Rightfully riding off the coattails of directing 2019’s Best Picture-winning dark comedy “Parasite,” Bong Joon Ho has been at the epicenter of cinema as one of its greatest directors working today. After the global phenomenon that came during the worldwide acclaim of the film, fans have been salivating to find out if the director can live up to the insurmountable expectations set by his previous work.
In what is undoubtedly a tumultuous and divisive political climate today, Bong Joon Ho returned to cinemas with lofty ambitions and eerily relevant social commentary for audiences to reflect on. His highly anticipated genre-bending political sci-fi comedy “Mickey 17,” was released on March 7.
Set in 2054, the dystopian film follows Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson) seeking to escape the debt he owes to a group of loan sharks on Earth by applying as an “expendable.” He joins failed politician Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo) and his group of followers on a space expedition to colonize other habitable planets. Mickey’s obligation as an “expendable” requires him to be genetically reprinted upon death after enacting various hazardous tasks that benefit the expedition’s colonization efforts toward the already occupied planet of Niflheim. Complications arise when multiple printed Mickeys existing at once begin to threaten Marshall’s ideological control of his followers.
As masterfully demonstrated throughout Bong’s filmography, the director has a knack for allowing his films to feel genre-less, and “Mickey 17” is no different. He weaves various aspects of action, adventure, romance, comedy, sci-fi and drama all into one. However, the tonal shifts within “Mickey 17” do not illustrate the same seamless flow of genres in films such as those within “Parasite.” This disappointingly prompts the audience to feel confused during many emotional and vital scenes, creating an incohesive viewing experience.
The film’s most undeniable quality is Robert Pattinson’s stellar performance in the dual roles of Mickey 17 and his Mickey 18 counterpart — which seems to be expected by audiences at this point in his career.
Pattinson continues to push the limits of his capabilities by not only putting in twice the acting effort needed to make both versions of Mickey distinct from each other, but also through his character’s unique accent that blends the voices of Steve Buscemi and Steve-O from “Jackass.” It’s an abrasive accent that viewers will either learn to love after getting used to or despise entirely if the adjustment period never comes around.
Mark Ruffalo’s performance as Kenneth Marshall will surely stir moviegoers. Marshall acted as a comedic yet horrific mirror of contemporary real-life politicians. Ruffalo embodies the personal sensibilities and exploitative conservative ideals of both President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
Although Marshall can imitate various other historical political figures, it is too glaring to ignore Bong Joon Ho’s emphasis on the character’s symbolism. Marshall’s character ultimately reflects fascism, unequal class division, religious manipulation for control, end-stage capitalism, exploitative labor practices and sci-fi fantasies, and this was sold to the masses throughout “Mickey 17.”
These concepts, interspersed throughout Bong Joon Ho’s film, convolute and dilute the film’s political analysis from becoming as Earth-shattering as it is believed to be.
Other ideas are sprinkled in, such as environmentalism and settler colonialism, which can be appreciated. However, they are treated more as throw-ins rather than fully developed themes compared to the film’s focus on the dehumanization of the poor and working class and the corrupt politicians who do not serve the best interests of their constituents. This begs the question of why these ideas are in the movie if they are not explored in a manner that does them justice.
As relevant as “Mickey 17” is to contemporary issues, the movie’s redundancy of themes can not be shaken off after the credits roll off the screen. Perhaps audiences are beginning to feel that films centered around thought-provoking social commentary about systemic corruption, designed to “wake up” audiences, are getting old.
Within the last four years, many people have already felt that the world is entering a dystopian reality, and they recognize the themes that Bong Joon Ho seeks to unravel in “Mickey 17” without watching the film.
Instead of making films that analyze and critique the systemic flaws of contemporary society, filmmakers such as Bong Joon Ho should begin to curate films that seek to influence a new system of living that can be lived beyond the lens of their camera.
Verdict: “Mickey 17” is a good — but not great — entry into Bong Joon Ho’s filmography. Despite its commentary on relevant humanitarian and political issues, the film’s overambitious scope diminishes its impact. The film presents its message in broad strokes, which is particularly undesirable for viewers.
