“Mickey 17” (2025). Cast: Robert Pattinson, Steven Yeun, Mark Ruffalo, Toni Collette, Naomi Ackie, Anamaria Vartolomei, Tim Key, Patsy Ferran, Cameron Britton, Ian Hanmore, Lloyd Hutchinson, Ellen Robertson, Edward Davis, Hadyn Gwynne, Stephen Park, Daniel Henshaw. Director: Bong Joon Ho. Screenplay: Bong Joon Ho. Book: Edward Ashton, Mickey 7 (2022). Web site. Trailer.

In a throw-away age like the one in which we live, virtually everything is vulnerable. In fact, we can become so accustomed to this way of thinking that it becomes an ingrained mindset, one in which we come to believe that anything perceived as not being expediently useful is potentially disposable. But how far are we willing to go with this? Indeed, aren’t there inherent dangers that we might take this notion a little too far, perhaps even to a point of no return? How comfortable can we truly be with this? Such are the questions raised in the outrageously brilliant new sociopolitical sci-fi satire, “Mickey 17.”

In a world of the unspecified but not-too-distant future, Earth is in jeopardy of falling apart due to sustained environmental decline. Hope for tomorrow thus lies in resettling off-world on distant, unexplored, undeveloped planets. But how safe and suitable are those new locales? That’s the principal unknown that the adventurous pioneers behind these initiatives must determine. But how can they achieve that?

Thanks to advances in the technology of 3-D printing, mankind has figured out an answer – by developing the means to replicate himself in the wake of conducting hazardous (even lethal) safety experiments. In doing so, an entirely new “profession” has been developed – that of the “expendable.” The humans involved in this work are charged with determining the safety limits of new technologies and the environmental conditions of new planets, to see just how much we as a species can tolerate under these conditions and to determine what necessary alterations must be made to safely and effectively make use of these resources. And, in many of the tests involving these scenarios, death is a very real possibility. But there’s no need to worry, thanks to the advances in 3-D printing: Science has made it possible to store a person’s DNA and memories electronically, which, in turn, enables new versions of those individuals to be replicated on demand, often overnight.

With the world falling apart and future Earth-based employment prospects growing bleaker, the off-world colony development program has understandably gained in popularity, especially among those who are having trouble finding their way on a dying planet. Such is the case for working stiff Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), who, along with his longtime (though not always trustworthy) friend, Timo (Steven Yeun), signs up for off-world work. However, whatever plans these pals may have made for experiencing this adventure together are quickly dispensed with when it’s discovered that their skill sets differ markedly. Timo has capabilities that make many possibilities open to him, but Mickey doesn’t bring anything particularly special to the table. In fact, about the only position he’s qualified for is becoming an expendable. So, given his limited prospects on Earth and the promise of virtual immortality made possible by this technology, he agrees to take on this role. And it’s all well and good as long as he can get used to the idea of routinely dying and being reborn repeatedly.

Mickey’s various iterations are numbered sequentially, so, as the film’s title implies, it’s easy to guess how many go-rounds he has experienced on his new home world. In many ways, he’s seen as possessing the ideal personality for being an expendable – someone who’s docile, easily manipulated and somewhat complacent when it comes to being willing to die over and over again. Interestingly, he somehow manages to maintain this persona relatively consistently from lifetime to lifetime, too, one of the few personal attributes that the 3-D printing technology can’t absolutely guarantee from iteration to iteration. So those who know Mickey are fairly confident about what to expect from him each time he’s reborn – until one day.

While on one of his experimental missions with Timo, Mickey is trapped in an inaccessible cavern, where he’s captured by an indigenous animal species that resembles a large caterpillar, creatures colloquially known as “creepers.” Mickey is believed dead, so a new version of him is printed, Mickey 18. There’s just one catch – 17 isn’t dead, which means there are two versions of Mickey alive simultaneously, a condition declared illegal as a result of an unfortunate incident that occurred on Earth during the technology’s development. What’s more, unlike all of Mickey’s previous versions, 18’s personality is decidedly different from his predecessors: He’s aggressive, self-serving and not above doing whatever it takes to get his way. But, given that 18 and 17 are illegally alive simultaneously, each of their futures is anything but guaranteed, thereby bringing entirely new meaning to the term “expendable.”

But 17 has an ace in the hole: Before he escapes the lair of the creepers and returns to the colony and before the erroneous nature of the reports regarding his death become known, he spends some time with the creatures, an intelligent species intrigued by this mysterious human. They attempt to get to know him, and, because of his genial personality, they forge a relationship of sorts with him – one far different from their contacts with other newly arrived human visitors. This places 17 in a unique position when it comes to relations with this indigenous race. He seems to know how to communicate and get along with them, unlike anyone else. It’s an asset he can draw upon when his back is against the wall, something that’s about to happen at virtually every turn.

