Film Name: 編號17 / Mickey 7
This weekend coincided with Women’s Day, and a bunch of new films were released. Since I had already seen two good films, “National Theatre Live: Prima Facie” and “There’s Still Tomorrow,” a few days earlier, I decided to switch things up a bit and went to see the sci-fi film “Mickey 7.”
Well, how to put it… While it did provide some entertainment and food for thought under lowered expectations, the film often felt overly formulaic, predictable, and crude. They say Robert Pattinson plays a cosmic workhorse in the film, but isn’t Bong Joon-ho himself, outside the film, just another carelessly fulfilling his duties within the Hollywood system?
That said, let’s take it one step at a time and start with the strengths of “Mickey 7.”
It’s no wonder that Hollywood is the world’s leading film industry. The scenes and visual effects created with a budget of over a hundred million dollars are truly a feast for the eyes. And they don’t need to show off their technical prowess; they simply present the necessary elements in a natural and seamless manner.
In this seamless environment, the protagonist Mickey’s journey into space and his repeated cycles of death and rebirth feel particularly absurd and entertaining: “Mickey 7” portrays a “terrible” near-future world where Mickey, with no other options, unwittingly signs up to become a disposable human resource. Given the countless dangers in outer space and on unknown planets, he is constantly sent on high-risk or suicide missions and repeatedly used as a guinea pig for experiments.
Calling him a workhorse is already a humanitarian term—this is clearly just human disposable material…
Robert Pattinson also contributes greatly to “Mickey 7,” a collection of dystopian hellish jokes. In the film, he truly portrays a clumsy, useless fool, with a hunched posture and slurred, slow speech that are a far cry from his past roles, making it very interesting.
Unfortunately, the best part of the film ends here.
In my opinion, “Mickey 7” is only worth praising for its first half, which sets the stage and tells the story of Mickey’s journey to his death. The latter half, which begins when Mickey 17 returns to the spaceship and meets Mickey 18, quickly devolves into a bloated, sticky, and over-the-top rhythm. There are too many elements the film tries to cram in and tell, but it often feels forced and rushed, The biting satire that was once present has all been burned to a crisp by the end.
The most glaring example is the villainous couple Kenneth Marshall and Ilfa. Even a blind person can see that the film is having the “Hulk” cosplay as Trump, and the followers of Kenneth on the spaceship are also implied to be Trump’s followers… Satire is fine, and going all out is acceptable, but does such a boring caricature really achieve the desired effect?
In this type of film, the villain largely determines the watchability of the movie. If you want to play it safe, just go all out with the villainous deeds. Playing the fool is a higher-risk, higher-reward path, and to stand out, you often need to balance it with an interesting character or humorous moments. However, “Mickey 7” chose the path of being greedy, foolish, and evil, which is not exactly endearing. This is purely aimed at mocking others. Aside from those who genuinely dislike Trump, few viewers will find it amusing.
Additionally, “Mickey 7” is filled with overtly explicit references, including but not limited to the polarization of capitalism, the face of white supremacy, the bloodshed of colonial actions, and other tired clichés.
To be honest, I don’t mind outdated topics as long as they present new perspectives or thoroughly explore old ones—any theme or premise has value if it does so. But the question is: did “Mickey 7” even try?
Take the potential highlights that the main character Mickey should have had, for example. Topics like the technological fears brought by cloning technology, ethical dilemmas, and the “Ship of Theseus” philosophical debate have been common in science fiction works over the past few decades. You could pick any direction and develop content and perspectives, but the film manages to “say nothing at all.”
“Mickey 7” directly pairs Mickey 17 with a completely different Mickey 18. Mickey 17 is responsible for being cute, unlucky, and kind to others, while Mickey 18 is responsible for being ruthless, decisive, and impulsive. There is no interaction between the two, and they do little to advance the plot. Even the most valuable character growth and sacrifice are completed by Mickey 18 on behalf of Mickey 17…
Such a meaningless, uninteresting design—why even have two Mickeys appear together on screen? Just to see double the tender beef?
Over the years, a certain type of film has become increasingly prevalent (both in Chinese and foreign productions): “ideas take precedence over plot, values outweigh story.” Initially, this approach can be quite appealing—if the values are novel and interesting, they can effectively mask the story’s emptiness. But when the ideas being presented no longer captivate the audience (or when there’s nothing substantial to present in the first place), the awkwardness and boredom of the work can no longer be concealed—”Mickey 7″ is a classic example of this (at least “Snowpiercer” was more entertaining…).
Of course, the now-established Bong Joon-ho doesn’t mind following the formula, and the well-established Hollywood can withstand such treatments. Audiences can naturally choose whether to go through this “process,” as it doesn’t matter either way.
Please specify：Anime Phone Cases » Mickey 7 編號17 2025 Film Review: Even “Space Cattle and Horses” cannot conceal the dullness of the film