Mickey 17: One Too Many
There should have been two Naomi Ackies
I wish I could make multiples of myself at this point. I’m sorry for the long hiatus from uploading, but I’m back after a while to tackle Bong Joon Ho’s follow-up to his Best Picture winner Parasite from six years ago (time’s a bitch). Subsequently, after achieving Oscar glory, Bong’s stock has risen considerably amongst filmgoers, with Parasite becoming an all-timer in film history. So to try and encore that seems almost herculean. Bouncing between his home country, South Korea, and Hollywood, Bong finds himself back in foreign terrain, this time in space. Based on Edward Ashton’s 2022 novel Mickey7 and starring Robert Pattinson, Mickey 17 sees Bong tackle doubles, authoritarianism, and weird worm creatures. Simmering in post-production hell since finishing filming in early January, Mickey 17 was finally released worldwide earlier this month. Perhaps by the time I upload this, it’ll already be available on Digital. Anyhow, better late than never, as they say. So, does Bong hit his latest film out of the galaxy? Or, did he leave his magic on Earth?
What’s it all about?
Mickey 17, set in a futuristic 2054, follows Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), who, with his friend Timo (Steven Yeun), attempts to start a Macaroon shop (I think?). They fail to repay a murderous loan shark and decide to flee. Believing they’re bound to be caught, they set their sights on space. The two sign up as crew on a spaceship destined to colonize the planet Niflheim with failed politician populist leader Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo) and his wife Ylfa (Toni Collette) at the helm. Timo signs up as a shuttle pilot while Mickey, not reading the requirements, signs up to be the ship’s only “expendable”. Using technology banned on Earth, Mickey is sent out to embark on lethal missions only to be regenerated following each death. En route to Niflheim, Mickey falls in love with security agent Nasha (Naomi Ackie). Four years later, they land on Niflheim, where Mickey is repeatedly sacrificed for scientific research. On the 17th iteration, Mickey is tasked with capturing a deadly indigenous lifeform dubbed a “creeper” for further study, in which he’s seemingly left for dead. However, the creepers save him while the ship regenerates a new Mickey, culminating in a case of “multiples”. Punishable by total death. The rest of the film follows as the two Mickeys seek survival and rebel against the Marshalls to save the creepers.
Bong may be elite but . . .
I’ll fully admit it. My knowledge of Bong’s filmography is limited. I’ve only seen Parasite and nothing else. Even then, I’m one of the handful of people who weren’t a big fan (more on that). Still, he’s clearly one of the finest filmmakers working today. His skills as a pure storyteller are first-rate. The camera operates with a level of exactness and vision that leaves no frame wasted. Watching a filmmaker who has mastered the art of montage and wields technical craft with such precision is nothing short of exhilarating. A few costumes and sets that are quite creatively conceived, especially when lensed by legendary cinematographer Darius Khondji. This is certainly a difficult task as creating designs essentially from “scratch” poses plenty of creative hurdles. Still, for my taste, the team for Mickey 17 largely played it too safe, opting for designs we’ve become acclimated to in science fiction. The color design is largely muted, filled with ugly grays and greens, likely to resemble the interiors of a prison, but the result ends up uninspired. Especially, when sets like the courtrooms geometrically feel completely unique and populated with popping reds and blues that completely outshine the otherwise drab designs. It doesn’t help that Niflheim is just Antarctica in space. But, this is just a pebble in a quarry as Mickey 17 suffers from some more skeletal issues, so to speak.
Only as good as the villain
While Bong Joon Ho has a mastery of the cinematic medium, often the stories he tells feel far more disjointed in contrast. One of my main gripes with Parasite was that many character moments felt unearned. Many may have celebrated when (spoilers), Ki-taek stabs Mr. Park at the barbecue party following a display of insensitivity, while uncalled for didn’t warrant death. Of course, that scene is emblematic of larger ideas and themes present in the film, but from an emotional perspective, the film never built up enough resentment or anger toward the Park family to warrant those kinds of actions. This same dynamic occurs once more in Mickey 17 to a lesser degree. This time, the antagonists are more clearly defined by the satirical, caricature-esque performances from Ruffalo and Collette. While Parasite kept a familiar tone of black comedy-horror, Mickey 17 oscillates between several genres, warping the intended effect of each character’s presence. In the beginning, Ruffalo’s character Kenneth Marshall is merely set up as a mockery of the right-wing populist leaders that seem to be infecting the global stage at large. However, toward the end, the film tries to pit Ruffalo as the big baddie. But Bong’s inability to instill an adequate amount of hatred for Marshall dulled our feelings toward him. Much like the film’s characters, Mickey 17 itself feels caught between identities, frequently shifting between genres in a way that undermines its larger themes.
