What if “Princess Mononoke” and “Starship Troopers” were a slightly raunchy and overly optimistic space flick with the plot of a “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episode? That is the simplest way to set up South Korean filmmaker Bong Joon Ho’s long-awaited science fiction film “Mickey 17.” It is a fun film that, due to its creative choices and unfortunate delays in production, reflects a political and cultural time in our country that has shifted far outside the Overton window. Nonetheless, it is a well-made, fun movie that, above all else, explores its unique sci-fi concepts of cloning and rebirth to a somewhat satisfying extent.
The film follows Mickey Barnes, played by Robert Pattinson, a kindhearted but pathetic man. In an attempt to escape a dangerous loan shark, Mickey flees Earth on a spaceship expedition led by the cruel and highly eccentric politician Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo) with his friend Timo (Steven Yeun). Mickey signs up to be an “expendable,” meaning he repeatedly dies for purposes such as exploring a new area or finding a vaccine to cure a disease. He is then promptly cloned back out through an advanced printer and has his memories, stored humorously in a literal brick hard drive, downloaded back into his new body. This concept alone, especially with how masterfully it is shown with nothing left to the imagination, makes the sci-fi elements of “Mickey 17” some of the best and most imaginative to hit the theaters since certain elements in “Dune: Part 2.” Mickey’s expendability is a key aspect of the spaceship’s journey toward the planned colony planet of Niflheim, yet he is still treated fairly poorly, creating an interesting dichotomy. Once on Niflheim, Mickey and the humans discover the local aliens, dubbed “Creepers,” and chaos over how to settle the planet begins. This becomes even more complicated when the 17th clone of Mickey is presumed dead on an expedition, but actually survived and returns to find that, having assumed him dead, the spaceship had printed out an 18th version.
The other major positive aspect of the film is the great acting and near-flawless casting. Mark Ruffalo is electric and cartoonishly evil as the pretty blatantly Donald Trump-inspired Kenneth Marshall. A great supporting performance comes from Toni Collette as Yifa, Kenneth’s sauce-obsessed wife. Steven Yeun gives a solid performance as Mickey’s scheming and somewhat morally devoid friend Timo, but the standout performances come from the two main characters. Pattinson as Mickey and his lover Nasha Berridge (Naomi Achkie) is the reason you should see this film. The cloning and intergalactic colonialism—especially with the humorously dark tone of the film—could not have been achieved without Pattinson’s phenomenal acting. He truly assumes the character of Mickey, from awkward mannerisms, such as bad posture, to his squeaky voice. But that is only his acting as the 17th clone of Mickey; he takes on an entirely different performance as the 18th clone, seamlessly switching to a tough, headstrong version of the same character. Ackie as the spunky and warm Nasha brings a sense of levity and safety when on screen, which is ideal considering she is the only one who sees anything in her lover, the expendable Mickey.
The major flaw of “Mickey 17” is not in the plot or performances, but rather that it was released too late. The main thesis of the film, centered around the incredibly Make America Great Again-inspired failed populist politician Kenneth Marshall, is that steady bureaucracy and common sense will always prevail and deliver justice against the hateful and ignorant. “Mickey 17” was originally meant to be released between 2021 and 2023. In 2025, the film feels like a cruel joke. The final scenes, in which the hateful agenda of Marshall is brought down by the sensible political actors around him, who all decide that the greater good is above political rhetoric, seem like a relic from a far-gone greater political scene in America.
These scenes accentuate another consequence of the repeated delays the film went through—“Mickey 17” becomes a mess pretty quickly. There are three major plot points in the movie: Mickey and his cloning, Marshall and his political agenda and the aliens of Niflheim. Each of these threads are present in the film but fail to interlock until they crash at the very end, creating a jumbled finale in which all of these points are resolved. The ending feels very happy, yet unearned. There is a dream sequence jammed into the very last scene of the film, which proves the plot’s lack of organization by the end. Though the main plot points do intersect, it often feels like they are running into each other in a hallway Scooby-Doo style. Mickey’s cloning side of the plot becomes intertwined with the alien plot, yet there is no meaningful relationship between the ethical questions of cloning and the aliens, let alone any other plot point in the movie. Both Mickey and the aliens are seen as collateral and without life due to their statuses as labeled by people like Marshall, yet the film completely ignores this clear connection. This is the greatest letdown of the film, in my opinion: It tries to do too much and forgoes possible deeper plot threads that would explore what it means for Mickey to be an “expendable.” Especially after Ho’s box-office success with the class-driven “Parasite,” it is shocking that this theme is merely hinted at in “Mickey 17.” There are only a few mentions throughout the film that Mickey’s status as, quite literally, an expendable worker could be indicative of something greater in our own society.
While a bit of a mess at times due to poor pacing and outdated themes, “Mickey 17” is charming and does excite the audience with its exploration of cloning and its great performances. Even with the development hell, the film comes out on top with a fun sci-fi premise and leaves a nice feeling in viewers before they leave the theater and are reminded of how our world has changed since it was written. Nevertheless, the end product is a fun watch. I encourage anybody who wants a fun romp through space and maybe an optimistic view on human nature in our crazy times to check out the film. Just do not be surprised if you leave the theater reminding yourself it is 2025, not 2022.