‘Mickey 17’ Review: Essential Sci-Fi or Expendable Mess?

It’s been quite a few years since Parasite swept the Oscars, but director Bong Joon-ho is finally back, with a return to his genre roots. Based on the novel Mickey7, Mickey 17 is a comedic science fiction story set in a near-future in which humans have begun to explore and colonize other planets. Escaping financial difficulties on Earth, the hapless Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson) signs up for one such expedition as an “expendable”—a job that involves dying for the cause only to be re-printed as a clone with the same memories over and over—selling not just his time and labour but his literal life and body. This is the endpoint of capitalism: human life made expendable for colonization and profit. The body under capitalism is no longer your own—it’s the property of the corporation, to be consumed over and over. And the corporation is not just the corporation, but also church, state, and military all rolled into one. If the anti-capitalist bent sounds a little heavy-handed, that’s because it is. That’s kinda Bong’s whole thing, but the sledgehammer is particularly unsubtle in Mickey 17. For instance, while Mark Ruffalo isn’t quite doing a straight-up Trump impersonation, it’s close enough (his character’s fanatical followers all wear red hats, for one). He walks that line very well, though, giving a performance that just about reaches the same level of fun he was having in Poor Things, his unhinged energy matched perfectly by Toni Collette, who plays his sauce-obsessed trophy wife. In general, this is a much more comedic and over-the-top movie than Parasite. While some of the goofiness and quirk probably won’t work for everyone, it is an utterly unique movie nonetheless. There are quite a few laughs to be had here, even if the crowd I saw it with felt a bit muted. I can see the experience really being elevated by a good crowd. That’s not to say I didn’t have fun, because I did. It’s hard not to get a kick out of Robert Pattinson’s excellent chemistry with Robert Pattinson. He is, by far, the best part of this movie, giving a fantastic performance as Mickey in all his iterations. He’s one of the most compelling working actors we’ve got, and the physicality and voice work he does here is some of the best he’s done yet (with an assist from the excellent VFX and body double work that went into cloning him on screen). If nothing else, the movie is worth seeing for Pattinson alone. But there is a lot more to this film than that central performance, for better and worse. The movie has some interesting world-building and raises a lot of very meaty philosophical questions, but where it falls short is in actually diving deeper into its themes and resolving all of its many threads. There are subplots and side characters that don’t really go anywhere very satisfying, and the pacing feels somewhat off. While not the most egregiously paced film I’ve seen, I could definitely feel the 2 hour 17 minute runtime and felt like the movie could have shed a few subplots to really explore some of the more interesting philosophical and political questions it raises. While far from terrible, this is not nearly as sharp or tight as, say, Parasite or even Snowpiercer, which feels a lot more focused despite treading in similar genre territory and having a similarly on-the-nose approach to its thematic concerns. Despite these flaws, I still had a good time with this one. The cast is amazing across the board, the creatures and humour and oddness mostly all work, and it’s all anchored around a standout performance(s) from Pattinson. I just wish it had all come together a bit more neatly. Verdict Mickey 17 has all the hallmarks of a great Bong Joon-ho film: in-your-face anti-capitalist messaging, cute/terrifying CGI creatures, oddball non-sequitur humour, and a snowy sci-fi backdrop. Robert Pattinson acts the hell out of a multi-faceted role, and the movie explores some very interesting themes and ideas, which all makes for an enjoyable experience. However, its lack of sharp direction and slightly bloated pacing situate this as a lower-tier entry in Bong’s filmography.

‘Mickey 17’ Review: Essential Sci-Fi or Expendable Mess? Read More »

