Mickey 17

I consider Bong Joon Ho's Parasite to be the best movie of the 21st century. When it won Best Picture that year, it was like "Oh, finally. The Academy chose the actual best movie of the year to win". I think I actually placed Promising Young Woman ahead of it in my "best of the year" list in 2020 and I take it back! It was a confusing time! The pandemic! 

In any case, after seeing an expertly crafted film like Parasite, I had high hopes for Bong Joon Ho's most recent film, Mickey 17. Although I wouldn't consider it to be a "bad" film...it simply did not live up to those hopes. 

Mickey 17 is a sci-fi comedy that takes place in 2054. Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson) and his friend Timo (Steven Yeun) sign up to leave earth as part of a mission to populate the planet Niflheim. Mickey, having no skills, signs up to be an "expendable". Basically, they collect his DNA and memories and then use him for scientific experimentations (or dangerous chores) and when he dies, they just reprint his body and upload his memories. So, you know, pros and cons: he gets to essentially live forever, but he has to experience death over and over and over.

When they land on Niflheim, Mickey is sent out to explore and, after an accident, is presumed dead. However, the native creatures (who look like a cross between pillbugs, elephants, and dogs) help Mickey (in his 17th life, hence "Mickey 17") survive and get back to the ship. too bad they've already printed out Mickey 18! And Mickey 18 is kind of a jerk, quite frankly.

You might think this is no big deal: two Mickeys for the price of one! Except according to the law established with the human printing tech became a thing, in the case of "multiples" being printed, all multiples have to be...put down. Which seems kind of stupid and wasteful, but what do I know? So, we now have two Mickeys battling to be the surviving Mickey and trying to hide from everyone.

That plot in and of itself would have made for a great film. It's funny, it's interesting, there are a lot of questions it brings up about exploitation of labor and also the concept of a soul. But Bong had to cram about a million more plotlines into this damn movie, making it feel overstuffed.

In addition to the Two Mickeys plot, there is a plot about the creatures on the planet Niflheim, which are seen by the people in charge as menaces and they want to kill them all. Speaking of "the people in charge", Mark Ruffalo plays Kenneth Marshall, a politician in charge of the expedition to Niflheim who is clearly a Trump-like character (at least Ruffalo plays him that way). His wife, Ylfa, is played by Toni Collette. I love both Ruffalo and Collette and I was deeply unimpressed with them in this film. They felt over-the-top, which isn't unusual for a Bong film, but I guess I just wasn't feeling it this time. It felt too pointed, almost groan-worthy, such as when Marshall discusses his vision for "a pure, white planet" (referring to the snow on Niflheim). 

So, the overall feelings I got from this movie were: too much; all over the place; satire done with a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel; poorly written; too long; jokes not landing.

I still have to give Mickey 17 some credit for really interesting ideas (specifically, the concept of an "expendable") and a great lead performance by Robert Pattinson. Pattinson is hilarious as Mickey(s), especially when 17 meets 18, because 17 is kind of wimpy and pathetic while 18 is braver and more aggressive--but they're literally the same person. I LOVED how the movie shows that we all contain multitudes. We all have different personalities in one body. Late in the movie, Mickey 17 says something along the lines of "when I'm feeling unsure, I just think 'what would 18 do?'" I love this idea that you can be inspired by not just other people, but by your own better self. 

If there's one thing that Bong nails consistently, it's the contradictions of humanity. And how beautiful those contradictions can be.

So, yeah, Mickey 17 is just ok. I think if Bong could have stuck to one main plot and really put all his energy into that, it could have been an A-level film. As it stands, I have to give it...

Grade: B 

Stuff I watched in...February, 2025

The Monkey

Based on a short story by Stephen King and directed by Osgood "Oz" Perkins, The Monkey was a very fun surprise. Perkins's previous films have been humorless (The Blackcoat's Daughter) and terrifying (Longlegs)...but The Monkey is not scary and absurdly hilarious.

