The Kent Stater hopes to encourage lively debate about today’s issues in our Opinion section. To submit an opinion piece for potential publication, email your article to [email protected].

With the season of spring blooming, cinema has some big releases for this month. One of them being “Mickey 17.”

Despite this being one of the most anticipated films of the year, the film had an underwhelming performance at the box office, and the film will reach streaming services by April 8. 

The main question: Did this film deserve to fail?

The story of the film focuses on a guy named Mickey Barnes, played by Robert Pattinson, who works as an “expendable” in a space colony. Being an “expendable” means that the colony sends him out on a dangerous mission that gets him killed multiple times. But each time Mickey dies, they bring him back to life to practice this experiment again. 

Once the space colony finally found a planet for the people to live on they sent out the 17th clone of Mickey to go scout the area. He falls into a ditch and is left for dead, but an unknown creature brings him back up to the surface. When he returns to the colony he finds Micky 18, and the two realize that they are in trouble because two expendables can not coexist.

My overall impression of the film was good, but I think the film marketing was a bit misleading. The film was marketed as the next film to get nominated for an Oscar, when really, this was just a film meant to entertain us. 

I do like that the story is a book adaptation of the novel “Mickey 17,” and the entire story is such a cool concept for a Sci-Fi film. The cinematography of the film was beautiful, and the shots when the story was in outer space were just great. 

As performances go I believe this was Robert Pattinson’s best film since “The Batman” and shows that he is truly a great actor. Another performance that stood out to me was Mark Ruffalo’s, who played the antagonist of the film. His performance was cartoony but in a good way that enhanced the film. 

My score for this film is an 8/10, while it may not be the greatest film of the year it is still very good.

Peter Caram is a columnist. Contact him at [email protected].