Mickey 17

Mickey 17 is a movie that's not bad but not always good.

Robert Pattinson nails an American accent, which to be honest is totally unnecessary given the amount of different nationalities involved!

British features strongly.

But anyway he does well. And he's always great in the role of all Mickey's.

The supporting cast are fine except for in my opinion a terrible character in Mark Ruffalo's Kenneth Mars and yes I know what he was going for. It's just pretty bad.

The story isn't bad, it's decent enough for a sci fi movie. But it doesn't nail any political or social matters like Parasite or Okja, both of which are absolutely brilliant films.

And therefore a straight sci fi actioner could've been better here.

Although admittedly there's some pretty funny moments.

I sound disappointed which is probably the right emotion. I was expecting something really good but this had too much of Okja and Snowpiercer type action and acting to be unique.

I don't want Bong Joon-Ho to become a parody of himself like Wes Anderson. I believe he's capable of much more.

I have absolutely loved all of his past efforts even Barking Dogs Never Bite, which I think is hilarious.

So that's 3 American made movies all very similar in tone. Definitely time for something more.

Anyway it's worth a watch but this is not a classic.

For being a sci-fi flick it does ok. It doesn't introduce anything groundbreaking but it is something different. Does it hold up to other sci-fi films? I'd say no, but if you're looking for an average film to burn 2 hours with this does the job.

I will say that considering who it was written and directed by, there was a much higher expectation. After watching a film like Parasite, which was very well done, this was rather tame. I think part of it is the narration and the other part was the writing. Acting wise I think everyone did a fine job, there were themes that were put out there that didn't quite hit or didn't really matter as the story unfolds, and while I could sympathize with the characters and the situations, the actions and consequences of them didn't carry much weight.

This didn't seem to be set up for a sequel and probably for the best, but I'd be curious to see if a part 2 would have more to offer. Overall I gave it a 6 and likely wont see it again.

Mickey 17 had the potential to be an innovative sci-fi/comedy film, and it starts off in an engaging and original way. However, as the story progresses, it loses focus and ultimately turns into something generic, with an uninspired and rushed conclusion.

Robert Pattinson delivers a solid and well-rounded performance, proving his versatility even in a film that leans more towards comedy - something outside his usual genre. Despite the lighter tone, Pattinson brings depth to his character, making the story feel more grounded and adding an emotional layer to the film that otherwise would feel empty.

Cloning is a fascinating subject for a sci-fi movie because of all the moral and practical dilemmas it presents. Mickey 17 introduces these ideas but doesn't fully engage in them, shifting focus to a less compelling storyline midway through - the Creepers.

It feels out of the place compared to the film's promising start and even the trailers- The initial mix of humor and originality is lost, and by the end, the movie feels like it was hurriedly wrapped up just to deliver something, lacking any real creativity or impact.

That said, the film excels in its production design. The setting and character outfits are well-crafter, adding to the immersive sci-fi atmosphere. Additionally, the visual effects are compelling, bringing the futuristic world to life in a convincing and visually stunning way, which helps maintain engagement even when the story fails to do so.

The trailer was incredibly promising, compelling all of us to watch the movie at least once. I was expecting a "Lost in Space"-type adventure, where Mickey repeatedly dies for a meaningful cause and comes back to life to fulfill his purpose. However, the story didn't quite take that route. For those who usually claims a plot to be very much predictable, this movie is not like those.

The first part of the film was quite good, filled with dark comedy. We witness Mickey's suffering, understand why he chose his job, and see how indifferent everyone is to his recurring deaths. This tone persists through about two-thirds of the movie.

The expedition leaders were the most disappointing characters. They should have been more responsible and sensible, but the story chose to depict them as foolish jesters. The ending and climax was not very satisfying and was quite unpredictable, with numerous plot points, such as communication with the planet's inhabitants, that felt chaotic.

As for the acting, Robert Pattinson delivered an excellent performance, showcasing distinct personality shifts between his versions of Mickey. The other actors also did a commendable job, but the story itself was the primary letdown.

Spoilers:

I am left with two major questions after watching the movie:

First - How did the leader of the planet's inhabitants know Mickey's name?

Second - How was Mickey confident that detonating himself wouldn't also destroy the other Mickey?

Nothing incredibly groundbreaking, and a little heavy handed with the satire, but a fun ride and well shot, with all of the "I shouldn't laugh at this but I am" that you'd expect

I am guilty, as many others will be, of comparing this to Parasite. Doing so is doing the movie a disservice. From Bong Joon Ho I was not expecting a silly black comedy that would have the whole theater laughing. Accept and enjoy it and you'll have a great time.

Although I felt like I was getting slapped in the face with the Trump satire, it still hit pretty well and got a good few laughs out of me.

After all this, I'm still wondering what the sauce is about...