Michael Jackson’s own daughter has publicly condemned the new biopic about her father, calling the film a dishonest, sugar-coated fantasy and revealing that her concerns about an early script draft were ignored. Paris Jackson’s criticism marks the first time a member of the Jackson family has openly trashed “Michael,” the $200 million film directed by Antoine Fuqua that recently set a worldwide box office record for a biographical music film. Paris told those close to her that she pointed out what felt false in the script and got dismissed, so she walked away from the project entirely. She also called out Jackson estate executors John Branca and John McClain by name and publicly disputed actor Colman Domingo’s recent claim that she had been helpful during production.
While her brothers Prince and Biggy walked the red carpet at the film’s Berlin premiere, Paris was photographed smoking on a West Hollywood street. Her main complaint: the movie presents a polished myth as the truth about her father. The fact that his daughter has become the loudest voice in the room saying this isn’t real has made her criticism difficult for defenders of the film to wave off. Janet Jackson also distanced herself completely.
She refused to allow her likeness to appear in the film at all, meaning she is absent as a character from a movie about her own brother, despite having released music throughout the 1980s period it depicts. Reports from insiders describe a family screening attended by about 60 people where Janet picked the film apart—criticizing the acting, the makeup, and even the way characters moved—and allegedly clashed with her brother Jermaine, who reportedly told her she was jealous and had missed the wave. Those details come from unnamed sources and must be treated as reportedly, but Janet’s decision to erase herself from the project entirely is confirmed and speaks for itself. Many other family members, by contrast, serve as executive producers, meaning they financially benefit from both the box office success and the expected surge in Michael’s album sales and streams.
Janet, who built her own successful solo career, is not financially dependent on her brother’s legacy
Dan Reed, director of the 2019 documentary “Leaving Neverland,” has been the most aggressive critic. He called the movie a“complete whitewash”and“icky,” and he went directly at Fuqua in a Variety interview. Reed argues that any honest Michael Jackson film would have to confront the child abuse allegations head on, and he said he believes those claims were left out because there is no evidence that clears Michael’s name. Reed even suggested the public no longer cares much about the allegations.
The line that has spread most widely, though, is his comparison placing Michael Jackson in the same sentence as Jeffrey Epstein. It must be noted that Michael was acquitted of all charges in 2005 and the estate denies all wrongdoing. Reed, who made an entire film from the accusation’s perspective, views everything through that lens
Wade Robson and James Safechuck, the two men at the center of Leaving Neverland, are pursuing a civil lawsuit against Michael’s companies reportedly valued at around $400 million. The case has been thrown out twice and revived twice, and it is now scheduled for trial in November 2026.
Their lawyers have argued that the estate soughtto delay the trial date deliberately so that it would land after the film’s release, raising questions about timing. Safechuck, for his part, said triely he will not watch the movie and does not think it should exist. Handed a microphone outside the premiere, he said his thoughts were with other survivors, noting that Michael is being praised right now while other abuse survivors watch their abusers celebritated. He advised people not to support the film, saying he does not think it is a good idea to support people who abuse children, and when asked directly whether he would secher the movie, he replied,“…No.
No, I won’t be watching that. ” He later posted bluntly on social media, claiming Michael was abusing children during the Bad era—the exact time period this film covers, making the message particularly pointed, though the estate denies it
The most unexpected legal development involves the Cascio siblings—Frank, Dominic, Marie Nicole, and Aldo Cascio. This family was once described as Michael Jackson’s“second family. ”They were among his strongest defenders at his 2005 trial, traveled with him on the HIStory tour, frequently visited Neverland, and Frank Cascio worked as his personal assistant.
In February 2026, all four siblings sued the estate, alleging that the abuse of them began when they were children. They called Jackson a“serial child predator”and said it was watching Leaving Neverland that finally pushed them to come forward. Their interviews have drawn skepticism because of their demeanor, but their status as former defenders makes their accusationsparticularly jarring. The estate’s lawyer fired back immediately, calling the lawsuit a“desperate money grab.
”Nothing has been decided, and these remain allegations, but the reversal of his once-loyal defenders cuts directly against the film’s everything-was-fine version of events
Other critics have been shorter but equally cutting. Van Lathan Jr. , a podcaster and former TMZ personality, attended the Los Angeles premiere and was asked how one could not be supportive of a celebration of Michael’s musical era. He responded that the movie itself“falls way short”of what an exploration of Michael Jackson’s genius should be.
Asked to sum up the whole film in a word, he said simply:“Tough. ”It was a one-word review that spread widely, sometimes doing more damage than a longer rant. Matt Fiddes, Michael’s former bodyguard and a longtime defender, also slammed the film, but for opposite reasons. He claimed the movie airbrushed the drama and specifically the vultures he believes were circling Michael’s money, and he publicly backed Paris Jackson’s complaints.
Even one of Michael’s most loyal people called the film dishonest—for different reasons than the critics, but with the same frustration. Corey Feldman, who on 2019 was loud in defending Michael against Leaving Neverland, has since softened his position considerably, saying that victims have to be heard. For this premiere, his absence was tangled. His team apparently misread the invitation, his manager was handling a personal matter, and Feldman was never confirmed on the guest list, so he could not attend.
It could be an honest mistake, but alongside everything else, a formerly loud defender going quiet—and not showing up—adds to the sense that people are slowly stepping back
But there is also a substantial clapback camp. Michael’s nephew Taj Jackson fired back at critics, framing the media’s hostility as a loss of control over the narrative. “Sorry, media, you don’t get to control the narrative anymore of who Michael Jackson truly was,” he wrote on X. “The public gets to watch this movie, they’ll decide for themselves, and you can’t handle that.
Can’t wait until some critics have to eat crow, and yes, I will be that petty. ” Macaulay Culkin, who testified for Michael at the 2005 trial, has never changed his story. In a rare Esquire interview, he said he never saw Michael do anything wrong and that at this point in his life he would have no reason to hold anything back. The result is a cultural standoff: one army calling the film a lie, another calling it the truth.
Each side’s reaction fuels the other, and that back-and-forth is the engine keeping this controversy alive
