Mickey 17, directed by cult-classic Bong Joon-ho, joins the ever-expanding dystopian subgenre of “what happens when we make the Earth inhabitable?”
The film, released in the United States on Feb. 25, is an adaptation of the science-fiction novel Mickey7 by Edward Ashton. The story centers around Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson) as he journeys into space, escaping the dismal, degenerate planet Earth. The expedition to the distant planet of Niflheim is the latest of ex-politician Kenneth Marshall’s (Mark Ruffalo) ploys for power and glory. Underneath the shiny front of discovery, the majority of the massive space-shuttle complex’s travelers are miscellaneous adults seeking to escape their messy existences on Earth. In Mickey’s case, this means outrunning the blood-thirsty loan sharks that are out to get him and his friend Timo (Steven Yeun) because of their macaron shop gone wrong.
Timo, for his part, joins the expedition as a shuttle pilot—and secret drug dealer. The daft and antsy Mickey, on the other hand, isn’t so qualified or lucky. Instead, Mickey blindly agrees to join the trip as an “Expendable,” the only position for which he qualifies. Unknowingly, he has agreed to a bottom-of-the-barrel role in which he embarks on dangerous missions to aid space exploration. However, the position has a catch: even though Mickey will inevitably die on the job, each time he does, he will be “reprinted” and brought back to life. As the movie is set in the 2050s, a futuristic, MRI-like machine has been developed to execute this process, leaving the replicated Expendables with minimal memory damage afterward. After a series of deadly accidents, the 17th version of Mickey, dubbed Mickey 17, becomes the main star of the film.
After a four-year trip on the mundane shuttle, the expedition lands on the desolate, icy Niflheim. The frigid planet is uninhabited besides its native, elephant-sized creatures, which look like a cross between a centipede and a wombat. Under the direction of Marshall, the humans prepare to colonize the planet, setting out to exterminate the “Creepers,” named by the ignorant politician’s surface-level scorn. Of course, Mickey 17 plays an instrumental role in the operation, trekking through the icy planet alone and aiding research by exposing himself to deadly radiation.
After being left in a cave by friend-of-the-year Timo, Mickey 17 expects to die (again), as a group of feared Creepers has him outnumbered. However, the Creepers end up helping Mickey to exit the cave, rather than attacking him, proving that they are not the bloodthirsty monsters that the humans anticipated. When Mickey 17 returns to the ship alive, he finds the next version of himself, Mickey 18, has already been printed, as Mickey 17 was presumed dead. A blatant rules violation and fluke in the system, the two Mickeys know that they cannot co-exist: one of them needs to be killed. Understandably, neither of them wants to sacrifice themselves, and the two reluctantly agree to both pose as a singular Mickey.
All around, Mickey 17 brought in an impressive cast, from Ruffalo as the villain to Naomi Ackie as the fierce Nasha Barridge. However, as expected, the portrayal of the Mickeys was one of the most compelling. Pattinson, a former teenage heartthrob who rose to prominence with the Twilight saga, proves that he has expanded his relevance beyond his late aughts rise to fame. Neither version of Mickey is the typical movie hero, yet Pattinson convinces viewers to root for the underdog characters. His role in the film is a somewhat parallel version to that in A24’s space drama, High Life, in which Pattinson starred as criminal-turned-father Monte. In both the 2018 and 2025 movies, he acts as an unconventional hero on the space shuttle. Where High Life is moody and ambiguous, however, Mickey 17 is blunt and meaningful, making Mickey 17 the science-fiction redemption that Pattison deserved.
Mickey 17 is a mix of multiple different genres, making it unique from a cinematographic perspective. However, in trying to capture elements across the genre board, the movie bridges on being too convoluted with underdeveloped ideas. In trying to do it all, the strong points are watered down, making the movie more surface-level than it had the potential to be.
Most fittingly, the movie can be best categorized as a satirical take on science fiction. Virtually every character is witty or exaggeratedly observant, at the very least. This humor takes shape with its blatant social commentary, making for an amused take on a world not dissimilar to our own.
