By Sumaya Sultana

Boon Jong Ho’s Mickey 17 is finally out. You remember him as the lauded director of the Oscar-winning Best Picture Parasite (2019), and this is his latest movie since then.

The sci-fi comedy follows Mickey Barnes (Robert Pattinson), who signs up as an “Expendable” on a spaceship. His job is to take on treacherous tasks and ultimately die. He gets regenerated after each death, and this film focuses on his 17th version, hence the title.

It’s a fantastic film. It ticks all the boxes: There’s an egomaniacal villain we can’t help but laugh at, Kenneth Marshall (Mark Ruffalo), head of the spaceship, a loveable protagonist, a romance you root for and adorable alien creatures.

The film is sitting at 78% on Rotten Tomatoes and 3.7 on Letterboxd. 82% of Google users liked it. Yet there seems to be a barrage of media fixated on its box office losses, with Variety, for some reason, publishing two different articles on its performance and online discussion generally fixating on the economic aspects of the film rather than being able to focus on its artistic merits.

Noticeably, the recent Snow White live-action hasn’t been receiving the same kind of press, even though it hasn’t been performing as well at the box office either. Admittedly, its release has been marred by Gal Gadot’s politics and the news of Disney’s mistreatment of Rachel Zegler. Still, a Disney live-action, one of a universally loved princess, should garner much more money.

It’s important to note that Mickey 17’s release was in February and the first week of March, narrowly close to what the film community calls dump months. Dump months are periods of film releases where distributors push out films they don’t expect to do well. Bong may have been afforded some respite due to his revered status, but clearly Mickey 17 has suffered because of this decision.

Warner Bros also decided to put the film on streaming after only 3 weeks in cinemas, which will definitely contribute to its losses and also speaks volumes about the decline of “movie-going” and how distributors are ultimately contributing to it.

Hollywood is hellbent on punishing fun movies.

Mickey 17’s situation is unfortunately similar to the one Luca Guadagnino’s film Challengers faced last year. While the film was lucky enough to have a wide release date of late April, it was put on streaming a mere month later. It was arguably snubbed by the Oscars, receiving only one nomination despite its excellent editing and intriguing story. Metacritic called it “universally acclaimed.” It received an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a 3.9 on Letterboxd. The question is then, what was it lacking?

Unfortunately, audiences have some blame here, too. We are scared to watch standalone films, unsure of new experiences. We are absorbed in nostalgia, and the box office proves it as production companies churn out live-action and adaptations, pandering to what they are sure will perform best. The modern movie watcher is nervous and stingy, and Hollywood makes every buck it can because of it.

So I ask you to give fun movies a chance. Watch trailers. Keep up with what’s coming out soon. If you see something and it piques your interest, pursue it, preferably from a movie seat instead of your couch. Otherwise, we become complicit in the process of art turning into capitalistic mush, engineered to leave us walking out of the theatre feeling nothing and film executives with fat pockets.

Mickey 17 is now on HBO Max, and you should definitely give it a watch. If not for all the reasons I listed earlier, then at least for the chance of seeing Robert Pattinson projected onto your screens for two hours and seventeen minutes.

Sumaya is a 1st year student studying a double degree in Media and Law. She loves watching movies and has even memorised student deals for cinemas across Sydney - you can ask her if you want!