Mickey 17

A lot of people were really excited when they heard that director Bong Joon Ho would be releasing another English-language picture in 2024 starring big hit actors like Robert Pattinson, Mark Ruffalo, Toni Collete, and Steven Yeun titled Mickey 17. With the pedigree of being an Oscar-winning director after the success of his brilliant social thriller, Parasite, this niche Korean filmmaker had suddenly risen to the status of unpredictable auteur, and its initial teaser which presented a dark twisted sci-fi tale got people excited for what he had in store. However, hype was softened when its release date was switched from March of 2024 to January of 2025 (a notoriously bad release window for films) and trailers gave off a far more comical vibe than many anticipated, dashing people’s pre-conceived expectations of a potential Oscar follow-up and leaving them unsure of how they would react when they would eventually see the film.

In the year 2054, a financially starved Mickey Barnes (played by Robert Pattinson) joins a cargo ship transporting a group of humans on route to colonize the frozen planet of Nifilheim in order to pay off a loan he owes to a vicious loan shark on Earth. His role on the ship is to be an Expendable, a disposable pawn who is either sacrificed for scientific purposes or sent out on suicide missions to provide the handy work no other person would be willing to do, and then subsequently revived through the process of cloning in order to continue doing the same jobs. While Mickey has died a total of 17 times, he is spared another eradication after almost dying on a mission trying to extract a sample of Nifilheim’s native lifeform dubbed as ‘’Creepers’’ and returns to the ship only to discover that he has already been copied and replaced by Mickey 18 (also played by Pattinson). This comes as a shock to Mickey and his girlfriend, Nasha (played by Naomi Ackie), but also puts them at risk of termination as the leader of this expedition, extremist politician Kenneth Marshall (played by Mark Ruffalo) views clones as lesser beings and has vowed to kill a prime subject if they are ever multiplied. With Mickey at risk of being permanently deleted, a revelation about the planet’s inhabitants gives Mickey 17, 18 and Nasha a new directive, forcing them to fight against Marshall and his equally shallow wife, Yifa (played by Toni Collete) all the while debating which Mickey should be the one to live on.

Mickey 17 received generally favorable reviews but didn’t do very well at the box office, and audiences weren’t blown away by what they witnessed. While the film has some good commentary, an occasionally solid quirky element, and great actors, the confused narrative, disposable side stories, and irritatingly lost first act prevent this from being the next big Bong Joon Ho success.

Bong Joon Ho’s work in the west was never as massive as his work in Korea. Both Snowpiercer and Okja reviewed well and gradually earned a small cult following, but neither brought in fantastic numbers and it’s easier to find and pick out flaws in them against his seemingly spotless Korean portfolio. The success of Parasite was what tipped the scales and gave Hollywood more confidence in him, as Warner Brothers agreed to distribute his new feature (the first time the director had ever worked with a big Hollywood studio) and it contained producing credits from people like Dede Gardner, Jeremy Kleiner, and Brad Pitt (who all helped produce the Oscar-winning 12 Years a Slave, so they had faith they could catch lightning in a bottle twice). The big wigs in Hollywood seemed intrigued by Joon Ho’s filmmaking status and were willing to take a risk with him, but the question was whether it would pay off or not. This movie does have a lot of staples that are associated with his English features, like a strong list of talented performers, concepts that are strongly peppered in universal social commentary, and a visual identity that is just quirky enough to be atypical but not so over-the-top that it could alienate people. Being based on a short story written by Edward Ashton, the premise has potential and even turning it into a dark comedy is a good idea, as watching the gruesome situations this character is forced to endure will no doubt come with a hint of tragedy, but could contain a hint of irony as well, you can see the vision. However, it feels like little was done to expand the story since it seems to take a backseat to the commentary, which results in a pretty uneven narrative.

The real problem is that the script is way too cluttered, with multiple characters, themes and story conflicts having to be juggled within a plot that really doesn’t need to be as complicated as it is, and the dissonance between what is being portrayed and how it’s being presented really kills most of the film’s goodwill. The first act is annoyingly drawn out, with an obnoxious narration that never goes away and so much exposition that it actively halts the story from progressing until around the second act, the pacing in general is very off during this section. The remainder of the movie is more focused, but it’s hard to say that it becomes a smoother viewing experience, as it still feels confused on what it’s trying to say as well as completely different to what was previously being set up. It’s not surreal or abstract enough to be thought-provoking, but it’s also not mainstream enough to allow for a ‘’turn-your-brain-off’’ experience, there are solid themes being explored here like the exploitation and even disposability of the working class through the eyes of corrupt political powers, but it doesn’t really say anything that hasn’t already been explored, and once it wraps up, audiences won’t hate what they saw, but it won’t be something that really sticks with them.