Ideas galore
Mickey 17 lacks a cohesive pulse to bring everything it’s trying to explore together. It’s as if Bong was trying to make multiple films and couldn’t decide which parts of the source novel to commit to. So, he made a little bit of everything. As is present in his prior works, the film takes a microscope to the concept of the “expendable” and the lives of those downtrodden by the ruling elite. This time it’s more explicit than in Parasite, dubbing Mickey’s role as such. But this exploration of class dynamics is brief, as the film then transitions into the concept of “the double”, posing philosophical questions about identity in abrusdist, yet provocative fashion. Then on one hand, there’s clearly an element of political satire going on. Finally, it culminates in a plea against colonization and anti-industrialism in the vein of Avatar. This is not to say these aren’t great ideas, nor could they all seemingly work in tandem with one another. But, the film’s construction simply jumps from one thread to another without a proper through line. These sudden shifts become all too clear in the film’s third act. Seemingly in a rush to finish the edit or come to some resolved conclusion, the film leans into an action-filled hurrah meant to rally the audience against the mission to colonize Niflheim, which plays it far too safe. I’m not sure if Bong (who claims to have released his final cut) crumbled under the pressure to deliver a crowd-pleaser. But as with the characters, these shifting tones never quite pulled through for me. It’s the moments where the film embraces its eclecticism that I found most endearing. There are so many strange, yet funny gags like Mickey and Nasha’s various sex positions drawn out on a tablet. Bong needed to wholly embrace the film’s absurdism for all the various plot points to gel into an identifiable story, elevating it into a distinctive space. Unfortunately, this haphazard structure doesn’t just dilute the film’s thematic weight—it also undercuts the performances, which might have shone more in a film with a clearer focus.
Everybody gets a Pattinson!
Robert Pattinson has become one of the darlings of auteur-driven cinema, working with the very best he can. Who would have thought? Here, Pattinson does fine work. Frankly, every cast member does their very best to bring out the most in this film. Pattinson’s natural charm and charisma carry the movie through its meandering moments. There are certainly a few decisions Pattinson and Bong took with the character of Mickey that stuck out as odd. For one, the multiples each have distinct personalities with varied accents, despite being recycled as the same physical person with memories to boot. Of course, this was done so that when Mickey 17 and 18 interact with each other, there’s inherent conflict between the two. Yet, this remains unexplained.
The film’s overambitious struggle to juggle multiple plot points and themes leaves little room for adequate character development. Mickey’s backstory is relatively thin and clichéd, offering little insight into his past, personality, or true motivations beyond his function as a disposable clone. Granted, to make the point of his being an “expendable”, the film could have been more intentional in making Pattinson’s character lamer to disassociate the audience. However, the film craves an emotional connection to Mickey as an individual, without the strong foundation to support it. So the third act, which involves preserving Mickey 17 from total death, fails to justify the high stakes. Mickey’s girlfriend, Nasha, played by Naomi Ackie, is similarly poorly drawn. While very attractive, we also gain little insight into who she is as a person and why her allegiance to the mission changes over time. I’ve already mentioned Collette and Ruffalo, and while their characters never appeared menacing enough to portray convincing villains, they devour the scenery. They’re utterly tantalizing and keep the film’s spirit alive, much like Pattinson does, even if the characterizations fall flat.
Whatever, it’s fun
As I’ve already mentioned, Parasite didn’t work for me on a variety of levels. I’m in the minority here and I’ll embrace that. While the general premise was genuinely prescient, I found the insight to be elemental at best, taken with the utmost self-seriousness. Thankfully, Mickey 17 doesn’t suffer from this. Bong’s latest manages to at least cover some of the world’s preoccupations and raises interesting questions, while maintaining a brisk, entertaining pace. The film’s humor and eccentricity in spurts give the picture undeniable entertainment value. Typically, when films aim so high and end up crumbling under their lofty intentions, it’s an irritating experience. That cannot be said about Mickey 17 despite my constant dogging. There’s good fun to be had. It certainly helps that an elite filmmaker is controlling the visual strings to make the picture sing.
Still, the film’s failure lies at Bong’s feet. His inability to let go of certain portions of the novel inhibited him from finding the story’s core essence. Moreover, the toll of the scale seemed to weigh heavily as the action-filled third act plays it far too conventionally. Had the film fully embraced its weirdness, it might have had the bite needed for a sharp social satire—the kind Bong Joon Ho aimed to deliver. Mickey 17 had the potential to be uber relevant for these confusing times, but any attempt was thwarted by a confused script and edit. Overall, though, Mickey 17 is an entertaining, well-made high-concept science fiction film that’s unique in its signature, but fails to reach the stars it’s so desperately trying to catch.