Mike Myers

Michael (2026): A Middle of the Road Michael Jackson Greatest Hits Album

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Michael” is directed by Antoine Fuqua (The Equalizer, Training Day) and stars Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long (Missing, Boyz in the Hood), Juliano Valdi (Arco, The Loud House), KeiLyn Durrel Jones (Better Call Saul, Succession) Laura Harrier (Spider-Man: Homecoming, BlacKkKlansman), Jessica Sula (Recovery Road, Skins), Mike Myers (Shrek, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery), Miles Teller (Whiplash, Top Gun: Maverick), and Colman Domingo (Sing Sing, Wicked: For Good). This film is about Michael Jackson’s rise to stardom, chronicling his growing up, family life, and the rising conflict he faces as an artist.

The last movie I reviewed on the blog is “Lorne,” and now I am doing “Michael…” 

Ladies and gentlemen… We missed a grand opportunity to make the next “Barbenheimer” happen. LORNE MICHAEL? The name writes itself!

Anyway, “Michael” has been on my radar for some time, not necessarily because I was looking forward to it. Not that I thought the movie would be the worst I have ever seen, but Michael Jackson is not my goto artist. Sure, I like hearing “Thriller” every now and then, especially around Halloween. But keep in mind, this guy is called “the king of pop.” I am generally not a pop guy. I am more rock and roll, classical, jazz, heavy metal… Those genres speak to me more.

To be frank, the real reason why I am reviewing this movie is not because it heavily interests me, but rather because it seems to be of interest to so many other people. Some are projecting that this could end up becoming the highest-grossing musical biopic in box office history. I have family members and relatives who grew up with Michael Jackson who wanted to see this ASAP. I do not despise Michael Jackson. I think as a musician he knows his stuff, but he is not the first person I would pick to listen to in my spare time.

Also, some people have nicknamed me “Jackson 5…” So that’s a bonus.

Here is some seemingly shocking news… I have never seen an Antoine Fuqua movie. I have always been meaning to check his work out. My dad has expressed his approval for “The Equalizer” and “Shooter” for example. I just have not had the time or motivation. But given how popular I projected “Michael” to be from the getgo, I felt the need to check this movie out for myself.

Having seen “Michael,” it is better than I figured it would be in some ways, but the movie is not without its faults.

I am not a Michael Jackson fanatic. Again, I recognize his talent, but he is not my jam. That said, I have a feeling that in some way that a lot of Michael Jackson fans are going to see this film as a personal love letter, showcasing some of his greatest hits and career highlights. In that sense, the film feels overstuffed, which is really weird to say given how the film itself plays out.

Do not get me wrong. “Michael” has a story. In fact, when it comes to executing its story, or, based on several factors, as much of the story as it is willing to unveil, I thought it did a better job than the recently released “Super Mario Galaxy Movie.” Interesting enough, I find both movies to be quite similar. Both are based on cultural behemoths, they are aiming towards family demographics to a certain degree, and there seems to be a divide between the critics and audiences as to whether or not the movie is good.

Another thing that puts these two in the same boat is that they seem to rely on nostalgia. If you grew up in the 80s, you may have been playing “Mario” or listening to Michael Jackson. Perhaps both. When I was watching “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” I found myself needing more than nostalgia to keep me entertained. That is also the case when it comes to “Michael,” and the case arguably has more merit this time around, as, again, he is not my artist of choice. Of course, I have heard several of the songs in this movie… “Thriller,” “Beat It,” “Billie Jean,” but when they played, I do not think they hit me in the way the crew would have hoped.

What I liked about “Michael” is not so much the music, but rather the journey as to how we got some of the music. “Michael” reminds me a bit of “A Complete Unknown,” because that film seems to explore an artist who wants to play music based on what he is passionate about, and there are obstacles standing in his way of doing that. For Bob Dylan, the protagonist of “A Complete Unknown,” the obstacle was the audience, who put the artist in a box. For Michael Jackson, the biggest obstacle is his family. In some ways, the film highlights the importance of Jackson’s family, but it also sets up his father as an antagonist. We see Michael begin as a member of the Jackson 5 with his siblings, but the more the movie progresses, the more we see Michael feel the need to tread his own path. The only problem, his father wants him to keep making music under his supervision and with his siblings.

I am not going to pretend that “Michael” is the best movie of the year, but there is a decent movie in here somewhere. Is it familiar? Sure. But it is sometimes engaging. When I am watching “Michael,” I do not see myself watching a film about an aspiring performer who became a huge success, even though that idea does play a part in the story. If anything, I found myself mostly invested in the protagonist’s personal conflict of being his ultimate creative self. Yes, the movie presents Michael Jackson’s eccentricities. For example, we see his relationship with his pets. And these are not your typical dogs and cats. These are the kind of pets that Veruca Salt would beg for after finally getting her hands on a golden goose.

Not all of the concert scenes are exactly memorable, but I will not deny that there are some that stood out to me. There is one scene in particular that is shot and edited less like a movie and more like a televised special, or an actual “concert film.” I thought it was kind of clever. The sound mixing is also quite good, and I had a feeling it would be from the getgo, where the movie opens to a crowd chanting “Michael’s” name over and over again. The auditorium was almost shaking at that point.

