Mickey 17 (2025)
March 8, 2025 10:38 AM - Subscribe
Mickey 17, known as an "expendable," goes on a dangerous journey to colonize an ice planet.
I was really excited for this based on the books, but reviews look terrible. I'll still give it a go, but my expectations aren't high.
posted by Literaryhero at 2:15 PM on March 8
posted by Literaryhero at 2:15 PM on March 8
There are some negative reviews out there, for sure, but it's at 79% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, so the response is mostly positive.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:20 PM on March 8 [1 favorite]
posted by DirtyOldTown at 2:20 PM on March 8 [1 favorite]
I'm not familiar with the books, but I really enjoyed the movie. Pattinson was fantastic, and although it was absolutely the most unsubtle performance you could imagine, Ruffalo's performance was fun.
posted by jimw at 4:29 PM on March 8 [1 favorite]
posted by jimw at 4:29 PM on March 8 [1 favorite]
I'm not sure Bong Joon Ho knows the meaning of the word subtle? I mean, neither Parasite nor Snowpiercer are exactly subtle, which is part of the charm, for sure.
posted by Kyol at 10:50 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]
posted by Kyol at 10:50 PM on March 8 [3 favorites]
There are some negative reviews out there, for sure, but it's at 79% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, so the response is mostly positive.
Huh, yeah I noticed that right after I posted my comment. Not sure how I got the impression it was being reviewed poorly.
posted by Literaryhero at 3:56 AM on March 9
Huh, yeah I noticed that right after I posted my comment. Not sure how I got the impression it was being reviewed poorly.
posted by Literaryhero at 3:56 AM on March 9
Not sure how I got the impression it was being reviewed poorly.
It has been getting mixed critical reviews. But I suspect many of the less-positive reviews were expecting something like "Parasite II" and this very-different-in-tone film threw them, so some critics are unimpressed while audiences, who don't care as much about that, are digging it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:29 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]
It has been getting mixed critical reviews. But I suspect many of the less-positive reviews were expecting something like "Parasite II" and this very-different-in-tone film threw them, so some critics are unimpressed while audiences, who don't care as much about that, are digging it.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:29 AM on March 9 [1 favorite]
This was basically fun but if I had it to do again I wouldn’t see it in the theater. It veered a bit into corny for me at times.
posted by ftm at 6:49 AM on March 9
posted by ftm at 6:49 AM on March 9
I agree that the pacing is off, but what threw me the most is that the premise (Mickey is an expendable who can get reprinted when he dies) and the complication (oops, there are two of him now) have almost nothing to do with the climactic conflict (a tyrant wants to genocide the native population). If Mickey weren’t an expendable and just an accident-prone worker drone, you could still tell the same story of Marshall vs. the creepers. And saving baby creeper distracted from the question of whether Mickeys 17 and 18 deserved to live.
I still liked it very much though!
posted by ejs at 11:40 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
I still liked it very much though!
posted by ejs at 11:40 AM on March 10 [2 favorites]
There was something off for me on this, but for the sake of transparency I should say I've felt this about all of Bong Joon Ho's movies except Parasite. The cinematic language doesn't match the tone of the story or something.
Pattinson's voice and Collette's mugging would have been perfect with different shots/editing, but here it almost felt like I was on set watching something that might or might not work out. Like... this deserves the visual and timing approach of Terry Gilliam? Having the story and acting be highly stylized and the cinematography, lighting, editing be more of a straightforward large scale action film was a letdown.
posted by queensissy at 11:42 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Pattinson's voice and Collette's mugging would have been perfect with different shots/editing, but here it almost felt like I was on set watching something that might or might not work out. Like... this deserves the visual and timing approach of Terry Gilliam? Having the story and acting be highly stylized and the cinematography, lighting, editing be more of a straightforward large scale action film was a letdown.
posted by queensissy at 11:42 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
I don't know why I watched it, knowing full well I'm not the target audience for it; I don't like big-budget blockbusters, I don't watch science-fiction/action type movies, I'm not a Robert Pattinson fan. But I've seen 5 of Bong Joon-ho's previous films, so why not.
