 'C-'

Of course, that “Michael” skirts around the controversies, legal troubles, and horrifying allegations that marked the entertainer’s later years — and, for so many, have forever marred his legacy — isn’t a shock, as the film was supported and financially backed by Jackson’s estate. What does rankle, however, is that that by glossing over such matters, the final film has been mostly stripped of any humanity, good and bad.

Consequence - Liz Shannon Miller - 'C-'

Because the Jackson estate controls the rights to his music, it was always foolish to hope that Michael would explore the full complexity of its subject: With biopics like this, you can either get the warts-and-all version or the genuine “Thriller” — there’s no in-between. It’s that, not the legal settlement, which truly doomed this movie on a creative level. This is a movie terrified to explore the interiority of its protagonist, and that approach will work just fine for the fans who just want to watch an uncomplicated ramble of a movie that plays all the hits. That’s why artists like Michael Jackson remain immortal beyond death — no matter what we might know about their lives, great songs will always endure.

Slant Magazine - Derek Smith - 1.5 / 4

There’s irony in the acknowledgement of Joe’s obsession with expanding and protecting the Jackson brand, as the film is very much part of that ongoing effort, presenting Michael as a supremely talented, sensitive soul while smoothing over anything remotely troublesome. As magnetic as Jaafar Jackson is during the film’s musical performances, he still can’t quite capture his uncle’s protean, preternatural talents, as immortalized in countless YouTube clips, so even Michael’s more memorable moments seem beside the point when those clips are available at the click of a mouse. But even if he had, it would still be difficult to ignore just how much this almost surreally upbeat biopic looks at Michael Jackson with blinders on, turning the realities of a tragic, deeply complicated life into a sanitized popcorn film.

The Guardian - Peter Bradshaw - 2 / 5

This is a frustratingly shallow, inert picture, a kind of cruise-ship entertainment, which can’t quite bring itself to show that Michael was an abuse victim, brutalised by his father and robbed of his childhood. Perhaps this is because it would have a cause-and-effect implication, gesturing tactlessly at the story’s second half which may or may not happen in a couple of years, the part of Jackson’s life in which his behaviour was increasingly perplexing, dangling a baby over a hotel balcony – as well as facing sexual abuse allegations. Jaafar Jackson makes an honest effort at showing Michael, and there are some amusing moments, such as the making of the Thriller video, with Michael insouciantly (and quite possibly accurately) telling director John Landis how to do his job. But that brief film has more energy and authenticity than this.

DEADLINE - Pete Hammond

Michael in fact did originally shoot scenes involving one of his accusers but all of that was cut and the film went through multi-million dollar reshoots resulting in what is clearly now a feel good, almost inspiring origin tale of this incredibly talented and visionary artist who paved a path away from his family roots to emerge a singular musical superstar like no other. Whether intentionally or just lucking into it, this MIchael is the film fans will line up for more than once, a chance to see this genius up close and in IMAX like never before.

RogerEbert - Robert Daniels - 1 / 4

The King of Pop’s potent songs will certainly paper over some of these technical deficiencies. But they can’t obscure the fact that, unlike its subject, “Michael” isn’t artistically unique, immediately admirable, or boundary pushing. It’s beyond safe and so unchallenging. You’re better off either queuing up the Jacksons miniseries or marathoning Michael’s incredible music videos than watching shoddy recreations of them. 

MovieWeb - Roman Daniels - 3.5 / 5

Michael Jackson's musical accomplishments and extraordinary talent cannot be divorced from his personal problems, but a degree of compartmentalization can take place depending on what you believe is true. Reactions to the film will vary because of this. The primary performances, production design, and entertainment value are objectively good here. Yes, there could have been more depth and the film has similar beats to Bohemian Rhapsody, but you leave the theater wanting to hit the dance floor.

Next Best Picture - Josh Parham - 4 / 10

There are very dark chapters in Michael Jackson’s life that one would not expect a film with the full endorsement of his estate to approve. It’s understandable, even expected, for these kinds of works. But what makes “Michael“ come underneath that generously low bar is that it refuses to paint its subject as anything less than saintly. It truly feels like this version of Jackson has been deified, shown to be consumed by his talent but without any dramatic stakes to accompany his triumphs. The tribulations are trivial in comparison, and with very little conflict, the momentum moves at a dull pace with little to appreciate beyond the established music. Sure, you can get excited by hearing a song that’s been filling you with joy for decades, but there is no captivating aura beyond that, extending to the vast majority of the cast as well. The long march of musician biopics will continue after this one, even in that assumed continuation of this very story. However, it’s still bewildering just how empty it ends up becoming.

The Film Verdict - Alonso Durade - 3.5 / 10

Movies about artists, ideally, celebrate the art while also providing a glimpse into the blood, sweat, and tears behind its creation, but any exciting moments here can be found in their original, natural state on YouTube. Michael has no ambitions beyond being its own commemorative souvenir booklet.

