So much quality here, so why does it leave such an empty impression?

In the distant future, people want off Earth. Mickey is wanting freedom as well, for reasons, and enlists as an Expendable. He didn’t read the fine print, though, and finds himself as a human canary; experimented on until death in the depths of space.

Directed by Bong Joon Ho, who media is quick to remind us directed the award-winning Parasite. But he also wrote/directed other incredible movies recently, in fact it is quite a list. Okja, Snowpiercer, and The Host (2006). Starring an emaciated Robert Pattinson, Steven Yeun, Mark Ruffalo, and Toni Collette, Mickey 17 promised to be a riotous mix of eastern and western practices in a sci-fi setting.

Mickey 17 is an alluring premise. Someone trapped in a nihilistic loop of servitude, crushed under the weight of employment, with the sci-fi setting and comedy of clones. There’s a lot to look forward to.

It is a shame then that it doesn’t stick the landing. This is Bong Joon Ho’s first movie working with American studios (Warner Brothers) and I am sure development problems and clashing opinions did no damage at all…

That isn’t to say there isn’t a lot of quality here. The film looks fantastic. For a science fiction genre film, the production value is extremely high. There’s a real lived-in atmosphere of the sets; everything is extremely utilitarian in appearance, which goes hand-in-hand with the storyline. Designs look functional and weighty, physical and kinetic. Interiors look like dirty submarine interiors.
Robert Pattinson is excellent and disappears into this meek persona he has crafted. Especially when he gets to play himself twice. It is probably an actor’s dream to play multiple versions of the same character.

Because, as the plot develops, Mickey 17 is presumed dead, and the grim future shown here means another Mickey is “printed” to replace him. Hence “17”; he is the seventeenth recreated Mickey. But when Mickey returns to the ship and finds another Mickey, his life menial life becomes chaotic. Not even mentioning the political firestorm brewing over his job’s existence, or the new alien life found on the planet he is exploring!

It is a quirky, goofy movie. But it never really made me laugh. Maybe a couple of lines here and there, but the overall effect left me questioning why things were happening the way they did. Mostly, the strange chance of two beautiful women falling for the bumbling, awkward, closed-off personality of Mickey. Nasha (Naomi Ackie) and Kai (Anamaria Vartolomei) are both besotted with him for… reasons? Perhaps purely for his “Expendable” job’s unique traits. But as we see, each Mickey is emotionally different? It all seemed like melodrama and sex for the sake of it.
Then there is Ruffalo and Collette’s characters. Bellowing, orange, oafish leaders who can’t see beyond the tip of their nose. Sounds familiar? Ruffalo’s Kenneth Marshall is one line away from saying things are “bigly”, or that he “has the best words.” While Mickey 17 is a book adaptation, one wonders if this character’s inspiration came from a recent Presidency. Certainly, an intense speech from Ackie’s Nasha in the third act gives the film sudden political messaging.
Not to say this doesn’t have its place. But the current political climate upon Mickey 17‘s release did not help. I wanted to escape that sort of thing, not find more of it.

Running well over two hours, one can’t help but feel Mickey 17 could have been a neat little package. A violent sci-fi screwball comedy, somewhere between The Fifth Element and Edge of Tomorrow. But it mostly labours under its own ideas.

Additional Marshmallows: Honestly, no trailer for you. The trailer gives so so much away that it is probably detrimental.