Twin brothers, Hal and Bill Shelburn (played by Christian Convery as children and Theo James as adults), discover a toy monkey amongst their absent father's belongings. They quickly realize that if they wind the monkey up and it beats on a drum, someone will die. Usually someone in close proximity to the toy, but never the person who wound it up...and the monkey doesn't take requests.

A tragic death caused by Hal winding the monkey up in an attempt to kill Bill tears the brothers apart and they become estranged. 25 years later, Hal is half-heartedly trying to form a relationship with his own son, Petey (Colin O'Brien), when he gets a call from Bill alerting him to the fact that the monkey is back and wrecking havoc again. But Bill has always been an asshole at best and a downtight psychopath at worst, so Hal is wary of trusting him.

As the bodies stack up in very gruesome and hilarious ways, Hal has to figure out how to protect his son--and how to be the dad to Petey that his dad never was to him and Bill.

The Monkey is not a serious movie. It's a horror-comedy with emphasis on the comedy. It's also just a really strange and often absurd film. Theo James cracked me up in the twin role of Bill and Hal...James is a very conventionally handsome man with a voice that commands authority, yet he plays one guy as a sad-sack fuck-up of a father and another guy as a mulletted, reclusive nutcase. It was just very fun to see an actor with gravitas go fully silly. 

While The Monkey is certainly not great art, it is pretty fun entertainment. And it makes me wonder what project Oz Perkins will choose next.

Grade: B

***

The Vourdalak

This strange, goofy gothic horror movie is directed by Adrien Beau and can be found streaming on Shudder. Taking place in the 18th century, it follows Marquis Jacques Antoine Saturnin d'Urfe, an emissary of the King of France who finds himself robbed of his horse and possessions somewhere in Eastern Europe while traveling back to France. A local man suggests he seek out the house of Gorcha, a man who will loan him a horse.

He locates Gorcha's estate and meets the man's strange family, but the man himself is away at war. When Gorcha returns, he has turned into a vourdalak--an Eastern European vampire who specifically craves the blood of the people it loves and desires to turn its family into vourdalaks. Well, this is exactly what happens during the rest of the movie. 

Gorcha the vourdalak is played by a skeletal looking puppet, which is very creepy. The film feels delightfully retro (reminding me a bit of the films of Peter Strickland) and weird. If you're looking for a more obscure horror/vampire film that's not particularly gory (though is quite cruel), check this one out.

Grade: B

***

Memento

I hadn't seen Christopher Nolan's backwards-flowing neo-noir since high school, so I gave it a rewatch. It's not Nolan's best (that would be The Prestige), but it holds up well and the gimmick of the movie playing out in reverse is still a great one. 

Guy Pearce, in a breakout role, plays Leonard Shelby, a man who lost his ability to form short-term memories after a brutal attack in which the attacker raped and killed Leonard's wife. Since the attack, Leonard's only motivation in life is to find the attacker--named John G. or James G.--and kill him. To remember his purpose, Leonard tattoos clues on his body. He also takes polaroid pictures of people and places he needs to remember, such as the motel he lives in and the people he trusts (or doesn't) to give him information. Of course, people can very easily manipulate Leonard once they know about his condition.

Co-starring Carrie-Anne Moss and Joe Pantoliano as people who may or may not have Leonard's best interests at heart, Memento is gritty and depressing. Before the attack, Leonard was an insurance claims investigator and he investigated the claim of one Sammy Jenkins (Stephen Tobolowsky), another man with anterograde amnesia. Leonard rejected Jenkins' insurance claim after investigating the case and concluding that Jenkins' amnesia was psychological and that if he just tried hard enough, Jenkins could recover his memory. 

Boy, the whole denial of insurance angle hits different in 2025, making the viewer kinda hate Leonard. But even if we didn't live in a post-Luigi world, Memento still would be a film with no true heroes--only people out to get money or revenge. 

Guy Pearce is excellent in Memento (not to mention: HOT). After watching his excellent turn in this year's The Brutalist, I want to go on a Guy kick and watch some of his other films. This was a good place to start.