Since Snowpiercer and Okja featured a nice balance between veteran and upcoming talent, it’s nice to see that continue on with this movie, as there are some good performers here who really look like they’re having a lot of fun. Bong Joon Ho as a director feels like someone who’d allow for experimentation and wildness as long as it remained truthful to the message, and it seems like all these actors got the memo and mostly succeeded with this assignment. While there are a lot of colorful character actors here who try to stand out through deranged shouting and odd deliveries, it doesn’t work as strongly as it could’ve because the characters themselves don’t feel very well constructed or even that thought out. Mickey easily suffers this the worse, as despite being the major focus of the story and having two versions running around, it takes a while before he stops being just a bizarre voice and commentary sponge and actually develops an identity. Pattinson gives him a strange squeaky voice that does get more tolerable over time, but outside of all the messed-up ways he dies, it’s the only truly memorable thing about him as so much time is spent on what he represents that it doesn’t really give people time to get to know him.

Pattinson performs it well, and even though there’s no explanation for why Mickey 18 acts so different, the way he works off himself isn’t bad, but any development gets forgotten about behind all the obvious commentary, which can also be said for the rest of the cast. People like Steven Yeun as a scummy friend of Mickey who was also in loan shark trouble but worked his way into a solid position through charm, or Anamaria Vartolomei as a throwaway extra love interest for Mickey, are well performed, but could’ve been entirely cut from the movie without much issue, Naomi Ackie is pretty good as Nasha and shares some decent chemistry with Pattinson, but doesn’t really have much of an identity outside of providing support, and the villains are easily the worst part of this entire movie. Both Mark Ruffalo and Toni Colette are strong, captivating, Oscar-nominated talent, yet they are stuck playing such blatantly cartoonish caricatures of political figures that you just get frustrated any time they’re on screen (it’s not subtle who Ruffalo is emulating, and it’s not like it has anything deep to say about him). Their acting isn’t even bad, but the script and direction is so obvious in its delivery and the commentary is so time-relevant that it just feels like too obvious a punch that will quickly become dated.

With the film having a budget of $118 million (the first Bong Joon Ho movie to exceed $100 million), this would’ve felt like a brand new experience for him, as he’d never really been in charge of a film that had all the requirements for a Hollywood blockbuster, but due to his specific style of filmmaking and even his preference for more down-to-earth human dramas and thrillers, it doesn’t feel beneficial or even that necessary. You can feel the money on the screen not just through the casting, but also from the visual effects, which all look pretty good, but it doesn’t really feel like it’s going into anything that special. Even though this world and the main ship aren’t the most interesting locations to occupy and feel very similar to other dark sci-fi stories with a quirky edge, none of these elements are done badly, it just doesn’t offer much in the way of a distinct identity. This is also the case for the remaining technical aspects, as even though cinematographer, Darius Khondji, editor, Yang Jin-mo, composer, Jung Jae-il, production designer, Fiona Crombie, and costume designer, Catherine George, have worked on other successful projects (some even with Joon Ho), none of that talent is really spotlighted here. There’s an occasional good tracking shot, but they never really show anything that interesting, the sets look and feel lived-in, but the grey steely tones of color and snowy exterior get boring to look at after a while, the movie could’ve been edited down more finely in order to cut some of the excess fat, and it’s hard to recall the music as it never has any distinct moments to shine, it’s a little unfortunate.

Mickey 17 was not the success Parasite fans were hoping to see from a now Oscar-winning Bong Joon Ho, but regardless of how this movie fares in the long run, it shouldn’t be too detrimental to him as a director. His best work has always been smaller, less expensive, and rooted in dissecting the subtle horrors of the real world, so if anything, this should just be a sign that whatever Hollywood project he gets next, just make sure it’s under $100 million. The film has good intentions and features strong elements like good casting, relevant themes, and a slightly odd delivery, but you don’t really get a display of the director’s best qualities and are instead stuck with an overly lengthy first act, villains with the subtly of a brick to the face, visuals that don’t have the creativity that should come from this premise (even the teaser had more fun surreal camerawork), and a script that forgets to construct a plot and character development amongst a sea of commentary. Might be a fun time for some, but otherwise, this doesn’t feel like a movie that will be willingly duplicated.