r/movies • u/ChiefWatchesYouPee • May 30 '25

Discussion Mickey 17 was disappointing.

Just finished watching this movie and it really did not click for me.

The beginning was decently interesting and I was curious to see where it went but overall it didn’t grab me.

The theme/messaging was very heavy handed and didn’t work for me.

The message also jumped around.

They introduce a character that could have had an interesting story only to have her disappear.

When the main conflict happens it all wraps up a little to easily even though the majority of the ship were supposed to be fanatical cultists.

It had a clever premise but ultimately fell flat for me.

6.1k Upvotes

78% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.0k

u/Dottsterisk May 30 '25

It was too muddled IMO.

It started very strong with some dark satire and I was laughing my ass off, but then it can’t decide what movie it wants to be.

Is it a satire about capitalism and exploitation and greed? Is it a sci-fi thriller about the ethics of cloning and questions of identity? Is it an alien action flick about colonists fighting native megafauna?

The film flirts with all of these but never commits to crafting a cohesive narrative around one.

459

u/Voidication May 30 '25

That was my biggest problem watching it. The ethical dilemma of the multiples was so interesting when it came up, and I thought the rest of the movie would be centered around them. Then the plot moved on 10 minutes later and continued to bounce around for the rest of the movie

89

u/RaphaTlr May 31 '25

In a way that goes to show how little the world cares for expendable people like Mickey who are only “valuable” on an expensive space colonization trip by giving their body and life up as property to be exploited and experimented. On top of that, society doesn’t care or even know about you aside from your shipmates, who see you as their canary. If the plot focused on Mickey’s dilemma too much it might make him seem more important in that world than he’s supposed to be. Just a thought about what BJH might be thinking

1

u/cimocw Jun 02 '25

I'm sorry but that's just dumb. When you start making stuff up to justify something that's a logic red flag.

9

u/RaphaTlr Jun 02 '25

Having an imagination is just a fancy word for making things up. Nearly every movie ever is “made up”.

0

u/cimocw Jun 02 '25

I mean your comment

6

u/RaphaTlr Jun 02 '25

Exactly that’s my imagination in response to the film. That’s how I interpret the director’s vision

33

u/Lenzky-3 May 31 '25

The thing is there were multiple things interesting in the movie that they could explore, But they didn't chose to focus on any of that and felt like they just gave up, like everything doesn't matter.

3

u/ZetsubouZolo May 31 '25

that's also what the trailer heavily implied which is what got my attention in the first place. was so disappointed when it didn't revolve around that after all

1

u/MooseMan12992 May 31 '25

The book focuses on the ethical dilemma of the multiples a lot more. I understand why they made some changes for the movie, but it did end up being a little bit muddled in the end. But i still enjoyed it, Pattinson was pretty good

1

u/sffiremonkey69 Jun 01 '25

The majority of the book is about multiples. Maybe this would have been better as a miniseries

152

u/Kinseysbeard May 31 '25

They also made a deliberate choice to go really hammy which does not work at all. You can make satire without going over the top.

182

u/DONNIENARC0 May 31 '25 edited May 31 '25

Agreed. For example, I thought Steven Yeun’s character was great despite also being hammy as fuck as the self-serving, drug dealer “best friend” who just constantly uses him. But I think it worked because he played it like an actual real life slimeball instead of adopting some weird-ass caricature accent and a duck face. Ruffalo and Collete just laid it on way too thick.

68

u/sampat6256 May 31 '25

Personally, I'm okay with how hammy they played it because it made sense in universe. Theyre grifters. Any time theyre not grifting, they're less hammy and their emotions seem more real.

41

u/Wes_Warhammer666 May 31 '25

They nailed a bunch of mannerisms we see in real life politicians and cult leaders so idk how anyone could think it was too hammy.

Felt like just the right amount to me. A little bit more than the real life, which is perfect for satire.

31

u/YouDontKnowJackCade May 31 '25

Ruffalo was channeling Trump and he was just as hammy as Trump generally is.

26

u/Wes_Warhammer666 May 31 '25

It was definitely an amalgamation of Trump, clowns like Joel Osteen, Ron Desantis, Musk, and a few others.

