Robert Pattinson Archives

“Mickey 17” is the latest movie from writer/director Bong Joon-Ho. It is his first feature as sole writer, though the movie is an adaption of the novel “Mickey 7” by Edward Ashton. According to Ashton the director made a lot of changes to the source material and those changes are not hard to figure out. Cinematography is provided by Darius Khondji and music by Jung Jae-il. The movie was originally scheduled to come out in 2024, but was delayed due to the strikes. The timing ended up being unfortunate because it’s pretty clear early in the film they thought the 2025 would look quite different….

Robert Pattinson stars as “Mickey Barnes”, a passive, low intelligence deadbeat loser. Mickey is dragged into trouble by his association with lowlife grifter “Timo” (Steven Yeun). After finding the need to flee Earth to avoid a loan shark’s vengeance Mickey signs up to be an “Expendable” for a colonization mission. This uses cloning and memory upload technology to effectively grant him immortality at the cost of having to do all of the jobs on the mission where death is all but guaranteed. His life would be bad enough but it is further complicated when an accident leads to a new clone being printed while the old one is still alive. This is considered a major crime. The colonization mission meanwhile is complicated by a first contact situation and the stupidity of the missions leader.

Afternoon Nap of the Clones

This movie is a major disappointment. The best moments are in the trailer. What isn’t in the trailer is all the cringe and really anything to do with the actual plot. Cloning ends up not really being key to any of it. Nothing to do with the cloning leads to either Mickey’s contact with the planets native species or the downfall of the movies antagonist. Rather it is just a gimmick, and as such is there to trick you into watching a largely unrelated film. Now to be fair, the first act is pretty focused on Mickey’s various deaths, but they are all in the trailer (Which mostly focused on this first act) and barely factor into anything. Mickey doesn’t develop as he goes on, instead his “Printing” just occasionally throws up personality quirks.

The question “What is it like to die?” seems something reasonable to ask Mickey. Yet we are told that he uploads his memories to a backup periodically, not on death. He shouldn’t remember any of his deaths or really any of the trauma involving his deaths. This presents many nasty plot holes and the movie doesn’t help itself by bringing constant attention to it with that recurring question. Indeed, it never really explores the technology at all. We are meant to believe they discovered immortality and instantly banned it for fear of duplicates. It’s pretty flawed logic. Having one expendable on the crew never really made sense. They use him for experiments and to cure a virus they could almost certainly cure via other means, but when another expedition member dies people seemed shocked that Mickey can’t just take all the risk all the time.

Two Dimensional Characters

None of these characters have any kind of depth to them. Mickey (1-17) shuffles through life (And death) like a zombie letting everyone else make every decision for him. He is passive and non violent, painfully stupid. His character barely evolves through the story and by the end he’s still letting others make decisions for him. His more renegade clone is the opposite as far as passiveness goes, he takes matters into his own hands at every opportunity. He is however, still and idiot. His girlfriend, Nasha is a walking cliché. Totally lacking any kind of charm, narcissistic, selfish, constantly horny and better at everything than everyone else. She controls every aspect of Mickey’s life that isn’t controlled by the company he signed his life to. Nasha and Mickey 18 are the actual heroes of this story and neither of them are likeable.

Steven Yeun’s “Timo” had potential to be an interesting character, but is pushed so far into the background you will probably need to remind yourself who he is half the time. The scientists are all largely cartoon characters, comically goofy or detached. The worst characters though is the painfully obvious Donald Trump stand in, horribly overplayed by Mark Ruffalo. As a primary antagonist, choosing a real life figure the writers clearly despise and have no respect for means that the villain of the story is also the biggest idiot. This gives the story no stakes as he literally just defeats himself. His wife does all his thinking for him and she too is an idiot. All these characters are idiots, but you do notice the women are always the less stupid and more capable. It’s as current year as you can get.

Any positives?

Robert Pattinson does deserve credit here. Pattinson is thoroughly convincing in this role. It’s just a shame his main character is the dampest of nothings to ever be in a movie. Where his talent comes through is in the contrast between Mickey 17 and 18. They are polar opposites of characters (Though neither are very bright) and they really feel like different people through his performance. Frankly Pattinson deserves to be in much better movies, but given the actor got his break from the “Twilight” series, I guess he is used to that. Sadly the rest of the casts performances range from barely passable to catastrophic.

This movie had a budget of $118m, which is at least visible on screen. The environment does look good and the alien (*Ahem*, sorry, “Native”) species looks both sufficiently “Alien” and relatively original. Sadly, the species is largely used for laughs. Their plot treds it’s most obvious path and fills up the final and most predictable act of the film. The confrontation is never offered any real tensions and certainly no stakes. The audience is fully aware of the species intentions and things are only escalated by the unbelievably over the top level of stupidity from Ruffalo’s Trump parody and his advisors.

The cloning concept would also be a positive, but it is barely explored, mostly used for laughs and ultimately just an excuse to have Pattison play two characters. It eats up the entire first act and while this is the best part of the movie it is also, as previously mentioned, perfectly summarized by the movies trailer. The brief look at the history of the technology gives a glimpse at a different story, one frankly far more interesting than this.

Post Mortem

The novel this movie is based on is more focused on the relationship between the two Mickey’s. The other characters are very much in the background and lacking the extreme cringe of the film. Mickey isn’t a complete idiot in the novel either. Instead he spent his youth studying History, something his world no longer considers a skill. That Mickey would have been a far more interesting character. The novel does examine what it means to be immortal in such a disposable way and goes a lot deeper into the perils of colonization. Basically, it is actually a science fiction story. The film however is not genuine sci-fi. It fails to ask questions and just spams the viewer with things that have already aged badly. It could just as well be any low tier genre TV show or movie of the last 10 years.

Sadly, this has taken over from “Wolf Man” as the most disappointing movie I’ve seen in 2025. I wouldn’t say it is worse than that film, but I had higher expectations. This was after all from an Oscar winning director, but then the Oscars aren’t what they used to be. However, I’ve enjoyed several of his movies before. Directors can have missteps, but this isn’t just a bad movie. It is filled with every modern day cliché you can shake a stick at. Worst of all, the film is painfully boring! This doesn’t give me much hope for future films from the director. This is a low 4/10. When the trailer is better than the movie, all you have is a missed opportunity.

The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.

In Bloom.

Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy. Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet.

Scentless Apprentice.

Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.

Something in the Way.

A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.

Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.

Heart-Shaped Box.

Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child.

Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out.

Negative Creep.

A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.

Come As You Are.

So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.

Pennyroyal Tea.

The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.

Big Cheese.

The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.

Drain You.

The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.

Serve the Servants.

On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.

Lithium.

Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.

Milk It.

On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.

Stay Away.

I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?

Tag: Robert Pattinson

Mickey 17 (2025)