I’ve always proclaimed that I am not an avid sci-fi fan, but occasionally one manages to pique my interest. Bong Joon Ho’s follow up to the academy-award winning Parasite (2019) definitely piqued my interest upon seeing its wacky trailer. Mickey 17 (2025) is an epitomical dark comedy starring Robert Pattinson in his first live-action film role since The Batman (2022). The film follows the life of Mickey Barnes (Pattinson) in his role as an ‘Expendable’ aboard a space mission to the planet Niflheim. As an ‘Expendable’ Mickey’s role is to die. And to die again and again, being reprinted with all his memories intact after each death. Seventeen versions of Mickey are reprinted until the foreseen happens, and two Mickey’s are alive at once. What follows is a long game of secrecy followed by (as in most sci-fi films) a sacrifice of one individual for the good of an entire species and a happy ending. But does this film live up to the expectations Bong Joon Ho established with Parasite? Or does it crumble under the pressure?

“[Robert] Pattinson renders [Mark] Ruffalo’s acting style amateurish”

One standout feature of this film is its star – Robert Pattinson. He delivers both a physical and audible punch in the role, his deadpan narration and internal monologue offsetting the ludicrous Mark Ruffalo’s performance as the incompetent tyrant Kenneth Marshall. If Ruffalo’s performance borders on pantomimic, Pattinson’s does the opposite, conveying readable emotion with great subtlety. One scene consists of a dinner between Marshall, Mickey, Marshall’s wife Ylfa (Toni Collette), and fellow passenger Kai (Anamaria Vartolomei). Up to this point in the film, an excuse can be made that Ruffalo’s performance is akin to the character, but when acting alongside Collette whose character is just as extravagantly unlikeable, his shortcomings are hoisted upon a self-detrimental pedestal. In this specific scene, Pattinson masters the act of performing writhing pain when Mickey 17 is poisoned by the food he was devouring. From the involuntary twitching of the body and the screams of agony overwhelming the microphones, Pattinson renders Ruffalo’s acting style amateurish.

When you have a film with two contrasting actors and acting styles, the plot must equilibrise the obvious disconnect within its casting. Whilst the premise of this film is intriguing, and well established in the first 60 minutes of its run time, it loses its appeal during the elongated ending. This film is based on the 2022 novel by Edward Ashton, Mickey7, and therefore Bong Joon Ho was working with established material; this did not stop him from adding his own auteurship to the story, straying away from its source material. The endings vastly differ, and perhaps this is what transformed this film from a philosophically provoking thought experiment, to an unbelievably resolved comedy. In the book, Marshall and Mickey both survive, Mickey quits his job as an ‘Expendable’, and no social change within this world occurs.

“This is a film made to please and entertain its audience, not to question societal morality”

In the film, Mickey 18 sacrifices himself and kills Marshall in the process, leaving Mickey 17 to exist alone and to abolish the Expendable programme. Everything seems to be resolved and tied up in a neat little bow, with a glimmer of hope for a better future – in traditional Bong Joon Ho fashion. However, for such a morally provoking premise, having everything end in happiness with the ‘bad guys’ defeated makes the novel’s one chance at being adapted for the big screen seem wasted. This is a film made to please and entertain its audience, not to question societal morality.

So, does this film live up to Parasite’s expectations, or does it suffer from the follow-up film curse? This film is currently fighting at the box office, grossing $121 million worldwide so far, only just making profit off its $118 million budget. Is this a candidate for next year’s Oscars? I do not think so, and even if it gets nominated, the chances of it sweeping the competitive floor like Parasite did are very slim. Pattinson could be a good competitor for best actor, but the year is still young, and due to the film’s lack of recognition, it may struggle to find its feet in the award circuit.

That’s not to say this is not an enjoyable film. If you’re searching for a sci-fi black comedy to watch over the Easter holidays, then look no further. But be warned that the film is 30 minutes too long, and should be taken at face value; it’s a film to be enjoyed, but perhaps not ideologically analyzed, despite the calls its premise elicits for such a filmic reading.

Want to share your thoughts on this article? Send us a letter to letters@varsity.co.uk or by using this form