Having a new Bong Joon Ho hitting theaters this weekend should be seen as a movie event in this neck of the woods, even with early numbers indicating a lack of enthusiasm; it stands to lose a lot of money — the budget might have been as high as $150M.
Bong, with critically-acclaimed films such as “Parasite,”“Snowpiercer,” “Mother”, “The Host” and “Memories of Murder,” is one of the most unique, interesting and unpredictable genre blenders in cinema. Particularly in his Korean films, Bong’s strong sense of visual and narrative control is second to none.
So, it’s not any fun for me to say this, but having now seen “Mickey 17,” it might just be the worst film of Bong’s career. It's not a bad film, since I don’t believe he’s ever made one, and the first act of “Mickey 17” is very good, but it turns into a very messy film with a rambling narrative that’s all over the place.
‘Mickey’ currently has a 72 on Metacritic and 79 on Rotten Tomatoes. I fear many critics are giving Bong a free pass on this one. For all its gonzo vision, the film meanders, and feels stitched up with incompatible parts. It’s also not as funny as it thinks it is — zingers get delivered left and right but not many land.
Robert Pattinson fully commits to his physical role as the expendable Mickey, a mild-mannered fool who doesn’t mind repeatedly dying in the name of science. Mark Ruffalo is off-key as the Trumpian politician — he repeats the same pitch and tone as with his “Poor Things” character.
I will say that the monochromatic, and noir-ish looking frames concocted by DP Darius Khondji are gorgeous to look at. Bong has never made an ugly looking movie. The shots in ‘Mickey 17’ are carefully composed and imbued with grandeur and intimacy — I was reminded of early Terry Gilliam.
I’m sure many of our readers have now seen “Mickey 17.” What did you think? Audiences seem more divided than critics; B on CinemaScore, and 71% user score on Rotten Tomatoes. I’m in agreement with them, despite a strong first hour, the film just doesn’t work as a whole.