Avaliações de usuários

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.

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.

I love movies that step out of the comfort zone and aren't afraid to tell a weird, uncomfortable story. This movie is exactly that. Although it's not perfect, it's dark, comedic, thought-provoking & corny (in good and some bad ways lol). Robert Pattinson's character is a little annoying with the whole voice thing at first but his acting is incredible in this movie, props to him. Joon-ho had a super high bar to reach after Parasite, and this movie definitely reached that for me. His work is diverse, unique and poetic while being entertaining for all. Overall it is definitely worth a watch and one of my faves in recent years.

Where to start with this film, well one of them would be it topped the scales, of brilliance and bonded every element strategically well, to form a superb spectacle on great proportions. What I mean by bonded and strategically put, is the fact the movie blends in the "Expandable" and the villainous arc, which both characters were set-up exceedingly well.

One of the career best performances by Robert Pattinson, who blends the weird tones, the cheerful tone, and the darker tones with his effortlessly great voice-overs and he dominates every scene he's in, his movement his body language and his voice, he takes every scene he's in and dominates it, like wow. And the layers of character-growth spials from great to epic. His anger is also portrayed brilliantly, with a lighter and more subtle tone that would progress more into the latter stages of the film. Although, I'd of liked to of seen more of what he was running away from, as that was the main set-up. And I think it would of improved his arc, but saying that It was a Perfect jumping on point. And the Doppelganger stuff is fun.

The Icelandic planet is great, the aliens are cool and do pose a threat, I'd of liked to of seen more action though, as he does die too easily at times, and it was quite abit. However apart from that the designs are brilliant, I like the dark and grittier one that has sharp teeth, it does have that threat and the real danger posed, and everything played out well.

Villains main threat is taking people hostage, by completing his work he becomes a leader of the country, and that's what I meant when both arcs were crafted, or in my own terms strategically placed to feel the misery, the desire and the Power to tack control. Whilst nothing was extended, the final act showed his strength and brutality when he comes face to face with one of the specimens, creatures.

It's a fun space adventure, that has great acting and voice work in the lens of Pattinson, which I really enjoyed hearing, as I said he was fantastic. And the performances were mostly solid and fluid throughout.

I'd rate this film an 8 Because it blends sci-fi, action and drama into the role really well.

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...

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.

I just watched this movie.

Throughout the film, I couldn't help but think of past and present U. S. presidents, as well as some foolish leaders from South Korea.

Of course, everyone writing reviews here has their own political perspectives, along with freedom of thought and religion. I expect this movie to spark a lot of debate, but I want to focus solely on the cinematic aspects, leaving politics aside.

Let's start by talking about director Bong Joon-ho.

He first caught my attention in 2000 with Barking Dogs Never Bite, a film that convinced me he was an outstanding filmmaker of that era.

Then came Memories of Murder, a film based on real-life serial killings that sent shockwaves through the Korean film industry. This movie cemented his status as a commercially successful director in South Korea.

Following that, he directed The Host, Mother, Snowpiercer, Netflix's Okja, and the Academy Award-winning Parasite, solidifying his global recognition as a filmmaker.

Now, let's evaluate Mickey 17-without spoilers.

This film intertwines modern political landscapes, human greed, desire, the ethical dilemmas brought on by scientific advancements, the philosophical implications of encountering extraterrestrial life, and even religious inquiries.

It is a film that constantly challenges the viewer with profound questions, making you search for the essence of it all throughout its runtime.

Honestly, watching a movie multiple times isn't always easy, but this is one that makes you want to revisit it and reflect on its themes again.

Cautiously, I'd say this film has the potential to compete for an award at major film festivals.

In particular, Robert Pattinson, the lead actor, may very well receive some form of recognition for his performance.

It was an enjoyable film, and I highly recommend you watch it when it gets released.

From a movie lover in Korea.

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.

Robert Pattinson is the one redeeming aspect of this film. He is great in every scene, but, gosh, the rest of the actors were horrible-especially Mark. The movie itself is unfunny, and the third act drags on forever in the most boring way possible. The script is painfully weak, filled with awkward dialogue and lifeless humor that never lands. The pacing is a mess, with scenes that feel completely unnecessary and characters who add nothing to the story. The direction is uninspired, and visually, it lacks any creativity.

Bong Joon-ho has proven himself to be a great director, but Mickey 17 feels like a real misfire. The film struggles to maintain a consistent tone, jumping between dark comedy and sci-fi thriller in a way that feels jarring rather than engaging. Even the world-building, which had the potential to be fascinating (the first 20 minutes) is underdeveloped and fails to make the story feel immersive.

Mark Ruffalo's performance, in particular, is grating-his delivery feels exaggerated and out of place, making it difficult to take his character seriously. The third act, which should be the film's most gripping moment, instead feels like an endurance test, dragging on without any real payoff. The film attempts to be thought-provoking but lacks the depth or emotional weight to leave a lasting impression.

Overall, Mickey 17 is a frustrating watch, wasting its intriguing premise with weak execution. Despite Pattinson's solid performance, everything else falls flat. 1/10.

