The new biographical film "Michael", dedicated to pop icon Michael Jackson, opened with an impressive financial result and collected around $217.4 million worldwide in its very first weekend in cinemas. This is a new global record for an opening weekend box-office of a biographical production. Against this background, Indian director and choreographer Farah Khan publicly defended the film and the lead actor Jaafar Jackson, calling on the Academy of Motion Picture Arts to award him an "Oscar" – despite the harsh criticism from professional reviewers.

"Critics are idiots": Farah Khan attacks reviewers and defends Jaafar Jackson

On Saturday, Farah Khan posted on Instagram, sharing an archival photo with the late "King of Pop" and not mincing words about the film’s reviewers. "Remember one thing... Critics are idiots in every country! Go and watch "MICHAEL"!! And someone please give @jaafarjackson an "Oscar" next year!", she wrote. In subsequent Instagram Stories, Khan added: "This film is for us, the fans, not for the critics. I really liked "Michael"."

Her stance comes against the backdrop of a clear gap between critical and audience scores. While professional reviewers greeted the film with lukewarm, and sometimes scathing, responses, a large part of the audience has embraced it emotionally and enthusiastically. This further fuels the debate about the role of criticism in the era of social media and mass-rating platforms.

Star-studded cast and weak critic rating

The film is directed by Antoine Fuqua from a script by John Logan and was released worldwide on 24 April. The lead role is played by Jaafar Jackson – Michael Jackson’s nephew – which gives the project an additional emotional charge. The cast also includes Colman Domingo as Joe Jackson, Nia Long as Katherine Jackson and Miles Teller.

Despite the star team, before the premiere the film received only about 32% approval from critics on the "Rotten Tomatoes" aggregator. Audience reaction, however, is the complete opposite – the audience score reaches 96%, which has become a record value for a biographical film on the platform, reports "Forbes". This gap between professional and mass ratings has turned into one of the most discussed topics around "Michael".

Record-breaking box office worldwide

Regardless of the mixed reviews, audiences in huge numbers chose to watch "Michael" in cinemas. According to "The Wall Street Journal", the film, distributed by "Lionsgate", generated around $97 million in the United States and a further $120.4 million on international markets in just the first weekend. Thus the film set a new absolute record for opening-weekend box office among biographical films.

According to "Variety", domestic revenues surpassed the previous record holder "Straight Outta Compton", while the international results exceeded the opening benchmarks set by both "Oppenheimer" and "Bohemian Rhapsody". With a budget estimated at over $150 million and such a strong debut, expectations are that "Michael" will become one of the year’s major hits.

In India, the film also performed impressively. Over the first two days, with more than 3,000 screenings, net takings reached around ₹5.50 crore, which is considered the strongest opening for a musical biopic in the country. This further explains the emotional reaction of Farah Khan, who has a strong connection with the Indian audience and film industry.

Controversial legacy and divided opinions

Farah Khan is not the only figure in cinema standing up for the film and its lead actor. Veteran actor Anupam Kher also praised Jaafar Jackson’s performance, calling the viewing of the biopic "magic". Members of the Jackson family, including TJ and Taj Jackson, expressed their support for their cousin even before the premiere – TJ wrote on social media: "The world will remember or learn who MJ really was."

Nevertheless, the split between critical assessments and audience reaction continues to fuel disputes about the film and Michael Jackson’s legacy. Some commenters under Khan’s post point out that the film goes through key moments of the musician’s life "like a shopping list", without truly delving into racial issues or the scandals that overshadowed his career. Others note that if Austin Butler did not receive an "Oscar" for "Elvis", the bar for Jaafar Jackson will be just as high.

Thus, "Michael" finds itself at the centre of a double debate – about the price of critical success compared with the love of the audience and about how far a biographical film should go in dealing with the painful aspects of its subject’s legacy. While the box office continues to set records, the argument over the "right" reading of Michael Jackson’s life is only just beginning.