Needless to say, matters become increasingly complicated at this point. With 17 back from the dead, so to speak, the two Mickeys struggle to stay alive at a time when neither of them should be – and under conditions in which they don’t fully trust one another, either. At the same time, they must also contend with a variety of new challenges, including the following:

• The two Mickeys wrestle with managing their affections for Nasha (Naomi Ackie), a bad-ass security officer who initially entices 17 into a tender, clandestine but prohibited sexual relationship – a bad enough offense in itself – but who is now also drawn to the passionate, lustful advances of his newly created and more “energized” counterpart. Indeed, who will emerge as the victor in this battle of amorous wits?
• Timo’s black market dealings in an illicit substance frequently land him in trouble with all manner of nefarious types, and these dangerous encounters eventually rub off on 17, a classic case of guilt by association that repeatedly places him in unnecessary jeopardy. It’s an echo of experiences not unlike what they underwent together back on Earth, incidents that once again spotlight the questionable nature of this so-called friendship.
• The dim-witted, narcissistic “brainchild” behind the colonization program, former Congressman Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo), takes an interest in 17 for a variety of reasons. For instance, he sees the pliable expendable as someone who can be exploited as a dutiful ally to promote the would-be cultist’s questionable sociopolitical and pseudo-spiritual agenda. He’s also intrigued by 17’s relationship with the creepers, knowledge that he hopes to tap in devising a plan for the natives’ eventual “disposition.” Marshall is staunchly supported in these efforts by his partner in crime, his vain, self-absorbed trophy wife, Yifa (Toni Collette). This clueless but devious Lady MacBeth clone does whatever she can to consolidate her husband’s power and her own standing – that is, when she’s not obsessively trying to develop new cooking sauces (yes, you read that right).

So how do all these influences come together? As unlikely as it might sound, they all ultimately do, and they collectively shine a bright light on the question of expendability in myriad ways. It gives viewers much to ponder in that regard, a modern fable with ramifications at which we should all take a good, hard look, particularly in light of current conditions that, if left unchecked, just might land us in circumstances not unlike those depicted here. If we hope to avoid such an outcome, we need to look inward, given that this is where these dubious issues get their start. And, in particular, that means taking stock of our beliefs.

Why beliefs? It’s because of the key role they play in the manifestation of our circumstances and experiences, a product of the conscious creation process, the philosophy behind such outcomes. This principle essentially applies in all collective and personal circumstances, but it’s particularly important in scenarios like this one, where beliefs are mutually employed to establish an overarching character for the nature of the existence that unfolds in this story (namely, the creation of an innately disposable society, a concept that’s apparently widely accepted unquestioningly by its constituents). It’s unclear whether anyone participating in this pursuit has heard of the school of thought behind any of this, though, based on what’s transpiring here, it would seem that there’s either a complete lack of knowledge about it or a willful ignorance that enables such a callous disregard of the elements and individuals in the resulting materialized existence.

Some would call that a rather damning assessment, but they’d be correct about that. If you doubt that, consider, for example, what the inhabitants of Earth did to their planet that necessitated the off-world migration depicted here. To compound matters, consider the treatment accorded the expendables – fellow human beings – in their efforts to determine the viability of such a now-necessary exodus. And then there’s the disdainful handling of the creeper population – the indigenous population of this new world – who are looked upon as something that can potentially be eradicated as easily as a call to one’s friendly neighborhood exterminator.

Such insensitive outlooks fly in the face of the very act of creation. Casually and willingly believing that these materializations can readily be viewed as inherently throw-away commodities goes against the spirit of our intrinsic ability to bring into being what we will, arguably an uncaring take on one of our sacred birthrights. Is this what we really want for our existence?

This kind of thinking raises serious questions about consequences and responsibility when it comes to what we seek to create. Our own worldly experience to date should have already shown us this, but, just in case we haven’t been paying adequate attention, films like this shove it squarely in our faces in hopes that we’ll wake up and see what’s going on around us. It’s a theme that has become increasingly more prevalent in movies these days, as seen in recent releases like this, the animated features “Flow” and “The Wild Robot” (both from 2024), and the sci-fi thriller “The Assessment” (2025), among others. Indeed, if reality itself doesn’t sufficiently capture our awareness in this regard, then perhaps these contemporary cinematic fables will.

The foregoing discussion might suggest that these considerations are primarily driven by beliefs tied to group manifestations, but that’s by no means the case. Belief concerns are just as applicable at the individual level, and that’s apparent in the actions and underlying intents of several characters in this film, most particularly the two Mickeys and Mr. and Mrs. Marshall.

