Stream It Or Skip It: ‘Michael’ on VOD, a Michael Jackson Story That’s the Most Troubled, Troublesome Biopic Ever
New York Post
Overall Assessment
The article is a morally charged critique that rejects the film’s attempt to celebrate Michael Jackson’s music while ignoring his controversies. It frames the omission of abuse allegations as a cynical whitewash, using strong emotional language and editorializing. The review offers no counterperspectives and functions more as an opinion piece than balanced journalism.
"the Most Troubled, Troublesome Biopic Ever"
Loaded Adjectives
Headline & Lead 65/100
The headline adopts a pop-culture review format but undercuts it with serious moral critique in the body, creating a mismatch. While not overtly misleading, it leans on sensational language to attract attention.
✕ Headline / Body Mismatch: The headline frames the article as a simple 'stream it or skip it' review, but the body contains deep critique of the film's ethical and narrative failures, suggesting a more serious evaluation than the lighthearted headline implies.
"Stream It Or Skip It: ‘Michael’ on VOD, a Michael Jackson Story That’s the Most Troubled, Troublesome Biopic Ever"
✕ Sensationalism: Use of phrases like 'Most Troubled, Troublesome Biopic Ever' in the headline exaggerates for effect, leaning into click-driven tone rather than measured critique.
"the Most Troubled, Troublesome Biopic Ever"
Language & Tone 40/100
The tone is highly subjective, leaning into moral outrage and emotional language rather than neutral analysis. Loaded terms and personal reactions dominate.
✕ Loaded Adjectives: The use of emotionally charged descriptors like 'troubled,' 'troublesome,' 'grotesque,' and 'clusterf—' undermines objectivity and injects strong editorial judgment.
"the Most Troubled, Troublesome Biopic Ever"
✕ Editorializing: The reviewer inserts personal emotional reactions and moral judgments throughout, such as describing moments as leaving a 'bitter aftertaste,' which shifts the piece from analysis to opinion.
"assuring that the initial sweetness of that raucous show-closing performance of “Bad” leaves a bitter aftertaste."
✕ Outrage Appeal: The article repeatedly frames the film as a moral evasion, appealing to reader indignation over the erasure of abuse allegations, using phrases like 'whitewash' and 'cynically fend off scrutiny.'
"his estate’s transparent attempt to, if you’ll pardon the word choice, whitewash his reputation and public image"
✕ Loaded Labels: Labeling Michael Jackson’s father as a 'tyrant' and describing the film as a 'glorified assemblage of music videos' imposes a negative moral frame rather than letting facts speak.
"Joe Jackson (Colman Domingo) used to whup his kids with a belt and verbally berate them"
Balance 30/100
The piece lacks viewpoint diversity and fails to represent any meaningful defense of the film beyond a sarcastic aside. It is a monologue, not a dialogue.
✕ Single-Source Reporting: The article relies entirely on the critic’s own perspective and does not quote or engage with defenders of the film, studio representatives, or audience defenders beyond dismissive generalizations.
✕ False Balance: The article acknowledges 'many, many (many!) others are fine with such cognitive dissonance' but offers no direct sourcing or quotes from that group, creating a strawman of acceptance.
"many, many (many!) others are fine with such cognitive dissonance"
✓ Comprehensive Sourcing: No actual interviews or cited sources beyond the film’s content and Wikipedia are used; all claims are the author’s interpretation.
Story Angle 50/100
The article adopts a moralistic, predetermined frame of condemnation, focusing on what the film omits rather than what it achieves, turning critique into indictment.
✕ Moral Framing: The story is framed as a moral reckoning — whether art can or should separate genius from alleged abuse — positioning the film as ethically compromised rather than artistically flawed.
"Sorry, but Michael’s star is far too big, bright, and tarnished to exist in a vacuum."
✕ Framing by Emphasis: The review emphasizes the omission of abuse allegations and the film’s avoidance of controversy, making that the central story rather than the film’s artistic merits or narrative structure.
"resulting in a film that makes zero reference to the enormous elephant in the room."
✕ Narrative Framing: The article fits the film into a pre-existing narrative of celebrity cover-up and legacy management, rather than evaluating it on its own cinematic terms.
"his estate’s transparent attempt to, if you’ll pardon the word choice, whitewash his reputation and public image"
Completeness 55/100
While some context is provided, the article omits legal and creative constraints shaping the film, prioritizing moral critique over balanced assessment.
✕ Omission: The review fails to acknowledge that the film’s avoidance of abuse allegations may be due to legal constraints, not just estate-driven whitewashing, despite mentioning 'legal considerations' briefly without exploring their implications.
"due to legal considerations, spurring reshoots"
✓ Contextualisation: The article does provide historical and biographical context about Michael Jackson’s early life, career milestones, and family dynamics, helping readers understand the timeline.
"from grueling living-room band practice and tiny-club gigs in 1966 to 'I Want You Back' and 'ABC'"
✕ Cherry-Picking: The review focuses only on the film’s omissions and moral failings, ignoring any potential artistic or cultural value it might hold for audiences seeking celebration over critique.
"the movie cuts away all problematic (and potentially dramatically compelling) components of his character"
Biopic format portrayed as inherently dishonest when avoiding controversy
The review frames the biopic not as a legitimate artistic endeavor but as a cynical, shallow product that evades scrutiny, using phrases like 'glorified assemblage of music videos' and 'cynically fend off troublesome scrutiny.'
"a glorified assemblage of music videos calling itself a film"
Media portrayed as complicit in reputation whitewashing
The article accuses the film of a 'transparent attempt' to whitewash Michael Jackson's legacy, framing media production as ethically compromised and dishonest.
"his estate’s transparent attempt to, if you’ll pardon the word choice, whitewash his reputation and public image"
Cultural conversation around Jackson framed as perpetually unstable and fraught
The article presents the reception of the film as reopening a 'snakepit,' framing public discourse as inherently volatile and morally charged rather than balanced or reflective.
"as is inevitable, such moments lead one to stumble into the Michael Jackson snakepit"
Michael Jackson framed as morally excluded due to unresolved allegations
The article repeatedly emphasizes the omission of abuse allegations as a moral failure, suggesting Jackson cannot be celebrated without confronting his controversies, thus framing him as unworthy of uncritical inclusion in cultural memory.
"Sorry, but Michael’s star is far too big, bright, and tarnished to exist in a vacuum."
Legal constraints framed as enabling evasion rather than protecting rights
Though the article mentions legal considerations led to reshoots, it downplays their legitimacy, implying they were used as a cover for moral avoidance rather than a genuine legal necessity.
"due to legal considerations, spurring reshoots"
The article is a morally charged critique that rejects the film’s attempt to celebrate Michael Jackson’s music while ignoring his controversies. It frames the omission of abuse allegations as a cynical whitewash, using strong emotional language and editorializing. The review offers no counterperspectives and functions more as an opinion piece than balanced journalism.
The biopic 'Michael' chronicles the early life and rise of Michael Jackson, highlighting his musical achievements and relationship with his father. It does not address the child sexual abuse allegations, a choice attributed to legal and estate-related considerations. Critical reception has been divided, with some praising the performances and music, while others criticize the lack of engagement with Jackson’s later life.
New York Post — Culture - Other
Based on the last 60 days of articles
New York Post
No related content