Mickey 17 Review: Is the latest sci-fi worth watching?
Robin Bhuyan
The acclaimed Bong Joon-ho, (who won the Oscar for Parasite five years back) is back with Mickey 17 a sci-fi film based on Edward Ashton’s novel of the same name. With Robert Pattinson in the lead role, the film follows the story of Mickey, a human “Expendable” on a mission to help in the colonization an icy exoplanet. Every time he dies, a new clone of him is printed, carrying on the work while retaining memories of his past lives. With a strong cast including Steven Yeun, Naomi Ackie, Toni Collette, and Mark Ruffalo, Mickey 17 seemed to be a promising thought-provoking film exploring identity, mortality, and colonialism.
Released in March 2025, the film promised a unique sci-fi experience, blending Joon-ho’s signature style with high-concept storytelling. However, what we got instead was an overly, boring film that drags its feet through predictable themes and wasted potential. Considering its budget and casting, the film did have a lot of potential, but sadly it turns into a painfully tedious watch, especially in the first half. If you ever wanted to see a movie where things just happen with little emotional engagement, then Mickey 17 is the movie for you!
A Pacing Disaster With Forgettable Characters
To say Mickey 17 is slow would be an understatement. It takes “deliberate slow pacing” to a whole new level— where it might leave you checking your watch every 3 minutes. The first half of the film drags endlessly, offering little reason to care about the events unfolding. What’s worse is that the characters are terribly written. Mickey (Robert Pattinson) is supposed to be our protagonist, yet you never really feel a connection with him—or anyone else, for that matter. The supporting cast exists, but that’s about it. There’s no emotional weight, no real chemistry, just people moving from one scene to the next because, well, the script says so.
Colonialism, But Make It Cartoonish
The movie does tackle colonialism—at least in theory. But rather than offering a serious discussion, it delivers an embarrassingly simplistic take. The villains, who is supposed to be representative of political figures, actually feel like a lazy caricature of Trump and similar leaders. Subtlety? Zero. The film paints everything in black and white—corporate overlords bad, colonized beings good—without exploring any deeper complexities. We’ve seen this done before (Avatar), and frankly, though predictable, Avatar did it done better.
Wasted Potential with Cloning
Now, let’s talk about one of the so-called “core concept” of the movie: cloning. The idea of a human “Expendable” who can be printed back to life repeatedly had so much potential. If your film feels like an extended Black Mirror episode, it should be as interesting than the show at least, right? This could have led to deep existential dilemmas, thrilling psychological tension, or at least something compelling. Instead, the film barely scratches the surface, reducing what could have been a fascinating element to just another plot device. The idea is there, but the execution? About as lifeless as Mickey’s corpses.
Verdict: Stay at home and rewatch Black Mirror
In the end, Mickey 17 is a frustrating experience. It had an interesting premise and a talented director, but the result is a tedious, uninspired sci-fi slog. It feels like an overextended Black Mirror episode—except even Black Mirror knows when to cut things short. If you enjoy watching a film where things just happen without impact, where villains twirl their metaphorical mustaches, and where great sci-fi ideas go to die, then maybe—just maybe—this is for you. Otherwise, save yourself the time and maybe rewatch Black Mirror, Moon or The Prestige instead.
Rating: 3 out of 10 stars
Keep following Enigmatic Horizon if you liked our Mickey 17 review and would love more of such reviews and analyses.