Mickey 17, for example, believes in carrying out his work in a conscientious and dutiful manner and follows through accordingly, even if it means being willing to die every so often. His counterpart, on the other hand, is somewhat more personally assertive and less accepting of the prevailing assumed expendability notions when compared to No. 17 or society at large. And the reality they each create, in turn, reflects such thinking. The Marshalls, by contrast, epitomize the self-absorbed personal gratification and unbridled lust for power to which they believe they’re entitled, no matter what the cost may be to others (humans and otherwise). While these ambitions may seem most obvious in the arrogant and pompous behavior of the former Congressman, they’re arguably more entrenched in the beliefs of his quietly manipulative spouse, who appears willing to do whatever it takes to get what she and her husband want.

In each case, getting one’s wishes fulfilled depends greatly on maintaining one’s focus on those goals. And, from that standpoint, the Mickeys and the Marshalls couldn’t be more different. Even though Mickey 17 may at times appear clueless, he and No. 18 both know how to stay on track when it counts, especially when the intentions of the colony’s leadership are made clear. They keep themselves from becoming distracted by incidentals that could throw them off course, holding those diverting beliefs at bay. In that sense, they are just the opposite of Kenneth and Yifa, both of whom can become sidetracked on a whim. Because of that, then, it’s not difficult to figure out who’s likely to achieve a greater degree of success in the long run.

This factor, in turn, figures largely in how matters ultimately unfold and how well those results reflect the individuals’ destiny. This is also known as one’s value fulfillment, the act of being one’s best, truest self for the betterment of oneself and the world at large, a course of conduct often requiring us to draw upon our reserves of personal courage and our capacity to live honorably and heroically. Given the underlying intentions driving the beliefs and actions of the Mickeys compared to those of the Marshalls, one might easily guess who prevails. Indeed, will expendability be allowed to hold sway, or will it fall by the wayside once its dubious impact becomes apparent? It thus poses an intriguing and relevant question to all of us – in the end, which option would we – or should we – choose?

Some movies have a way of hitting things right on the head, and such is the case in the latest offering from Oscar-winning writer-director Bong Joon Ho, a hilariously insightful sociopolitical sci-fi satire that knocks it out of the park in more ways than one can count. The narrative’s diverse story threads blend well together (even if a few of them are a little stretched out or are underdeveloped), but they collectively tell a well-integrated tale that generally keeps viewers riveted throughout. This captivating yarn is superbly supported by the picture’s inventive visuals, expert editing. and stellar performances, most notably Ruffalo, Collette, Ackie and the first-ever portrayal by Pattinson that I’ve actually enjoyed.

In addition, the film deftly addresses a number of pressing social, cultural and environmental issues, such as the potential fallout that could come from the current tepid handling of ecological matters, as well as how average, everyday working class individuals are looked upon and treated by society’s officials and institutions, aspects of the narrative that effectively bring the expendability question front and center. Some might see these story elements as somewhat excessive, heavy-handed or preachy, but then these attributes have often found their way into this director’s work, such as in previous releases like “Parasite” (“Gisaengchung”) (2019) and “Snowpiercer” (2014), plot devices that truly shouldn’t come as any surprise here. After all, so-called “excesses” like these are the essence of good satire, and the filmmaker holds nothing back in making use of them in the pursuit of this sought-after outcome.

What makes this offering especially (and somewhat inadvertently) effective, however, is the timing of its release, which was originally scheduled for a year ago but was delayed due to the SAG-AFTRA strike, a truly propitious blessing in disguise. Given current conditions in today’s turbulent sociopolitical climate, particularly the capricious leadership of a particular high-profile narcissistic politician, “Mickey 17” couldn’t have debuted at a more opportune time. (While I’ll spare the specifics here, let me just say that MAGA fans and evangelical conservatives probably won’t find this picture much to their liking.) As a consequence, one can’t help but wonder if this was a happy accident or an uncanny case of insightful, profound prescience, but that’s something I’ll leave viewers to decide for themselves. The film is currently playing theatrically and online.

When we find ourselves at the crossroads of where we’re headed as a society (or even as a species), we invariably come upon important choices that we must face. That’s particularly true with how we see ourselves collectively, as well as individuals within that collective. We must ask ourselves important questions, such as do we genuinely value everyone and everything within that materialized assemblage? And, if so, to what degree? One would hope that we answer affirmatively and with an abundance of appreciation. But what if we don’t? Then what? How do we effectively correct such a potentially fatal deficiency? A good place to start might be in examining how disposable we consider the elements of our existence to be. That could be a hard lesson, but it could eventually spell the difference between how – and even whether – we survive going forward. That’s something to think about the next time you’re taking out the garbage – and trying to decide whether it consists of trash or treasures.

Copyright © 2025, by Brent Marchant. All rights reserved.