At the beginning of the year (2025), or let’s say last year (2024), which movie coming out in 2025 were you most excited about? For me, it was Paddington 3, which didn’t disappoint, and Sinners, which is coming out in April.
But one movie I was simply curious about, based on its premise and director, was Mickey 17. After multiple release date shifts between January, March, and April, it’s finally here.
This futuristic sci-fi film follows Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), a man who signs up to be an expendable, a worker whose job is to die so others don’t have to.
Every time he dies, he’s regenerated, cloned, and printed out like a piece of paper from a printer, memories intact, making him both immortal and entirely replaceable.
The system sees him as nothing more than a tool, a body to be used, experimented on, and discarded. And for most of the film, so does Mickey. Until he doesn’t. Now you understand why I was fascinated by the premise.
What I liked
The production value is impressive. With a budget between $120–150 million, the visual effects, costume design, especially what they do with Mark Ruffalo’s character, art direction, editing, and sound design are all excellent.
The cinematography is undeniably cinematic, with plenty of well-composed shots you’d expect from a Bong Joon-ho film.
Mickey 17's character is awkward, resigned, and sometimes funny. Pattinson plays him with a mix of detachment and frustration. The introduction of Mickey 18, a completely different personality, forces Mickey 17 to see himself in a way like never before, which I thought was a fascinating exploration of personalities.
Toni Collette’s casually cruel character steals every scene she’s in, and Ruffalo’s Congressman Marshall, despite being exaggerated, adds to the satire. The two of them lead a cult-like fanaticism, their supporters willing to suffer simply because they’re told to.
Steven Yeun and Naomi Ackie also delivered standout performances, each bringing something unique to the screen.
What I Didn’t Like
The film starts strong, with the first two acts compact, focused, and brimming with sharp satire and absurdity. However, the problems become apparent as the story progresses. When the focus shifts beyond the ship and ventures into colonisation and alien encounters, the film begins to lose its edge.
The colonisation sub-plot feels underdeveloped, lacking the impact and depth of the earlier sections.
I also found the third act disappointing. It became broader, more generic, like an average sci-fi movie on a streaming service. The ambition to tie everything together was evident, but the execution felt overwhelming and convoluted. Instead of delivering a powerful conclusion, it left me frustrated.
While there were still great moments, especially between Mickey and the native inhabitants, the emotional stakes didn’t match the high bar set by the first half.
On a more specific note, Mickey 17’s accent was jarring and took me out of the experience at times. Although intentional, Ruffalo’s portrayal of Congressman Marshall bordered on cartoonish, which might amuse some or repulse other.
Final thoughts
The best way to describe Mickey 17Â is creative and thought-provoking but ultimately inconsistent. It's more of Snow Piecer than Parasite".
While it won’t work for everyone, sci-fi fans might appreciate its ambition. It’s not as polished as Parasite but is still undeniably Bong Joon-ho.
