REVIEW: Mickey 17

Science fiction meets satire in an explosive way in “Mickey 17” — but there is simultaneously too much and not enough of either.

Set in 2054, main character Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson, “The Batman”) signs up to be an Expendable on the newest space colony expedition to Niflheim after receiving death threats from a loan shark following a failed macaron business venture with his best friend, Timo (Steven Yuen, “Beef”). However, he soon realizes that not reading the paperwork thoroughly was a mistake. As an Expendable, Mickey is sent to do the most dangerous jobs and used as a human guinea pig for the research team onboard. Every time he dies, his memory is simply reuploaded into a newly reprinted version of his body. Meanwhile, failed politician Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo, “The Avengers”) commands the future colony full of his red-hat-wearing fans with a camera crew in tow, undeserved bravado, and promises of one day reproducing to make a “pure race.”

Once they reach the famed planet, however, native creatures they name “creepers” become a barrier to breaking ground. During an exploratory mission, Mickey miraculously survives a terrible fall. But by the time he makes it back to the ship, another Mickey has already been reprinted; and with “multiples” strictly forbidden under penalty of death, the angrier Mickey 18 and a milder Mickey 17 must keep their existence under wraps.

“Mickey 17” is director Bong Joon Ho’s most recent project after his award-winning film “Parasite.” Bong’s newest film is an amalgamation of genres: satire, horror, science fiction, and comedy, with a few touchingly romantic moments. From start to finish, the film is defined by absurdism. Mickey’s failed business, which was based around misunderstanding that “macarons are the new hamburgers,” sets the tone for a protagonist who has stumbled into something far beyond his understanding.

Ruffalo’s character, while officially inspired by an amalgamation of different tyrannical rulers, reads (at least to the audience at the showing I attended) as a parody of Donald Trump. His reality show-style governance, blonde wife, and red-hat-wearing followers make the connection undeniable. While this satire is amusing at first, its relentless intensity becomes exhausting over the two-hour runtime, growing more repetitive than revelatory.

Pattinson, on the other hand, carries the film with an engaging performance that oscillates between bewildered desperation and deadpan humor. His portrayal of both Mickey 17 and Mickey 18 gives each iteration of his character a distinct edge, subtly differentiating their personalities with their motivations, mannerisms, and even accents. However, the film never quite allows him to fully explore the psychological implications of multiplicity, treating the idea of splitting consciousness as more of a plot device than a deep thematic concern.

Despite its many strengths, “Mickey 17” ultimately feels unfocused. Is it a commentary on environmental protectionism? A philosophical exploration into the implications of dividing consciousness? Or an elaborate vessel for scathing critique of right-wing politics? It might be all of these things, but none stand out as the film’s central thesis.

The concept of the Expendables had the potential to be something profound, but instead, the film brushes past it in a brief flashback explanation about why reprinting technology is only allowed on Earth. This missed opportunity leaves “Mickey 17” feeling like a film bursting with ideas yet unwilling to fully commit to any of them. While entertaining, it leaves the audience wondering: What was the ultimate point?

REVIEW: THE BATMAN

The Batman, 2022 / Spoiler Alert!

 

If we look at the evolution of superhero movies decades later, I think it will be a pretty interesting anthropology resource. All superheroes symbolize justice but the social norm of justice changes over time. This happened in the new batman as well.

New society, new villains. The villains in this movie do not work on personal, fictional motivation like pride or psycopathy. Instead, in this movie, they are the ones who were harmed systematically. The villain is not lone genius anymore – they are people who urge others to turn to violence with them to break down the society, and the most vicious crisis was aroused when they worked as a group. This resembles the spread of hatred on the internet and violent crimes happening in consequence of those messages. The metaphor to the modern society was quite clear – the riddled even blatantly talked like a  youtube or user of another Social Media platform, thanking the viewers for their support. I was almost expecting a ‘please like and subscribe…’.

