General audiences love Michael, but one major director is criticizing the overwhelmingly positive reception.

The Michael Jackson biopic has a near-perfect 97% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes and has been dominant at the box office, where it is set to finish opening weekend with approximately $100 million domestically and more than $200 million globally. Michael has still been deeply controversial, though, with many critics taking issue with how the movie avoids the allegations against the pop star. Some of these allegations received further attention in the 2019 documentary Leaving Neverland, in which Wade Robson and James Safechuck detail how Jackson sexually abused them when they were children.

In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Leaving Neverland director Dan Reed candidly discusses why he believes Michael is a hit with general audiences despite the allegations and what was disclosed in the 2019 documentary. He also addresses Michael director Antoine Fuqua saying that “sometimes people do some nasty things for some money.” Read Reed’s comments below:

For Antoine Fuqua to accuse people of gold digging is kind of ironic. It seems to me all the people involved in this movie are just making bank. How can you tell an authentic story about Michael Jackson without ever mentioning the fact that he was seriously accused of being a child molester? I just don’t really see it. If anyone’s making money, it’s Michael Jackson’s estate and the people who worked on this biographical picture. Wade and James, the protagonists of Leaving Neverland, have never made a cent from their accusations. People don’t seem to understand: If you bring a lawsuit, you don’t get any money until you win in court. And when you win in court, that means you’ve proved your case, right?

In terms of Robson and Safechuck reportedly seeking $400 million, Reed clarifies that the amount is “Something like that. That’s a made-up amount. I presume it would be a large amount, right? But it’s been 10 years. They haven’t made any money.” As for their reaction to the biopic, Reed emphasizes that “I don’t know. I haven’t talked to them about the movie. I can’t imagine they’re particularly thrilled.”

In the aftermath of Leaving Neverland‘s release, the streaming numbers for Jackson’s music increased, and the musical MJ was launched, which has been performed on Broadway and on national tours. For Reed, this proves that most audiences “don’t care that [Michael Jackson] was a child molester” and would rather enjoy his music without confronting the allegations.

It says that people don’t care that he was a child molester. Literally, people just don’t care. None of the allegations in Leaving Neverland have been seriously challenged, right? But there was enough noise online from those simplistic debunking [videos]that people found it easy to give themselves permission to like Michael Jackson’s music again, if they ever stopped liking it. I think a lot of people just love his music and turn a deaf ear. And short of having actual video evidence of Michael Jackson engaged in sexual intercourse with a 7-year-old child, I don’t know what would be sufficient to change these people’s minds. I’m not trying to stop anyone from consuming his music. I’ve never advocated canceling Michael Jackson. Book burning is for the Middle Ages and the Taliban. I just think if you’re going to enjoy his music, let’s also consider the fact that he liked to have sex with children and see how that affects your enjoyment, in all honesty.

I think clearly some of the press is sucking up to the Jackson machine because: A, the estate and the fan base has always ensured that the price of criticizing Michael is years of invective and smears and what have you. And B, there’s a ton of money to be made by any kind of association with the Jackson IP. If you can get on board and be part of the success of this movie, then that’s going to be good for you. So a lot of people, I think, will kind of swallow any misgivings they may have and just sort of say, “Oh well, it’s a great jukebox movie” and just completely ignore the fact that this guy was worse than Jeffrey Epstein. I think Jackson was genuinely a very nasty man and hurt a lot of children. And he may have been a great entertainer, but those two things don’t cancel each other out. The fact is that pedophiles exist, and he was one of them, and he made those choices. Many other people who’ve been abused as a child did not choose to abuse others. And the reason why he gets away with it is because he was so wealthy and surrounded by very aggressive and resourceful lawyers and had tremendous resources. The Michael Jackson estate still instills fear in anyone who wants to oppose them, and they’re certainly a formidable opponent if you want to take them on. But yeah, I think a lot of people just want to forget about the children and enjoy the music.

Reed is not alone in his criticisms, as the Tomatometer score is 38%, a sharp contrast from the 97% audience score. In their reviews, many critics note the problematic nature of the movie’s refusal to confront the allegations, even during Michael‘s ending. An earlier version of the film did open with police raiding Jackson’s Neverland Ranch in 1993 following allegations that 13-year-old Jordan Chandler was sexually abused. This was cut due to the legal settlement between Chandler and Jackson, which prevents the case from being mentioned or depicted in a movie, which led to reshoots of the film.

Michael Jackson is played by his real-life nephew, Jaafar Jackson, in the biopic. Jaafar Jackson shared with ScreenRant that he is open to reprising the role for a Michael sequel and producer Graham King shared that he has considered some ideas, although nothing is officially in the works yet. A potential sequel would have a more difficult time completely skirting the allegations against Jackson, but that does not negate many of the concerns that Reed raises.