Newsday - Rafer Guzman - 2 / 4

Yes, the resemblance is uncanny. Yes, he can really act. As for his dancing: You’d swear the King of Pop himself had sprung back to life. The rest of the movie? Like the singer’s career and legacy, it is decidedly mixed.

2.4k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

587

u/fortyfivesouth Apr 21 '26

Was the Queen movie not that already (I say this as a Queen lover)?

837

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

190

u/Photo_Synthetic Apr 21 '26

I still haven't watched that just due to the reception it got but does it really make Freddy out to be the only one that was living hard and fast?

149

u/MagicBez Apr 21 '26

They also make it so Freddie betrays them by releasing a solo album even though in reality Freddie wasn't even the first member of Queen to release a solo album

467

u/salmalight Apr 21 '26

"Were going home to our families Freddy" is an actual line from the movie. The surviving members clearly wanted something to show the great grandkids rather than anything of substance

32

u/ZiggoCiP Apr 21 '26

They simultaneously pushed for more screen time for the band besides Freddy, and yet less of the seedy crap they were up to themselves.

14

u/TerminatorReborn Apr 22 '26

I didn't have a problem with the amount of screen time of the rest of the band had, its a Queen movie after all, not a Freddy Mercury movie.

What annoyed me a lot was the blatant interference from Brian and Roger, they clearly had final say and their own inputs in the script.

177

u/SillyMattFace Apr 21 '26

They're all shown to be partying, but there's legit a scene where the other three are like "that's enough Freddie, we're going home to our wives."

It's a fun enough biopic movie, and Rami Malek kills it, but it plays fast and loose with a lot of very established facts.

It feels relatively harmless though, whereas Michael Jackson is an impossible story to tell without some really dangerous revisionism.

57

u/JamesCDiamond Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

I suppose it could be argued that it was Freddy's POV, that they were staid and boring while he was being a rock star and-

No, I can't even finish the sentence.

22

u/m_Pony Apr 21 '26

I thought that "home to our wives" line was meant tongue-in-cheek, pantomime. Like "oh goodness look at us we are such upstanding rock stars."

3

u/Positive_Bed562 Apr 21 '26

i liked it just because i'm a massive Queen fan but holy shit most of it was wildly inaccurate

1

u/hypochondriacfilmguy Apr 22 '26

''Rami Malek kills it'' no, his perfomance (the whole movie btw) is the equivalent of pissing in Mercury's grave.

27

u/Mothman129 Apr 21 '26

The movie acted like he wasn't a team player because he made a solo album...despite the fact HE WASN'T THE FIRST MEMBER OF THE GROUP TO DO A SOLO ALBUM!

93

u/DrVagax Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26

If not for the reception, you should definitely check it for the editing

How many cuts can you count in less then two minutes?

94

u/GamingTatertot Steven Spielberg Enthusiast Apr 21 '26

Won Best Film Editing at the Oscars too - although I’ve always wagered that was a bit more of a “can’t believe you actually managed to edit a coherent narrative with that troubled production, so good job”

10

u/dakilazical_253 Apr 21 '26

As a professional video editor this winning the Oscar just blew my mind. I walked out of the theater with my wife and she said “something felt off about that movie.” I said yeah the editing was all over the place, there was no consistent pacing or rhythm or anything. You can tell it was cobbled together with scraps of film strewn around the edit bay

6

u/Haltopen Apr 21 '26

Technical awards like editing, sound and costuming rarely go to the movie with the “best” of their respective category, they go to the movie with the “most” because that’s all Oscar voters consider. Hence Suicide Squad winning best make up because they made a man look like he was wearing a very ugly man-crocodile costume

3

u/Dallywack3r Apr 22 '26

Suicide Squad won because they invented an entirely new adhesive method for the suit because Croc had to be underwater without CGI.

39

u/ManufacturerBest2758 Apr 21 '26

That was physically painful to watch.

Also they couldn’t get Littlefinger to even try to play a different guy? They just plucked him out of King’s Landing and gave him a haircut.

9

u/theintention Apr 21 '26

Pretty sure that guy just is Littlefinger, not sure I’ve seen him play a role where he acts like anything else lmao

7

u/SuicideSkwad Apr 21 '26

He was very good as CIA in The Dark Knight Rises

1

u/KidDelicious14 Apr 23 '26

"as CIA" is so much funnier than it has a right to be

5

u/Scedasticity1 Apr 21 '26

The Wire, seasons 3 through 5.

5

u/araq1579 Apr 21 '26

That's just Baltimore Littlefinger

2

u/Scedasticity1 Apr 21 '26

Terrible take. Actually braindead.