Well, I soldiered on until the very end but I hated it very much.
posted by growabrain at 11:59 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
Well, I soldiered on until the very end but I hated it very much.
posted by growabrain at 11:59 AM on March 10 [1 favorite]
In terms of plot does this end where the first book does, or does it go into the second (or just do its own thing)?
posted by trig at 4:49 PM on March 10
posted by trig at 4:49 PM on March 10
Flawed but interesting movie. Great performances from Robert Pattinson and Naomi Ackie. Some good visuals: the creepers circling the ship, the shabby Red Dwarf like ship itself. An interesting idea.
But a lot of flaws. The voiceover was clunky. The plot and setup doesn't really hang together. There are a lot of loose ends. The movie could have been made shorter and tighter. The dream sequence was unnecessary. The sauce thing was overdone. You could have established that Mark Ruffalo's character is horrible and that being an Expendable is terrible a lot more efficiently without us having to sit through so much of it.
I suppose the movie is on average an OK movie, but that's made up of the notably good and the bad. Which makes it more interesting than an OK movie where everything about it is average.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:09 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
But a lot of flaws. The voiceover was clunky. The plot and setup doesn't really hang together. There are a lot of loose ends. The movie could have been made shorter and tighter. The dream sequence was unnecessary. The sauce thing was overdone. You could have established that Mark Ruffalo's character is horrible and that being an Expendable is terrible a lot more efficiently without us having to sit through so much of it.
I suppose the movie is on average an OK movie, but that's made up of the notably good and the bad. Which makes it more interesting than an OK movie where everything about it is average.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:09 AM on March 14 [1 favorite]
Apparently there was a lot of reshoots and tinkering. Rumour is that the studio didn't like the first cut and the film was reedited to placate them and make something they could sell.
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:09 AM on March 14
posted by Ashwagandha at 11:09 AM on March 14
I was charmed, but I went in without any expectations except "Robert Patterson is weird" which delivered. The bit at the terminal with windstorms as people trudged up the spiral ramp was evocative.
Plotwise, it makes sense that it comes from a book series because it felt overstuffed. I enjoyed the critters (but had MANY questions about if there were other life forms and what the heck they ate.) I didn't understand where the Resistance people came from or how any of the society actually worked.
posted by emjaybee at 9:02 PM on March 14
Plotwise, it makes sense that it comes from a book series because it felt overstuffed. I enjoyed the critters (but had MANY questions about if there were other life forms and what the heck they ate.) I didn't understand where the Resistance people came from or how any of the society actually worked.
posted by emjaybee at 9:02 PM on March 14
Well this was disappointing. Started ok, trundled ona bit, but went downhill badly and dragged. I think they made the wrong choice with Mickey's character. The book has him as more of a happy-go-lucky, likable schlub while here 17 is an often snivelling moron and 18 is less moronic but with a nasty streak. There is nothing to indicate why he might be likable to us or anyone else in the colony.
The Trump parody is hamfisted and without any actual jokes. Toni Collette is wasted and her sauce obsession is unfunny while adding nothing. Steven Yeun's character is so underwritten and underfeatured its a wonder they left him in at all. Did the loan shark's agent turning up add anything? Clearly not..
The last third goes on forever and the drawn out plot resolution is clunky and didn't seem to make any sense. Where was the nerve gas if it wasn't strapped to each of the Mickey's? Where did it go when Mickey 18 exploded?
Disappointing.
posted by biffa at 4:00 PM on March 21
The Trump parody is hamfisted and without any actual jokes. Toni Collette is wasted and her sauce obsession is unfunny while adding nothing. Steven Yeun's character is so underwritten and underfeatured its a wonder they left him in at all. Did the loan shark's agent turning up add anything? Clearly not..
The last third goes on forever and the drawn out plot resolution is clunky and didn't seem to make any sense. Where was the nerve gas if it wasn't strapped to each of the Mickey's? Where did it go when Mickey 18 exploded?
Disappointing.
posted by biffa at 4:00 PM on March 21
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by kokaku at 10:39 AM on March 8 [4 favorites]