The reflections of current events can be seen most strongly through Marshall. Ruffalo tunes into the immature, power-hungry leader archetype, pulling off one of the best acting jobs of the film. With his tone of voice and mannerisms, Marshall undeniably comes off as a critical take on President Trump. Similarly, Marshall’s wife Ylfa (Toni Collette) bears a resemblance to Melania Trump with her complacent support for her husband’s endeavors. Ylfa helps to establish the couple’s pretentiousness with her obsession on sauces. Supporting the stereotype that a woman’s place is in the kitchen, Ylfa sees the Creepers as being excellent ingredients for her culinary dishes. Specifically, she seeks to cut up their tails for her meals, a harsh contrast with the unappetizing and rationed cafeteria meals of the ship’s masses. Both Marshall and Ylfa see the planet as little more than the resources and glory that they can exploit from it.
The references to the current political climate further expand past the couple, as can be seen with the portrayal of the Creepers. Regardless of whether seen as representing animals or humans, the Creepers symbolize groups that have been exploited by others’ insensitivity and brutality. Even though the creatures don’t speak English, they can still communicate with those willing to listen—people like Mickey. Through this, it’s shown that they aren’t the mindless “Creepers” that Marshall sees them as. In reality, they are capable, intelligent, and do not intend to let the humans take away their home. The contrast between the politician’s ignorance and the creatures’ intelligence clearly makes reference to the many conflicts between groups on Earth, caught in fights between power and rights. Though the creatures don’t have the same weapons as the humans, they still rise up to defend themselves.
While Marshall can be seen as a satirical take on President Trump, he can also be interpreted as some of the leaders outside of the United States. Joon-ho has noted that audiences from virtually every country are projecting their respective leaders onto Ruffalo’s character. Whatever the director’s intentions, the audience response is telling of the current dissatisfaction with leadership worldwide, not just in the Western Hemisphere.
Despite Mickey 17’s jabs at political instability, the film isn’t dark or hopeless. The plot and characters’ irony make for a fun watch, even when evaluating the current state of the world. With my personal opening-weekend viewing, audience members were on the verge of hysterical tears of laughter, a rare feature with recent releases. It was refreshing to see viewers authentically having a good time at the movies. The experience instilled hope that theaters won’t die out, doomed to be replaced by streaming giants like Netflix and Disney+.
However, in contradiction to this pure audience enjoyment I encountered, the movie has been categorized as a box-office failure. The Warner Bros. film was created with a budget of $118 million, and $300 million was spent when taking marketing costs into account. For reference, this places it above both the Marvel Cinematic Universe’s Thunderbolts*’ $280 million budget and Warner Bros.’s Sinners’ $140 million cost. Despite the large expenses, on opening weekend, Mickey 17 grossed approximately $132 million worldwide. While this is higher than many films this year, its earnings place it $68 million of merely breaking even.
In general, public opinion of the film has fallen in the area of “better than average.” It scored a solid 77% on Rotten Tomatoes and had a similar audience score of 73%. While these are generally positive, the ratings are undeniably tainted by the fact that the movie is directed by the legendary Joon-ho. Parasite, the director’s 2019 smash hit, earned all-around raving reviews with a 99% Rotten Tomatoes rating and a 4.5-star rating from viewers on Letterboxd. This isn’t to say that Mickey 17 is a bad movie—it’s not. But, following up Parasite, one of the highest-ranked films of the past decade, it’s inevitable that Mickey 17 will pale in comparison.
Hopefully, Mickey 17’s box office failure won’t discourage movie studios from taking risks with their releases. The movie market—in addition to virtually every media form at the moment—is dominated by replicas and sequels. In marketing off our collective nostalgia, the studios know that they’re guaranteed to make a profit. For example, look at how Disney cranks out live-action remakes of virtually all its animated hits. And, if not a hit, it’s likely that the studio is creating a subpar sequel, as can be seen with Moana 2 and the upcoming Freakier Friday. When nostalgia sells, why would studios bother putting out genuinely creative and original films?
While Mickey 17 is based on a novel, it introduces new ideas to a market that is oversaturated with what we’ve seen done again and again before. Seeing unique storylines like these is refreshing, as risk-taking movies are few and far between. While Mickey 17 wasn’t life-changing, it was different, entertaining, and had impressive acting all around. If looking for a new movie to watch, Mickey 17 undoubtedly provides something out-of-the-box, worth seeing for anyone fed up with the current lack of quality releases.