Perhaps the biggest standout in “Michael” is… Well, Michael himself. Or more specifically, Jaafar Jackson, who plays him. In real life, Jafaar is Michael Jackson’s nephew, so I would have been shocked to say that his performance was not good. Thankfully, he is excellent. It is too early to tell if his performance is awards-worthy, but Jackson brings a flair to his uncle that feels similar to how some would probably imagine the artist in real life. Jackson does a great job at capturing the character’s ambitions and kineticism. It is clear that Jackson did some major studying behind the scenes to capture his uncle’s essence.

“Michael” is Jaafar Jackson’s first movie acting credit. My question is, and I say this as someone who found this performance to be excellent, what is Jaafar Jackson’s future in film? Is he just going to play Michael Jackson and call it quits? I would be interested to see him in another role, as long as it is something completely different than the one he played in “Michael.” I would like to see some range should he continue acting. This is also the biggest factor as to why he may not win an Oscar next year. As great as Jaafar Jackson is, he is playing someone who has a somewhat personal attachment to him. Jackson is superb, but unlike Rami Malek as Freddie Mercury or Austin Butler as Elvis Presley, his performance feels less transformative in comparison.

This does not take anything away from Jackson’s ability to capture the character and bring him to life. I will not deny that he did exactly that. In fact, if there is one positive that I will continue to think about regarding this movie, Jaafar Jackson may be it. All due respect to everyone else involved, including the super talented Colman Domingo as Joseph Jackson, but Jaafar steals the show.

As I watched this movie though, I found parts of it to drag, especially around the middle. For a movie whose trailers promise something exciting and kinetic, I was kind of surprised to find myself bored during certain scenes. I think about 10 minutes of the runtime could have been trimmed just to provide something tighter.

In the end, “Michael” is not the worst film I have ever seen, but it is occasionally bogged down by somewhat poor pacing, feeling somewhat incomplete in the story it is trying to tell, and the concert scenes not having the oomph that I was expecting. For a movie about the King of Pop, it works in some places, but overall, it does not quite pop. This movie is likely going to go down as a success at the box office, and I partially played a factor in that. I cannot say my experience of watching it, however, was exactly the best. Did I have a decent time? Perhaps barely. But I do not see “Michael” having any replay value down the road. I am going to give “Michael” a 6/10.

“Michael” is now playing in theaters. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you want to see more of me, and by that I mean, literally see me, check out my latest episode of Movie Requests, featuring special guest Katee Sackhoff! She requested I should watch “High Noon,” and I was more than happy to do so! To hear my thoughts, click the video above! Give it a like if you enjoyed it! If you want to see more episodes down the line as soon as they come out, please subscribe to my YouTube channel!

My next review is going to be for “Deep Water!” Stay tuned! Also coming soon, be on the lookout for my thoughts on “Animal Farm,” “Mortal Kombat II,” “The Sheep Detectives,” and “In the Grey!” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Michael?” What did you think about it? Or, what are your thoughts on Michael Jackson as a performer? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Amsterdam (2022): David O. Russell’s Latest Fast-Paced, Star-Filled, Forgettable Time

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Amsterdam” is directed by David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle) and stars Christian Bale (The Dark Knight, Ford v. Ferrari), Margot Robbie (Suicide Squad, I, Tonya), John David Washington (BlacKkKlansman, Tenet), Chris Rock (Madagascar, Grown Ups), Anya Taylor-Joy (The Queen’s Gambit, Last Night in Soho), Zoe Saldaña (Avatar, Guardians of the Galaxy), Mike Myers (Shrek, Bohemian Rhapsody), Michael Shannon (Revolutionary Road, Nocturnal Animals), Timothy Olyphant (Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, The Mandalorian), Andrea Riseborough (Bloodline, Battle of the Sexes), Taylor Swift (The Lorax, Cats), Matthias Schoenaerts (The Danish Girl, Red Sparrow), Alessandro Nivola (American Hustle, Selma), Rami Malek (Night at the Museum, The Little Things), and Robert De Niro (Raging Bull, Meet the Parents). This film is mainly set in the 1930s, and centers around three people who are framed for murder. Together, this trio uncovers a plot that will change the course of history.

I have not seen all of David O. Russell’s films. I have seen “American Hustle,” which I was not a fan of. I have mostly forgotten it by now. I saw “Joy,” which I thought was cute. The acting was great, especially on Jennifer Lawrence’s part, but it was not my favorite movie of the year. I also saw “Silver Linings Playbook,” which, while not one of my favorite movies ever, is probably the best attempt at a feature Russell has ever given. I still have yet to see films like “Flirting with Disaster,” “Three Kings,” and “I Heart Huckabees.” I am mostly familiar with David O. Russell’s recent work. That said, he has built quite a name for himself as a filmmaker and it is no surprise that names like the ones listed happen to be working with him.

