Mickey 17 (2025)

“Mickey 17” stars Robert Pattinson, Naomi Ackie, Steven Yeun, Toni Collette, and Mark Ruffalo.  Released on March 7, 2025, the film has a disposable employee sent to colonize an ice-filled planet.

The film is written and directed by Bong Joon-ho, who also directed films such as “Memories of Murder”, “Snowpiercer”, “Okja”, and “Parasite”.  It is based on the 2022 novel Mickey7 by Edward Ashton.  Having a job can have benefits, including getting paid weekly, but it’s not without the possible casualties that come from it.  If you’re not careful, it could be the last job you’ll ever applied.  That may be the case when you register yourself as an “expendable”, mainly the casualty part, but this particular assignment just removed that aspect from the equation…by cloning.  This defines the latest cinematic endeavor from Bong Joon-ho after his Oscar dominance with the black comedy masterpiece “Parasite” back in 2019.  However, unlike “Parasite”, this film takes Bong Joon-ho’s thematic capabilities to the far reaches of space, where one unfortunate employee gets a position that’s to die for, and I don’t mean that in a figurative sense.  With that said, let’s see if this offbeat sci-fi comedy is a job worth applying for.

The story centers on Mickey Barnes (Pattinson), a financially destitute man on the run from a loan shark following a failed business venture.  Unable to pay his debts, Mickey and his childhood friend, Timo (Yeun), decide to sign up as crew members for a spaceship departing Earth to colonize the snow planet Nilfheim.  Mickey is then hired as an “expendable”, a disposable clone worker assigned to take on lethal assignments.  Whenever Mickey dies during a mission, the colony regenerates a new body to repeat the process.  However, one of his clones, “Mickey 17”, is inaccurately presumed dead and prematurely replaced.  After confronting his replacement, Mickey 18, the clones are then faced with execution for breaking the colony’s rule.  This puts the clones face to face with the colony’s oppressive leaders, including the egomaniacal politician Kenneth Marshall (Ruffalo).  

Despite my inexperience with the source material, “Mickey 17” was one of my anticipated films of the year for several reasons, with one being Bong Joon-ho’s involvement.  The director’s thematic and offbeat vision has caught my attention since watching “Snowpiercer” and “Okja”.  However, it was his Best Picture winner “Parasite” that made me more eager to see more of his works, as that film offered a thematically layered and oddly irresistible portrayal of social inequality and wealth disparity.  It even made me check out his other masterpiece, “The Host”, a while back, and it was understandably a unique take on the usual monster horror formula.  When I found that Bong Joon-ho was directing “Mickey 17”, my interest was immediately piqued since he’s known for juggling multilayered social themes with entertainment values.  So, I had high hopes that he would deliver something grand with this seemingly quirky concept, which he did upon viewing it.

While a far cry from the impactful narrative force that was “Parasite”, “Mickey 17” is a delightfully offbeat and visually appealing piece of sci-fi entertainment that offers plenty to say amid its cloning shenanigans.  On paper, the film seems like a traditional science fiction comedy that relies on dark humor involving the protagonist getting killed in multiple ways.  While that may be the case, it instead uses this concept to explore work inequality and the values of life, in which Mickey is treated as a disposable lab rat by the higher-ups, making him question the aspect of death and the values of being an “expendable”.  That is until he confronts a much bigger scenario involving the planet’s wormy inhabitants, forcing him to become more human than a throwaway tool.  

This is part of the social and class themes that made Bong Joon-ho a household name, and it’s unsurprising that these topics are present in “Mickey 17”.  Regarding Bong’s screenplay, though, it didn’t exactly hit all of the notes needed to significantly influence its political and working-class topics.  That includes its less-than-stellar third act and the hit-and-miss developing relationship between the two Mickeys.  Thankfully, that didn’t stop me from admiring the script for favoring its exploration of these subjects while injecting some outlandish fun with its bleak concept.  However, if you’re going into it expecting a collection of grisly yet amusing deaths similar to “The Monkey”, you might be disappointed with the result since they’re mostly done offscreen.  But this is one occasion where a dark comedy involving death can be entertaining without seeing Robert Pattinson get killed off in gruesome ways.  While that could be more fun that way, it’s also concerning that it would undermine the film’s thematic undertones, so I’m happy it stuck with this approach.

In addition to his screenplay, Bong Joon-ho proved once again that he’s the right person for the job regarding his direction.  While his portrayal of the social and class topics is worth recognizing, Bong’s handling of the tonal shifts and long-shot presentation stands out as a thing of cinematic beauty.  Dark comedy can be a tricky sell since it explores some of the mature themes in an amusing yet uncomfortable light, but Bong Joon-ho is one of the filmmakers that made this genre work based on my experience with “Parasite”.  It’s occasionally unnerving, but it also has a specific charm to its dark quirkiness that makes a film an absurdly unhinged experience.  “Mickey 17” happens to fit that criteria, providing some suitable laughs through its charismatic and slapstick appeal.  More importantly, it’s a well-directed and gorgeously shot movie that benefited from Bong’s collaborators: cinematographer Darius Khondji, who worked on “Okja”, and editor Yang Jin-mo, who edited “Okja” and “Parasite”.  I would also commend the visual effects team for portraying the isolated and icy Nilfheim and its native inhabitants, which they dubbed “creepers”, without being an eyesore through its laziness.

Finally, we have the film’s cast, who all did very well keeping up with its tonal shifts through their performances.  However, the one actor that stood out the most was Robert Pattinson in his dual performance as the Mickey clones.  Seriously, is there anything that Pattinson couldn’t accomplish?  I know I have been saying this a lot since he departed from the “Twilight” franchise, but it still bears repeating that Robert Pattinson is another example of masterclass acting.  Instead of being his usual self, Pattinson channeled his vocal range to become two distinct people, the timid yet kind-hearted Mickey 17 and the ruthless Mickey 18.  The result was a dual performance worthy of standing alongside Theo James’ double role in “The Monkey”.  Naomi Ackie and Steven Yeun also delivered decent performances as Nasha Barridge, Mickey’s love interest, and Timo, respectively.  As for Mark Ruffalo, he once again showcased that he’s the best at playing narcissistic assholes regarding his role as Kenneth Marshall, a self-centered, tyrannical politician with secret plans for Nilfheim.  It’s nice to see Ruffalo still making a name for himself outside his MCU role as a green-skinned, rampaging monster. 

Overall, “Mickey 17” is an absurdly entertaining and visually impressive social examination worth dying for.  While it fumbled a bit near the finish line regarding its thematic impact and screenplay, the film is a well-crafted and thematically engaging portrayal of work inequality that emphasizes Bong Joon-ho’s impeccable tonal shifts and cinematic finesse.  Robert Pattinson delivered another incredible performance as the multiple Mickeys and Bong Joon-ho’s direction offered a refreshingly surreal approach to its darkly comical concept through its cinematography, editing, and visual effects.  I still think “Parasite” is better regarding the director’s script and thematic influence, but “Mickey 17” proves that Bong Joon-ho’s presence in the film industry won’t die off anytime soon.  It's worth checking out for those who enjoyed his previous works like “Parasite” and “The Host”, but don’t expect it to be on the same narrative levels as those two films.

B+