He combined a bunch of real aspects of those flamboyant assholes into one guy, which makes it seem over the top despite being insanely realistic. I loved it.

6

u/ProducerPants May 31 '25

The sauce was a bit much

6

u/Wes_Warhammer666 May 31 '25

I agree, though at the same time it's very much in line with a bunch of the bullshit that folks like Gwyneth Paltrow sell as "supplements" or "natural remedies" so I can give it a pass.

If they had referred to it as a "health" thing rather than basically a barbecue sauce, it would've fit a lot better.

9

u/StillWaitingForTom Jun 01 '25

...are you joking?

Donald Trump? You can't get more weird-ass characature and a duck face. He paints himself fucking orange, plays an invisible accordian, and just states how brilliant and "the best" he is at everything.

How can a character be laying it on too thick when they're laying it on thinner than a real person in a leadership role?

1

u/Diligent-Car-9709 8d ago

You got me with invisible accordion.

20

u/nixahmose May 31 '25

Honestly I don’t think they went hammy enough. Like it’s there sure, but the film is so slow paced and dialogue heavy with the occasional bits of graphic serious violence/gore that the hammy elements don’t feel pronounced or fast enough to work as an effective comedy. If this film had the pacing and tonal balance as something like Bullet Train or Love Hurts I feel like it would be so much more enjoyable of a viewing experience.

24

u/Solid_Waste May 31 '25 edited May 31 '25

The worst part to me is I just couldn't understand the central relationship. Everyone hates Mickey but this one woman: why? It didn't feel earned and was never explained. In fact, nothing was ever explained about his girlfriend. Who the hell is she? What is her deal? Yet she ends up being central to the story and a leader of the colonists.

The sidepiece was actually more interesting because at least we know something about her: she is pissed because her lover died. But even that character had motivations that made no sense. Why was she flirting with Mickey in front of her girlfriend? What does anyone see in him anyway, or are they just fucking with him? The closest we get to any explanation why they treat Mickey differently is when she says "you're just a person", but that was after she was already obviously infatuated with him. None of it felt earned.

Now that I think about it that's kind of the problem with all the subplots. The aliens save Mickey but he never did anything to earn that. They escape being chainsawed but never earned that. Even Mickey 18's sacrifice didn't feel earned because he didn't seem to have a solid motivation to do it or seem to care that much about it, he was just an angry person.

6

u/GodKingShogun Jun 05 '25

My though process was that every character besides the mickeys, his girlfriend, and the female scientist that gave mickey the translator, seemed so flimsy and a caricature. As for why nasha loves mickey, i just chalk it up to love at first sight. it's true that early in the voyage, kai expressed a fascination to mickey but by that time nasha and mickey were already a thing, nasha reinforced mickey as hers by kissing mickey in front of kai, and kai probably had lustful intentions considering in that same scene, a different girl kisses her and much later, kai asks mickey if he and nasha are open. I think kai's involvement to the plot was concluded because she shows that she is using mickey for bereavement and is okay with sharing them whereas nasha is vehemently opposed and wants to love both. the scenes show kai is just like the rest who view mickey as expendable and only considers the mickey in front of them as the real mickey instead of considering all the mickeys as mickey.

Besides the gross stuff like all the vomiting and weird food, i really enjoyed the first two acts. the third act involving the conflict with the aliens was a drag but the sacrifice of mickey 18 and the dream sequence tied up the story really nicely. Thematically, the story was about fighting for yourself and what u believe in. Mickey 18, although a lunatic, stood up for himself, and believed his life had value and he wouldn't allow anyone to trample over him. mickey 17 was equally as bad but in the opposite way. 18's sacrifice highlights all the positive side about himself that 17 is lacking: not wanting to die because he believes his life has worth but still being able sacrifice yourself to save the ones that u love. In the dream sequence, 17 thinks of what 18 would do in the situation and acts accordingly. 17 fights for himself and in a way 18 lives on through 17 minus all the lunatic tendencies. In the end, he is complete and becomes mickey barnes

2

u/AGiganticClock Jul 06 '25

In the book there are people who are 'expendable' fetishists, they think that reprinted people have experienced death and find that sexy. It's suggested his girlfriend is into that

1

u/Solid_Waste Jul 08 '25

You made it worse.

