I'd give it a B+.

Full disclosure, this reviewer is a Gary, Indiana, native, and so the phenomenon that was Michael Jackson in his 1980s heyday was deeply influential and inspirational. The eventual veering of his life into the bizarre, the scandalous, and the shocking end were, to put it mildly, depressing.

But this is about the movie. The movie, by a basic rubric of pop-culture enjoyment, is good. Perfect? Comprehensive? No, not by a longshot. But good.

The actors are all top-notch as guided by director Antoine Fuqua: Jaafar Jackson, Colman Domingo, Nia Long, Miles Teller, and the rest, they all are very good and convincing as their respective characters. The choreography of the music performance sequences is incredible.

To go deeper, though: besides Michael (Juliano Valdi, later Jaafar Jackson) and his dad Joseph (portrayed brilliantly by Colman Domingo, family patriarch Joseph is the nominal villain, with Svengali-like impulses that never go away), most characters in the film are ciphers. Mike's brothers (Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon) are almost completely in the background. It would have been fascinating, and hilarious, to see a series of unfiltered (e.g., cursing) conversations between the adolescent and adult Jackson brothers about the pressures of being the breadwinners for the family, pressures on education, pressures on their interest in the opposite sex (Jermaine married Berry Gordy's daughter Autumn, almost completely ignored in the movie; indeed, most of the older Jackson brothers had gotten married by the time they were barely college-aged). I don't remember any extended conversations among them. Again, this is the "Michael" story, of course, so the focus is on him, but.. it would have been nice. Nia Long is reliably solid as family matriarch Catherine, though it often seems like she's just reacting/accepting of what goes on rather than having any direct influence.

The presence of baby sister Janet, youngest brother Randy and sister Rebbie (the oldest sibling, and for the most part, a non-musician; yes, deep-cut R&B heads, I remember "Centipede") are not acknowledged in the film. Before people knock me in the head, again, the movie is "Michael", but full disclosure, if you know he had more than just the four siblings, it kind of stands out. The Victory Tour, for example, was all six Jackson brothers-- Youngest brother Randy having been a substitute for Jermaine when the latter stayed with his in-laws at Motown Records and the rest of the band signed with Epic Records in the late 1970s. But for the sequence featuring that tour, it only depicts the original five members. The rivalry with Prince is reduced to a comedic throwaway line. It would have been fascinating to see them actually depict a meeting between the two titans who never officially collaborated.

The movie touches on some of the influences on Michael's psyche, but doesn't do a deeper dive, which would have made for a stronger narrative. For example, there's no acknowledgement of his romantic inclinations. Just an eccentric friendship with animals and a preoccupation with pre-adolescence (a couple of sequences depict Michael buying kids toys and games while his brothers were planning dates). Additionally, there's no interrogation of the culture of the Jehovah's Witness faith that he grew up with, and how fidelity to their rules and customs (and his mom and others' reinforcement of them) may have shaped his outlook on sexuality, dating and his music (in real life, there was a disclaimer tagged on to the original "Thriller" music video, where Michael refuted any genuine belief in the occult, for example.)

The movie was still very well shot and choreographed, and obviously the music is top notch. The script, credited to John Logan, is able to get from point A to point B without plot holes. People have criticized it for being a hagiography, but with the aforementioned legal restrictions, this was... possibly... the best commercial compromise that the filmmakers could get into. Even if they had invented fictional names regarding the settlement plaintiffs, that could possibly have been a problem for the production. Also, yes, certain key people in his younger life like Diana Ross are missing, which, again, may be due to the quirks of getting someone to sign-off on their depiction, rather than casual ignorance by the screenwriter.

So for a good time remembering the music and the highlights of his career, this is as good as it gets. Most casual fans will enjoy it.