When you have this many Academy Award-nominated or winning actors and actresses in your film, it builds promise. It builds interest. It reminded me of when I saw “The Circle” back in 2017. You had all these culturally relevant or critically acclaimed performers like Tom Hanks, Emma Watson, John Boyega, Patton Oswalt, and Bill Paxton. Given their resumes, I was excited to see what they could do. Unfortunately, their collaborative efforts could not escape them from this misfire. “Amsterdam,” while definitely more satisfying than “The Circle,” is in the same boat.

The best way I can describe “Amsterdam” is to say that the film is all over the place. There is a lot that goes down in just a span of two hours that I felt like I had to take some notes. The film is not wholly incompetent by any means, but it begs me to keep up with its quick pacing. I like quick pacing, but at times, the movie goes too quick. There are a lot of characters and interwoven storylines that there is a good chance that I will have forgotten a couple of them by the next couple weeks. I think this is a film that could warrant a second viewing, but I am not sure yet if it has the replay value. At times, the pacing of this movie reminded me of Guy Ritchie’s “The Gentlemen,” which I know some people like, but for whatever reason I just could not get into. One moment we’re here, one moment we’re there, and in the next my brain, which has escaped from my body, might as well have traveled to the end of the universe.

If there is any saving grace in “Amsterdam,” it would have to be Margot Robbie as Valerie Voze. I thought she had the best moments in the movie. I thought the casting matched the character and the way she was written and directed. This performance solidifies Robbie as one of my favorite actors working today. Her chemistry with Christian Bale and John David Washington is solid, and as much effort as those two put into their performances, Robbie feels like the clear winner here.

Speaking of Christian Bale, if you want me to be completely honest, I think he had a more memorable performance in “Thor: Love and Thunder” of all things. I am not saying that Christian Bale gave a terrible performance in “Amsterdam.” If anything, it was stellar. But I think when combining acting with overall characterization, Bale’s attempt at playing Gorr the God Butcher was somehow more convincing and compelling despite a movie like “Amsterdam” appearing to be more along the lines of Bale’s forte.

It is crystal clear that the story of “Amsterdam” is not the highlight of the movie. If you ask me, it had its moments. There was a specific moment that intrigued me at the beginning where our main characters find themselves in an unspeakable situation. Unfortunately, as soon as we dive away from that, the quality of the movie lessens.

If I had to look in advance at 2022 in film and predict any Best Ensemble nominees at the SAG Awards, “Amsterdam” would have been a contender based on name recognition. However, much like Garry Marshall’s unwatchable holiday-based movies like “New Year’s Eve” and “Mother’s Day,” the movie’s cast is the one glimmer of hope within what can simply be referred to as a hot mess. At least on paper. I never thought I would see the day where we have Margot Robbie, Anya Taylor-Joy, and Robert De Niro in the same movie. I just hope when that unpredictable day came along, there was good script for them all to bring to the screen.

As for other positives, the movie is attractively colorful. Not quite as glitzy and glossy as say “Elvis,” which in some ways might happen to be a good thing if you ask me. However, the look of the film is sometimes easy on the eyes. In addition to having a stacked, recognizable cast, a lot of them are wearing stunning outfits, some look handsome or sexy. If this were a silent film, this might be okay depending on what you put for text. The sets at times look presentable, elaborate, and occasionally have a vintage feel to them.

There is a saying that looks are not everything, and this movie is exhibit A as to why that saying exists. Yes, some of my favorite actors are put in the forefront. Yes, some of the costumes and sets look dazzling. Yes, the movie has an occasional feeling of immersion. Although this cannot save the film itself from providing what could be one of the sloppiest stories of the decade, and that is despite this movie claiming “A LOT OF THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED.” Just because a story is true, does not make it entertaining. You want to know a true story? I woke up today and wrote this review. Imagine if I tried to sell that as a movie. The distributor would probably go out of business!

Here is a fun fact. Christian Bale, who has worked with David O. Russell in the past, signed on to do “Amsterdam” before a script was written. I get the notion of wanting to work with a big name director. Especially one you supposedly have a decent relationship with. Heck, if I were an actor and I hear the name Christopher Nolan or Jordan Peele I automatically think “business partnership.” I hope while these two high-profile industry insiders were thinking about how great it would be to work with each other, they took a moment to think of the quality of what they were going to make. Because despite the quantity of big names, quality seems to be sacrificed when it comes to the final product of “Amsterdam.”

In the end, “Amsterdam” has occasional glimmers of enjoyment, with some extreme emphasis on the word “occasional.” The film has an okay start, but the film itself never finds a way to be as compelling or entertaining as its first ten or fifteen minutes. I liked “Silver Linings Playbook,” but I cannot say the same for “Amsterdam.” I am going to give the forgettable and dull “Amsterdam” a 4/10.

“Amsterdam” is now playing in theatres everywhere, tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! I will soon unveil my thoughts on a couple of horror movies I watched recently, specifically “Smile” and “Halloween Ends.” Also, if you want to see more reviews from me, check out my thoughts on “See How They Run.” If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Amsterdam?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with a stacked cast whose script could not justify its star power? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!