Mickey 17

Bong Jongho's next wide-screen project since his historic win at the Oscar's is rather a big let-down.

For such an intriguing premise, we should have been promised a story with colorful development and of gray morality, and yet were presented with such an obviously black-and-white good-triumphing-over-evil Hollywood movie.

The morality of science? The definition of one's self? The Ship of Theseus paradox? Like, such a wasted opportunity to explore the multitude of questions. I guess it's my fault to expect too much.

Robert Pattinson and Toni Collette are amazing, though. Brilliant camera work and visual effects.

Let's start with the obvious-while "Mickey 17" offers plenty of social commentary, it falls short of the sharp satire and intelligent (class) critique that made "Parasite" a modern masterpiece. Instead, what we get is a sci-fi parody that explores humanity's vanity and self-destruction, yet for some reason, it never truly feels like it takes place in a distant future.

*** Robert Pattinson delivers another strong performance, continuing his streak of unique and compelling roles. He has successfully reshaped his career, moving far beyond his early days, and frankly, we prefer him this way. His unexpected comedic side is a revelation, adding a fresh layer to his performance. Mark Ruffalo also shines, delivering a performance reminiscent of his role in Poor Things, with certain expressions and mannerisms subtly evoking Trump.

*** The production is undeniably grand and expensive, evident in its visually striking yet occasionally excessive scenes. The film often gives off a sense of familiarity-as if we've seen these themes before. The idea for example that we are the real aliens and "monsters" is hardly new, and at times, the script leans too heavily on familiar concepts explored already by many movies.

*** While Mickey 17 is a solid film, it's far from a masterpiece. Perhaps the biggest challenge is that Bong Joon-ho has set the bar so high that anything less than exceptional feels like a slight let-down. There's a lingering sense that something is missing-a sharper edge, a deeper impact, or a more innovative twist.

I saw a preview for this a while ago and it prompted me to read the book, Mickey 7, before seeing the movie. Generally, I like to have my own vision while reading instead of having the movie playing in my head. This was a mistake. Not only is the book waaaayyy more fluid, in depth, and loyal to the sci-fi genre, but it was actually enjoyable to consume. The movie, notsomuch.

Beginning with the title, Mickey 17. I don't know why they felt they needed to add TEN extra iterations of Mickey Barnes, but yknow, Hollywood or whatever. Fine. The movie starts basically as the book does, for about five minutes. It then starts to stray away from the original story in ways that absolutely baffled me. The commander in the book is an ACTUAL military commander and so the adversarial relationship between him and Mickey makes sense because of that. This whole religious nut senator bit played by Mark Ruffalo is so cringey and even Toni Collette along side him can't save the scenes they manage to over and under act at the same time. Robert Pattinson is good as Mickey 17; however, his relationship with self isn't as antagonistic as the movie plays it, and you end up losing sympathy for him when it gets downright mean for no reason.

Other reviewers have complained about the "expendable" angle (ethics, morals, possible usefulness to society, etc) not being explored enough... for some reason this is where the writers decided to stay true to the book - the colonizer plot line. It played out better in the book; here, it just feels meh.

Point being, I probably would have enjoyed this more if I hadn't liked the book so much and went into viewing it with above-average expectations. Not awful by any means, but definitely didn't live up to its potential.

Mickey 17 is such a wasted opportunity and for me the first big disappointment of 2025. It's 140' of nothing! A movie that constantly talks but doesn't actually say anything of value. It just has all these big ideas that end up nowhere and at times its only saving grace is some moments of levity that are really funny.

It's a science fiction movie that never explores its themes. What does it say about cloning? About colonization? It touches these subjects, sure, but it's so shallow.

Robert Pattinson is fine but I think he's wasted in this. All the different versions of Mickey are also supposed to have different personalities but aside from 17 and 18 (as seen in the trailer) the previous 16 all act the same, even though the movie says that have different characteristics. But even that doesn't matter because we never get to see all the different Mickeys aside from a quick montage.

Also, let me say that the use of narration in this movie is egregious. It doesn't enhance the experience, it's just filler to cover the silence.

Finally, it's so boring! Boring visuals, boring sci-fi elements, boring creature designs, no unique aesthetic, no nothing.

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.