The classic hero changed with the society to address the new messages aginst the evil as well. Bruce Wayne, if I remember correctly from prior films, was torn between his identity as a billionaire and the mysterious superhero and the dilemma of the personal judgment of justice was his main worry. For this new Batman, however, whether it’s known who’s under the bat-mask is not such an existential problem. This batman seems to be more careless about it (he got almost unmasked by a curious policeman after he was unconscious due to a bomb explosion) and the Riddler even says that who’s under the mask “does not matter”. If the former batman hides deeper inside himself to solve his doubts, this one comes out. The scene where batman leads the civilian out of the water with the red light and help carry wounded citizens clearly showed that this batman demonstrates a new notion of peace-not one that is magically achieved by a lone superhero, but one that is led by a superhero symbol but that can be achieved together. This batmans stands with the people, and that reminded me of the appeal in the society to unite together to fight the wrong. Batman with the mysteriousness reduced, interacting with the people was a new change. Almost like a friendly neighborhood… No, that’s another guy.

This movie is dark-literally. It had a lot of rain in the scenes and ones that minimal light is used. This led to many visually highly satisfying scenes-my favorite was the one where the screen was all dark and the movement of the characters was illuminated only with the fire from the end of the gun. Also, I saw the rain as more than the weather- with the final crisis being the flood, water could mean the danger to the city, and the rain could represent that the city was in danger. In all, highly recommend this movie. Go check it out!

REVIEW: The Lighthouse

A24’s newest film follows two lighthouse keepers in 1890s New England. Director Robert Eggers chose to shoot with vintage cameras and a constricted aspect ratio, all in black and white. To further enhance the setting, Eggers took great care to ensure all of the dialogue was period-accurate. As a result, the audience truly feels like they are on the island with the two characters. The Lighthouse is unique in the sense that it is more about the viewing experience rather than its technical elements.

That being said, while the film successfully brought the audience into the story, it was almost too successful. As the film progresses, the characters spiral more and more into madness, and it is easy to feel lost and overwhelmed. The film feels stagnant while Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe spout pure lunacy at each other and envision inexplicable and disturbing images. It is clear that the characters are developing more and more towards insanity, but it feels like the story is not progressing at all.

The issue with the pacing and plot development largely arises from the fact that the film is very predictable. Dafoe’s character often speaks in cryptic superstitions and warnings that are actually not at all cryptic, instead laying out what will happen in the film. The viewer knows exactly in what direction the story will progress, but it takes the film a while to build up to the climax. The viewer is left feeling restless and impatient, and the just-under-two-hour runtime feels much, much longer.

Simply put, watching The Lighthouse is exhausting. I personally would rather be exhausted by a film because I was emotionally invested in it rather than because I was also being driven towards hysteria. Still, it is very impressive that Robert Eggers was able to craft such an engaging and enthralling experience. Both Dafoe and Pattinson give masterful performances as well, as Dafoe expertly weaves comedy with authority and intensity. He starts at 100%, and ends at 100%. On the other hand, Pattinson starts with a more subtle performance, one that hints at an edge to his character. It is how he is able to underplay what is deep inside his character that makes the moment when his character snaps so enrapturing.

Ultimately, The Lighthouse is not for everyone, but I would still recommend seeing it. It is a very unique kind of experience, and it would be a shame to miss out on it.

PREVIEW: The Lighthouse

A24’s newest film, The Lighthouse, stars Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson as two lighthouse keepers in the 1890s. The film follows their descent into madness after a storm strands the two on an isolated, mysterious island. The film has received critical acclaim, particularly towards both performances by Dafoe and Pattinson, the black-and-white cinematography, and the direction by Robert Eggers.

I have been looking forward to this film ever since the first trailer dropped. I am already aware of Dafoe’s range as an actor, having seen him in both Spider-Man and A24’s The Florida Project. But, this will be the first time I have Pattinson in anything besides Harry Potter and Twilight, and I am interested in seeing how he will showcase his own range.

Eggers’s directorial debut, the Witch, is available to stream on Netflix.