MICKEY 17 IS A MISBEGOTTEN SCI-FI TRUMP SATIRE:
Unfortunately for a long-awaited follow-up to a groundbreaking Oscar winner, Mickey 17 is something of a disappointment. Part of the problem is that the movie’s attempts at political satire come across as a little too of-the-moment—or, perhaps, of a recent moment now passed. The movie’s release was delayed for about a year, which significantly dampens some of the intended topical humor.
See, Mickey 17 takes place mostly on a spaceship that has settled on an ice planet. The ship is led by Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo), a blustering, arrogant, camera-hogging dolt of a politician who confuses religion with corporations and leaves Earth, in part, over a dispute about losing an election. Ruffalo plays Marshall with a bug-eyed cartoon egoism, which is bolstered by support from his wife, Ylfa (Toni Collette), who, if anything is even more of a cartoon cutout. Ruffalo’s performance is energetically wacky enough to hold some attention, but it’s also distracting. Every time Marshall graces the screen, the movie descends into a clodding, off-the-mark Donald Trump farce that’s predicated on the idea of political sore-loserdom. Turns out science fiction movies aren’t very good at predicting the future.
Would the movie have landed better if it had been released a year ago? Well, it certainly would have hit differently. But even aside from the flat political satire, the movie has underlying structural problems.
Despite its trailer running before just about every movie I’ve seen in the last year, as Christian Toto writes: Anti-Capitalism Mickey 17 Set to Lose Millions at Box Office.
Variety notes “Mickey 17” is off to a subdued start both here and overseas. Recouping the film’s massive investment.- a $118 million budget – seems all but impossible for Warner Bros.
It’s on track to open domestically with $18 million to $20 million this weekend and $20 million to $25 million internationally. That would put its global opening at $40 million to $45 million … it’ll need around $275 million to $300 million at the global box office to turn a profit, which will be a challenge.
[Bong] Joon-ho sympathizes with the colleagues who helped make his new film possible.
“I feel bad for the producers and the marketing team for saying this — I know they have a very hard job. But once I find a particular story or character or situation fascinating, I just go ahead and I create a movie based on it. I really don’t think about the risks. Maybe I can’t.”
Must be nice.
He’s shielded from the negative aspects of capitalism, at least for now. At some point his films will have to consistently recoup their investments or studios will stop handing him blank checks.
Does Joon-ho have the “license to kill” contract that Woody Allen had with United Artists and Orion in the 1970s and ‘80s? Otherwise, how many times can he keep turning out underperforming movies?