Poor Things – Shea’s Review

It’s the holiday season which means we’re inundated with a bunch of films seeking some awards buzz before the Academy Awards early next year and my Scene card has been working overtime!  I had the pleasure of seeing Poor Things twice now, but needed a second viewing to really form my feelings about the movie. This isn’t really because the movie requires repeat viewings to appreciate it, but our Friday night crowd was on the more disruptive side and so I wanted a less tainted experience with the movie before I put my thoughts together. Luckily, I was able to go again on Monday with Kelsey so without any further adieu, here’s my review for Yorgos Lanthimos’ Poor Things!  My Thoughts There is so much to cover with this one that I almost don’t know where to start. To get the setup out of the way though, Yorgos Lanthimos is the director of this one. Some of his previous work includes The Favourite, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, and The Lobster which is my favourite of his movies. Lanthimos is definitely a unique filmmaker with a distinct vibe to his movies. They can range from quirky to flat out bizarre and, at least stylistically, this movie is more in that bizarre camp. Emma Stone stars as Bell Baxter, a grown woman physically but not mentally, and the apparent daughter of Willem Dafoe’s Godwin Baxter. As Bella’s mental skills sharpen, she hungers for experiences and adventure and Mark Ruffalo’s Duncan Wedderburn tempts her with what she craves. The film also stars Ramy Youssef as Max McCandless who is Godwin Baxter’s student and assistant.  Before we get into more about the performances, I want to talk about the visual style of the film. It’s a period piece, but it’s a hyper stylized world that feels like the production designer was inspired by The Wizard of Oz but also took a lot of psychedelics as they built the sets. It’s a treat to look at though and some frames in particular would make for some beautiful stills to hang up on your wall as art.  Shifting quickly to costumes and makeup, I haven’t seen anything else this year that can really compete in the costume department. The outfits are extravagant but still grounded and Bella gets some particularly stunning outfits throughout the movie. On the makeup side, this is most notable with Dafoe. While still recognizable, he is covered in makeup that gives him a somewhat monstrous look that felt sort of distracting at the beginning but I quickly found myself overcoming that feeling.  This also weaves nicely into the score which fits this movie perfectly. It feels eerie and unsettling often, but when the story requires a lighter touch it delivers that too while not feeling like a completely different sound. I’m no musician so I can’t really touch on all the details that go into it, but it matches the movie’s vibe while enhancing what you’re watching on the screen throughout. Moving on to the performances though, I want to talk about Emma Stone. This was definitely her best and most interesting performance, which is saying something considering she has also won an Oscar, but it’s absolutely the case. This has to be the most adventurous role that I’ve seen of her too. Bella is a grown woman but acts as if she’s a small child from her movement to her speech. A baby struggles to walk as it lacks the bone density and the strength to manage it, let alone learning to balance. So this aspect of the performance isn’t as simple as copying how a baby walks. How do you walk if you don’t know how, but you have all the things you need to accomplish it already? Then you factor in her speech and vocabulary as well. In lesser hands you’d be laughing at the performance, but what Stone manages to do here, you believe it entirely. Emma Stone and Lanthimos worked together for a long time in rehearsals to figure all these details out and how the performance would evolve over the course of the movie and the range of this performance is truly remarkable. This is definitely one of the best performances of the year! However, one character manages to absolutely steal the scenes away from Stone when they’re together and that would be Mark Ruffalo’s Duncan. Holy smokes, I did not know that Ruffalo had this sort of performance in him. He’s always been good but his roles have been pretty safe by and large and in this movie Ruffalo plays a narcissistic buffoon perfectly and had me bellowing out laughs nearly every time he opened his mouth. I think that Emma Stone was one of the year’s best performances, but it wasn’t even my favourite performance in this movie, which speaks to just how good Ruffalo is here. Best Supporting Actor is probably one of the most competitive categories this year with a lot of great options, but Ruffalo deserves to be in serious contention with the likes of Robert Downey Jr, Robert De Niro, and Ryan Gosling.  As far as how all these pieces come together though, about halfway through the movie I had this feeling that I was just watching an incredibly weird version of Barbie. It wasn’t just that this movie was like Barbie though, I think this movie was able to go a bit deeper than Barbie with what it was trying to do. What enables this I think is that while Barbie is really good, it still has a board level of accessibility. Kids and adults can watch it and have a good time which is clearly why it had such great financial success. Poor Things is definitely for adults which I think allows for a deeper exploration of themes. It’s not that this inherently makes Poor Things a better movie, just that it’s a different viewing experience.  Adriana pointed out afterwards that this movie also had

Poor Things – Shea’s Review Read More »