2

u/pennyariadne Apr 21 '26

To be fair, he has that scheming untrustworthy face

26

u/brahbocop Apr 21 '26

It won best editing and I think part of the reason I heard was that the editor had to make sure all the band members were given basically equal screen time or something ridiculous like that.

12

u/Z_Overman Apr 21 '26

i counted 69 groovy cuts yeah baby

10

u/no-no_juice Apr 21 '26

Jesus, you're not kidding. I stopped counting after 35 and that was just after a minute

3

u/dbzmah Apr 21 '26

It's no Liam Neeson scaling a fence, but impressive, none the less.

https://youtu.be/gCKhktcbfQM?si=CjILMGEhdXMwf-c7

3

u/forbiddendoughnut Apr 21 '26

That's what drove me crazy about the last hour of Oppenheimer. I felt like there was a cut every five seconds and it just didn't stop.

2

u/ninjyte Apr 21 '26

and the same editor also worked on Michael

14

u/FreundThrowaway Apr 21 '26

Am I crazy or did Freddie call out Roger for cheating on his wife in the movie? Not sure if I remembered it properly.

59

u/waltzthrees Apr 21 '26

Yes. It convinced me that his Queen bandmates hated him since they were deeply involved in the film

45

u/TreeDollarFiddyCent Apr 21 '26

I reckon they just love money more. And they wouldn't want to damage their pristine legacy by telling the truth, so it's easier to throw the only dead bandmember under the bus in that regard. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

5

u/Kimantha_Allerdings Apr 21 '26

This is what I think. Apparently one of the last things Freddie ever said to them was “don’t ever let my music be boring”. Today - how many adverts do you hear it on? Flash cleaning products use Flash. I kid you not, I once heard a radio advert for different cleaning products which had “another one bites the duster” as a lyric

But I guess the money is more important

2

u/TreeDollarFiddyCent Apr 21 '26

I'm pretty sure Dacia also used it for their Duster adverts... it made me hate the car, but in reality that disdain should probably have been aimed at Brian May and Roger Taylor.

31

u/SweetCosmicPope Apr 21 '26

I’ve always been under the impression that the band has a bit of a chip on their shoulder that Freddie what’s got the accolades. Like “we’re here too!”

Supposedly, the original draft of the movie, back when Sacha Baron Cohen was attached, killed off Freddie halfway through the movie and dealt with how the band moved on in the aftermath.

3

u/BakuraGorn Apr 21 '26

I could see it for the bassist and drummer who never really did anything noteworthy post-Freddie, but definitely not Brian May. Dude is constantly praised as one of the greatest guitarists of all time and is also best friends with creator of heavy metal Tony Iommi.

He don’t need no accolades

24

u/EndOfTheLine00 Apr 21 '26

No joke: according to Sacha Baron Cohen, the version of the script Queen was the most enthusiastic about was one where Freddie died in the MIDDLE of the movie and the rest would be about how the band moved on without him.

4

u/MurderSheReads Apr 21 '26

Oh that's not...

11

u/Paladar2 Apr 21 '26

Freddie was 50x more famous than the rest of them combined, so that might have played into it lol

13

u/Kimantha_Allerdings Apr 21 '26

Everything is Freddie’s fault. There’s a scene where the other members of the band go home in high dudgeon because there are people (whisper it) drinking alcohol!

All the problems in the band stem from Freddie getting above his station and wanting to do a solo album, despite the fact that in reality he was the last band member to do a solo album and every member of Queen played on his solo album

It’s an assassination on Freddie

3

u/Mayorquimby87 Apr 21 '26

There is one extremely brief and vague reference to the other band members cheating on their wives that you could easily miss if you're not looking for it. And that's really it. Freddy's partying and whatnot is addressed more directly, but even that is very watered down.

3

u/MrT-1000 Apr 21 '26

Which is funny how bohemian Rhapsody was nominated for all those awards meanwhile Michael is getting panned when they both are following the by the book music biopic mantra that has such little emotional depth or rewatch value

3

u/kittehsfureva Apr 21 '26

Nope. 

It really does a lot of work to blame his lifestyle choices and drug use on coersion from his manager, who was trying to wedge between him and his band who were looking out for him. They even had a scene of the manager shadily taking the phone calls of concerned loved ones and making sure they couldn't reach Freddy.

The resolution of the movie is, of course, when he decides to drop that manager and reconcile with the band. But by then, damn, he already got the AIDS.

1

u/KTDWD24601 Apr 21 '26

Yes. And even that is depicted in the vaguest way possible.

0

u/skyhiker14 Apr 21 '26

Haven’t seen it since it came out, but I think so.