Grade: B+

***

Minority Report

Even though it was a pretty popular movie when it came out in 2002, I never watched Steven Spielberg's Minority Report until now. And I was underwhelmed. Mostly because I thought the acting in this science-fiction film was extremely mid. I think Tom Cruise is a bad actor. The only movies I've ever enjoyed his acting in are Born on the Fourth of July and Eyes Wide Shut (and in the case of the latter, his stiff and awkward acting is perfect for his role in that movie). Minority Report didn't change my opinion. Cruise is a snooze. But, sadly, so are most of the other actors in this film--including Colin Farrell and Samantha Morton. 

The premise of Minority Report is interesting. In the future, a group of psychics can see a crime--specifically, murder--before it happens, allowing law enforcement to arrest people before they kill someone. The idea of arresting someone when they technically haven't done anything is a juicy can of worms, philosophically and legally, but the movie doesn't really explore the ethical implications of "precrime"...it just sends Tom Cruise, the head cop in the Precrime department, on a chase to figure out what's going on when the psychics see *him* commit a murder in their visions. 

There were definitely some great scenes and moments in Minority Report, but in the end the movie was both too twisty and too wrapped up neatly for me to enjoy it. It's very Spielbergian, by which I mean that it's safe and predictable. To be clear, I'm not saying I don't like Spielberg's movies...just that they are the meatloaf and mashed potatoes of movies, if you catch my drift. He's basic. And Minority Report is a fascinating idea made basic. 

Grade: B-

***

Rope

I first watched Rope when I was on a "classic movies" kick in high school and I thought it was extremely boring. Thank goodness my taste has improved since then. This short and not-so-sweet Hitchcock film follows two (TOTALLY NOT GAY) friends who kill a classmate of theirs for the (TOTALLY NOT EROTIC) thrill of it. And then they put his body in a wooden chest and host a dinner party, inviting the dead man's parents and fiance. 

The two men, Brandon Shaw (John Dall) and Phillip Morgan (Farley Granger), also invite their old prep-school housemaster, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart), the man who supposedly inspired the murder by instilling a love of Nietzschean philosophy in the boys. They believe that he's the only man who would understand their desire to kill someone just because they can. Turns out, Cadell is the only man who figures out why Brandon and Phillip are acting so strangely (AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY'RE HIDING THEIR GAY LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER SO STOP ASKING ABOUT THAT!!!).

Rope is a great example of why Hitchcock was known as the Master of Suspense. Nothing particularly violent happens in the movie. But the entire runtime (a slim 80 minutes), your eyes are always on that wooden chest: who is near it, who is looking at it, and who might inadvertently open it. Hitchcock didn't need violence...hell, he didn't even need much of a plot...to get hearts racing. Rope is thrill ride that takes place in one location and only has 10 camera cuts. Truly a remarkable feat, and well worth the watch.

Grade: A

***

Strangers on a Train

Here is another Hitchcock film, and one I hadn't seen before. Farley Granger is back as tennis star Guy Haines, who has a run in with a strange man named Bruno Antony (Robert Walker) on a train. Antony talks Guy's ear off before engaging him in a discussion about how to get away with murder: simply swap murders with a stranger. Since the police always look at motive when someone is murdered, if a stranger kills the person whom you want dead and you've got a solid alibi...well, you'll get away with it.

Guy sort of does that "Oh, yeah, haha, very interesting" thing that you do when a lunatic is talking to you on public transport and then leaves, thinking nothing more of Bruno Antony...until Guy's unfaithful wife whom he wanted to divorce winds up dead. Guy finds himself pulled into Bruno's web of murder and deceit against his will...and he's also the main suspect in his wife's death.

Strangers on a Train is considered one of Hitchcock's best works and it earns that distinction. It's highly suspenseful but also really funny. There are some great scenes, including one of the most wild and entertaining scenes I've ever witnessed (hint: the scene involves a Merry-Go-Round on the fritz). The film really deepened my appreciation for Hitchcock and made me want to seek out more of his films.

Grade: A