Mickey 17

It starts well, some dark humor. Made me laugh quite often during the first half. The problem from the beginning is Mark Ruffalo. While most other characters act like real people with measured slapstick elements. Mark Ruffalos performance which purposely mocks Elon and Trump as kind of a merged version of both, goes way over and beyond into an insufferable disgusting cartoonish figure. He tries so hard to portrait a terrible Trump version that the show looses all the subtle fun. Moreover the last third of the movie turns into lame political satire. If you want to watch it my recommendation would be leave when Mark 17 gets invited to dine with the boss (Mark Ruffalo), from there on its a waste of time. It is sad that Hollywood so desperately tries to shame everyone around Trump that they are willing to ruin an otherwise fun movie experience.

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.

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.

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.