I just walked out of cinema and I want to give to you my honest review while it's still fresh in my head.

This movie is a gem, really something else. An anti-capitalist satire, mocking Trump in the most rightfully ways, sublime but point on. Dark humor and all, I giggled a lot throughout the movie. It reminded me of Idiocracy (hope it doesn't come true like Idiocracy did). So many characters and human typology, everyone is represented: from the rich to poor, from good guys to bad guys, from the smart to dumb,from emphatics to psychopaths etc. A perfect painting of a dysfunctional but ultimately beautiful society. The story is unusual and unpredictable and keeps you curious. Robert Pattinson delivers a complete role(s), I was impressed.

Absurd and fresh, it's a masterpiece! Go watch it , thank me later.

P. S. Bong Joon-Ho- give this man an Oscar!

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.

As a big fan of both Robert Pattinson and space movies, I was really looking forward to this one. However, it was truly one of the worst movies I have seen in some time and we see almost everything that comes out. The acting was lame, the sets were lame, and the CGI below par. Pattinson's weird voice was very distracting and they reduced him to a mushy-brained fool. It took all my patience to not walk out, but we suffered through to the end. Don't waste your time and money. This would only be entertaining if you were home with the flu, it was streaming free, and nothing else was on. Don't bother.

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?

Tone, Script & Story: The story is about a human subject who is entitled to study and colonize another planet. The planet here is a freezing one. It's further shown the aliens who look like huge worms inhabit that planet and how they are confronted.

The movie comes from director who has given us gems like Mother, Snowpiercer and Parasite. This fact and the trailer held my hopes in good spirit. Although the hash tag dark comedy killed my hopes to some extent and yes it was correct.

They create clones and eliminate old ones. The movie is slow, the cloning and the gap between fortunate and fortunate ones lay down a terrifying plot. You tend to hate this movie unlike Bong Joon Ho's other movies mentioned above.

Also were there only one species of Aliens?

Direction, Screenplay, Cinematography: The date appears too soon (2054), if that were somewhat comforting, the budget would have been justified. If we oversee that the visuals are justified.

Final Verdict: People will watch it because of names associated. For me it's a one-time encounter.

MICKEY-17 (2025) takes you on a marvelous journey of meaningful mayhem with dark, self-deprecating humor as its fuel. Bong Joon Ho's thorough investigation of identity, duality, and the relationship between ego and power stick with you far after the film's credits roll. We all have fragmented personalities; various versions of ourselves. Some of these "characters" are consistently active and in rotation while others lay dormant, hidden deep beneath. Unless you're a complete sociopath, you have an empathic, emotional piece of your personality fostered in feelings of both love and fear. However, it's constantly at war with the carelessness, confidence, and bravery we all paradoxically have the potential for.

Classically personified by symbolic imagery of an angel on one shoulder and a devious demon on the other, the moral and spiritual duality of man is a tale old as time... Yet, Joon Ho and Robert Pattison's lovable, highly animated Mickey Barnes breathe new life into the classic concept. The film's as unrealistic and ridiculous as it is refreshing and surprisingly relatable. Pattison's seemingly endless range and raw acting ability are on full display, perhaps more than ever. Not to mention, his natural charm in the role makes for a hell of a good time for audience members willing to give theirselves up to the cynicism and obvious outrageousness of it all.

Joon Ho swings for the fences with his first fully-English feature, while Pattison's performance puts to rest any allegations left he can only play characters in the vein of Twilight's eerie Edward. On the other end, Mark Ruffalo's characterization of the relentlessly greedy and hilariously obnoxious Kenneth Marshall feels as fragmented and frantically scattered (in both its execution and inspiration) as Mickey's rich spirit and diverse personality traits throughout the course of the insanely inhumane scientific investigation he so desperately (and naively) agrees to take part in during the film's effective exposition. Despite this singular flaw, the picture is perfect from top to bottom, nothing new for the work of the Oscar-winning director. We all have our own Mickey-17s and -18s within. Now, much like moral Mickey, I'll find myself asking... "What would eighteen do?"

First, the film is beautiful and enjoyable to watch. They did a good job in terms of cinematography, music, and acting. All the actors were good, especially Robert Pattinson, but they failed in several aspects, which led to a lower rating and a decline in quality.

To be honest, I had difficulty understanding the film's story and message because it dealt with several topics, such as political rulers and how they are controlled, the meaning of cloning, and whether it is ethical or not, and several other topics. However, as the film progressed, we were unable to focus on all the topics and finish it.

There are so many characters in the film, and if you can remember more than three names, I salute you. I only remember Mickey, his girlfriend Nasha, and his dirty friend Timo. To be honest, we weren't given enough time to get attached to the characters and see their development throughout the film. Most of them, if not all of them, are the same from beginning to end, except for the few.

Director Bong Joon-ho presented a very impressive Skyfall atmosphere mixed with Dark comedy, and it was good.

Robert Pattinson excels in every film and shows his talent for acting, and the two characters he played were wonderfully portrayed.

Finally, the film is very entertaining, but the negatives affected the final rating. However, the film is worth watching.