Korean director Bong Joon-ho is not afraid to express his critiques on the economics and politics of capitalismt. Widely regarded as one of the top auteurs of the 21st century, thanks to films like “Okja” and “Parasite,” Bong has long challenged the status quo. After nearly six years of anticipation, Warner Bros. finally released Bong’s “Mickey 17” on March 7.
Based on Edward Ashton’s sci-fi novel, “Mickey7,” the film follows the mishaps of Mickey Barnes as he takes on the role of an “expendable” on a space expedition from Earth to colonize an ice planet, Niflheim. As an “expendable,” Mickey takes on dangerous missions for his crew as he can be (and is often) brutally killed and recreated with his memories preserved.
Complications arise when the 17th iteration of Mickey unknowingly survives an encounter with the Niflheimian native “creeper” species, and a duplicate Mickey is printed out. Both Mickey’s must learn to coexist secretly, all the while the ethics of an authoritarian, capitalist politician leading the expedition, threaten the future of Niflheim.
As Bong’s third English-language film, “Mickey 17” is quite daring for a major Hollywood studio film in today’s political climate. Despite production officially beginning and ending in 2022 with some additional filming in January 2023, the film inadvertently alludes to controversial political events within the past year, which may come off more shockingly than intended.
Bong’s films contain a uniquely “genreless” approach that can make them difficult to categorize. Although “Mickey 17” is mostly a wacky comedy, the film often takes sudden dark shifts in mood to express its haunting themes. Because of this unconventionality, the film can be more difficult to approach during a casual viewing.
Unlike films such as “The Brutalist” holding back the punches in favor of being more appealing to audiences, Bong is unafraid to express his frustrations on capitalist societies and the tyrannical leaders of global superpowers. The crazed followers of the main antagonist, Kenneth Marshall, played by Mark Ruffalo, even wear familiar red hats and enthusiastically worship the politician.
Ruffalo’s portrayal of Marshall appears rather reflective of the current president of the United States. Based on “a mix of many different politicians” and “dictators that we have seen throughout history” according to Bong in an interview with Entertainment Weekly, Ruffalo viewed the role under a less broad lens.
Ruffalo’s Trumpian performance, as comical and hilarious as it can be, becomes exhausting to sit through because of how overdone it is in modern media. It’s a disappointing step back after nailing a similarly antagonistic role in 2023’s “Poor Things.” Although, I wonder if Ruffalo’s obnoxious performance as Marshall was intentional on his end to reflect the insufferable attitude he sees in the 47th president. Regardless, I feel as if it strips the film from being as satirically effective as it should’ve been considering how prominent of a role he serves.
On the other end of performances, a key selling point of the film comes from its star, Robert Pattinson, playing the titled character. After a presumed career suicide from the “Twilight” franchise and potential type casting in sparkly vampire characters, Pattinson’s filmography has instead demonstrated his astonishing range as an actor throughout the past decade. Each character he’s played has been completely unrecognizable from one another, and “Mickey 17” is no different.
Mickey and all his variants channel this meek, idiosyncratic voice and personality from Pattinson. Speaking with Empire, Pattinson has cited “Jackass” stars Steve-O and Johnny Knoxville as inspirations for Mickey, as well as drawing from the infamous cartoon “Ren & Stimpy.” As bizarre as these inspirations are, it’s undeniable to see the impressive display of dedication Pattinson has for these role(s).
Despite the fascinating premise, it was disappointing how much of the film is weighed down by an underdeveloped narrative. The film focuses heavily on sociopolitical commentary but lacks a developed story. Many of the film’s characters and subplots feel at times underdeveloped and hollow. It also doesn’t help that the ending isn’t very conclusive or satisfying, which is frustrating considering how politically charged the story was.
With how much material is condensed in an already lengthy 137-minute runtime, certain elements were sure to be traded off for others. Bong has too much to comment on for one film. He is developing too many ideas at once when he could’ve instead done less and produced more effective results. Especially considering how much of the themes raised in this film have already been touched upon in his previous works.
As messy as the film can be, there’s still a lot to love with “Mickey 17.” In an era of a Hollywood industry dominated by sequels, remakes, and IP milked to their grave, it’s refreshing to see a major studio film pump out something more original (even if it was adapted from a preexisting work). “Mickey 17” is absurd, haunting, and a must-watch now more than ever. Just don’t expect anything as tight and precise as Bong’s masterpieces like “Parasite.”
3/5