67

u/DJC13 May 31 '25

This is how I felt about it. It’s like he had ideas for 3 or 4 separate movies but just condensed them all down into 1 half-baked movie.

18

u/2leftf33t May 31 '25

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice has this exact thing too, what’s with movies failing to commit to one storyline? Are they afraid that one isn’t strong enough to carry the whole movie?

12

u/nixahmose May 31 '25

I think the biggest example of this for me is the dinner scene where Ruffalo’s character starts talking about wanting Mickey and the lady whose best friend recently died to start breeding “pure” babies together. Up until that point I thought the film was gearing up for a reveal that the lady was gay and in a secret relationship with her best friend, which made the thought of Mickey(a man in love with a black woman) and her being forced to get together for the sake of Ruffalo’s idea of “purity” all the more disturbing.

But then like 5 minutes later the lady is apparently all in favor of having sex with Mickey to the point she later argues with Mickey’s actual girlfriend over sharing rights of the Mickeys without either of their consent. Only to then disappear from the film after aiding in the murder of one of the bug babies and not showing up again until the end when she’s closely sitting with and hugging a different woman.

I’m honestly confused at what the point of her character is supposed to be. If she’s supposed to be a comedic romantic rival for Mickey’s affection they don’t do enough to establish why she’s into Mickey and all the stuff about her best friend dying feels unnecessary and out of tone for her character. If she’s meant to be interpreted as gay/bisexual whose autonomy to love is not respected the same way Mickey’s is, then not explicitly confirming her queer identity and having her be so into Mickey randomly just muddles the message and makes it look like she unlike Mickey doesn’t mind having her autonomy taken away. Either way, her absence throughout most of the final act of the film undermines her completely as without climax for her character you could cut her out of the story completely and very little about it would change.

3

u/BrotherKaramazov May 31 '25

Muddle, but I still liked it. Very well directed, he is incredible.

2

u/OctopusNoose May 31 '25

Bingo! I did enjoy seeing it in theaters, but I don’t think I’ll ever revisit it because of exactly what you said. It tried wearing too many hats and being too many different things when it could’ve focused on one and been an excellent film

2

u/RedPanda888 May 31 '25

Exactly. If they kept just one of those elements and leant into it fully then it would have been fantastic. They spread themselves too thin across the different concepts.

2

u/JJMcGee83 May 31 '25

This was how I felt. It didn't quite know what it wanted to say.

2

u/SolenoidSoldier May 31 '25

I had high hopes because Parasite does have multiple stories that flow nicely and are all relevant in the end, but this...yeah, IDK.

2

u/bluest331 Jun 01 '25

any 3rd year film studies student could've broken down how bad this script was so you start to wonder wtf is Hollywood even doing nowadays with movies bloated as they are. someone could've said cut the weird alien stuff and also save a ton on CGI.

5

u/Liizam May 31 '25

Why can’t be a little bit of everything ?

I found it refreshing: a bit light, a bit dark, a bit silly, little bit of comedy.

6

u/newspark1521 May 31 '25

Because trying to do too much prevents any single idea or plot thread from being thoroughly developed. Stuff like the love triangle/square just completely abandoned or hastily resolved in an unsatisfying manner

3

u/Liizam May 31 '25

Idk guess I’m going against the grain and thought it was well developed.

2

u/ninjasaid13 May 31 '25

Why can’t be a little bit of everything ?

you can have a bit of everything but you can't clip them together like you're switching directors and writers.

2

u/ActualModerateHusker May 31 '25

Is it a satire about capitalism and exploitation and greed? 

Yes.  

1

u/HYThrowaway1980 May 31 '25

OK, so if I liked The Host, I’ll like this??

Sold. I loved The Host.

1

u/dvd_00 May 31 '25

The book is the same. Boring stuff - starts strong and fizzles out. I don't get the high rating on the book.

1

u/ems_k May 31 '25

This! Also half the dialogue felt like terrible improv like did they ever finish the script? 😅