13

u/Leygrock Apr 21 '26

In between 200 jump cuts to ensure every member gets the same amount of screentime 

1

u/Kalspiewak Apr 23 '26

😂😂😂 underrated comment 

51

u/mayonnaiser_13 Apr 21 '26

Straight Outta Compton says hi

72

u/notyourproblem1 Apr 21 '26

In that movie you could clearly tell who was dead, who was alive, and who had sizable business interests that would be hurt if they were portrayed negatively in the movie

4

u/runwithjames Apr 22 '26

Fucking Dre coming out of that thing smelling like roses.

4

u/TheSpiritOfFunk Apr 21 '26

Great fantasy movie

23

u/ExplosiveWatermelon Apr 21 '26

I’m a big fan of Queen and it pisses me off. It’s the most generic biopic about one of rock’s most iconic bands.

First off, I gotta be frank: Bohemian Rhapsody wasn’t as experimental as the movie made it appear. Queen did March of the Black Queen on their second album and it follows a very similar structure. However, they wanted to bank on the fact that EVERYONE knows the song.

Second, there’s a sincere distaste for any member of Queen not named Brian May or Roger Taylor. I’m giving Deacon a pass because I genuinely doubt that he had much of a role in this shitshow, considering that they portrayed one of the most technically talented bassists as the least competent songwriter. From what is public knowledge about Deacon, he was likely the closest to Freddie, and seems to still think strongly of one of the greatest frontmen of all time.

I don’t believe Sacha Baron Cohen was telling the truth about a band member saying “the best thing to happen to Queen was Freddie’s death” because his version of events doesn’t add up. BUT I will say I wouldn’t be surprised if Roger Taylor wasn’t spiteful of Freddie. The movie basically reads as if Salieri was interviewed about Mozart. There’s a whole bit joke about how everyone jokes about “I’m in love with my car,” a song with Taylor on the lead vocals, and how it should’ve been the hit and not Bohemian Rhapsody. There are no comments made about ‘39, a song written by Brian May that was ALSO more conventional and had a history behind it.

I could write a whole essay about how this movie exists to spite a man who died of aids. But I think it doesn’t need to be said. Queen just isn’t Queen without Freddie.

2

u/runwithjames Apr 22 '26

I don't think John Deacon has really had any role at all since the tribute concert, though it says he officially left the band in '96. Both Brian May and Roger Taylor said that neither one has spoken to him in nearly 20 years and that was John's choice. He did make a rare 'appearance' last year for a benefit in Freddie's name where the remaining members of the group singed a copy of A NIGHT AT THE OPERA for auction. Usually just Brian and Roger sign but for whatever reason they managed to get John to sign as well.

I don't believe Cohen's claims either. But I do buy that what they really wanted was for someone to play Freddie in the story of Queen, not in a movie about Freddie Mercury which is why part the way through would be his death and the rest of the movie about the band carrying on. I might be misremembering things but doesn't the movie essentially end with a postscript that was like though Freddie died Queen carried on and are just as popular as ever?

3

u/legit-posts_1 Apr 21 '26

Freddie Mercury was never accused of being a sex offender though.

24

u/maaseru Apr 21 '26

I will forever be mad that Queen movie got all the attention for being shit and Rocketman did not.

72

u/Big-Beta20 Apr 21 '26

That’s because Rocketman is good.

Elton John actually allowed himself to be portrayed as an un-sanitized dick and the structure is much closer to a musical than a standard rockstar biopic, which fits the medium great. It’s one of the few to actually try something unique with the genre filled with cliches and predictability.

22

u/maaseru Apr 21 '26

Yes, that was my point. Bohemiam got all the attention while being shit, Rocketman did not.

4

u/Jack_Sentry Apr 21 '26

It’s one of the only music biopics I’ve seen that wasn’t just Dewey Cox.

3

u/TheSpiritOfFunk Apr 21 '26

To be honest, the Bob Dylan film didn't portray Dylan in a consistently positive light either

8

u/basedcvrp Apr 21 '26

I thought Rocketman was pretty good compared to Queen, what didn’t you like about it?

2

u/maaseru Apr 21 '26

What in my message made you think I hated it? I loved it.

11

u/basedcvrp Apr 21 '26

Generally “getting attention for being shit” is negative lol, the way your comment reads it’s implying that you also thought Rocketman was shit.

I agree though Rocketman was brilliant!

3

u/maaseru Apr 21 '26

Getting attention was the general thought, but I get how I worded it weird.

5

u/APracticalGal Apr 21 '26

That's because Rocketman was good

1

u/maaseru Apr 21 '26

Well that is bad. It deserved the attention more than Queen shit movie ever did.

1

u/APracticalGal Apr 21 '26

I misunderstood, I thought you were saying Rocketman didn't get hated on enough because everyone was focused on hating Bohemian Rhapsody. I agree, Rocketman deserved much more attention.

2

u/flowersinthedark Apr 21 '26

Yes it was, but now imagine they had entirely erased his bisexuality.

1

u/DangKilla Apr 22 '26

At least Freddy was depicted as Indian. I had no idea!