Mickey 17

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.

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 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.

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.

Mickey 17 is like strictly okayish and that's a huge disappointment given the expectations!

Bong joon-ho returning in director's chair after an Oscar, with Robert pattinson, a sci-fi genre and huge budget, it could have been so much better! But this is just okay.

Pattinson's acting is great, even the premise and structure were very juicy. But for some reason Bong joon-ho doesn't fully capitalise it. Atleast the crazy energy of Okja would have elevated the screenplay, but it was mostly bland and trying to be politically aware.

Especially with that trailer being so much fun, the bar was really high, but this doesn't even comes close.