If you’re a flickaholic like me, chances are you’ve already caught the buzz around Mickey 17—Bong Joon Ho latest dystopian romp that hit theaters in March 2025. And if you haven’t? Well, buckle up, because I’m here to obsess over every clone, every quip, and every icy frame for both of us. I might be late to the sci-fi party, but if there’s one film this year that demands a deep dive, it’s this wild, polarizing, and potentially game-changing masterpiece. So, to all my fellow frame freaks and plot dissectors, let’s dive in—we’re about to debate whether Mickey 17 is worth the noise, and trust me, it’s going to get messy!
Let’s start with the premise: Mickey 17 follows Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), a “disposable” worker who dies and gets cloned—17 times, to be exact—while colonizing the frozen hellscape of Niflheim. In a sci-fi shell, Robert Pattinson portrays several, increasingly insane incarnations of himself in this scathing critique of capitalism.
First, the good: Robert Pattinson is a revelation. He’s funny, tragic, and downright feral, juggling multiple Mickeys with a chaotic energy that screams Oscar bait. Critics like Jeffrey M. Anderson (Common Sense Media) call it “raucous, wildly entertaining sci-fi comedy,” and I get it—there’s a scene where two Mickeys argue over who gets to die next that had me cackling.The social critique is pretty on point: Mickey’s constant cloning reflects how society tends to exploit and discard workers, which really resonates in today’s gig economy. Over on X, #Mickey17 is all the rage, with fans buzzing about its “career-defining” lead and “original humor” according to IMDb user reviews. But here’s the kicker: not everyone’s on board.
Some critics are savage. Stephen Romei (The Australian) called it “unintended torture", slamming Ruffalo and Collette’s “cheesy” roles, while Kayla Kumari Upadhyaya (Autostraddle) felt its queerness was “dampened” by an uneven script. At 77% on Rotten Tomatoes, it’s divisive—some see a future cult classic, others a bloated mess. The box office agrees: $122 million worldwide is a flop for a film this hyped. So, what’s the deal? Is Mickey 17 a misunderstood gem, or are we just cloning the same old sci-fi tropes?
Here’s my take: it’s messy, but that’s the point. Bong Joon Ho doesn’t play it safe—he never has. Mickey 17 is a middle finger to capitalism, a slapstick tragedy about identity, and a visual feast that dares you to look away. But it’s not perfect. The pacing stumbles, and some characters (sorry, Ruffalo) feel like afterthoughts. Still, I can’t stop thinking about it. It’s the kind of film that sparks debates—about art, society, and what it means to be human when you’re just a copy of a copy.
So, is it worth the noise? Yes, if you’re ready to wrestle with its flaws. No, if you want a tidy blockbuster. Either way, Mickey 17 isn’t here to be loved—it’s here to be argued over. What do you think? Genius or gimmick? Drop your thoughts—I’m ready to debate until the next clone comes along!
View replies 0