“Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically

[Anonymous]

Just put it on & only so many hours in the day. Lol

Please share thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Loved it. Very original and engrossing. I guess you have different taste.

[Anonymous]

I didn't love it to be honest. But I thought the latter 2/3 of the movie was much better than the first 1/3 or so... I just felt it was so cringey. It could have been more nuanced as opposed to using lots of shock value stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loved it. Very original and engrossing. I guess you have different taste.

OP here - been on 10 minutes & don’t know anything about the plot - just familiar with title due to award nominations

[Anonymous]

I normally like weird and artsy but I couldn't with Poor Things. It was Emma Stone's performance. It just didn't work for me. The art direction is wonderful and the story is interesting, but it didn't all come together for me.

I put the book on my TBR though.

[Anonymous]

It was way too graphically sexual for my tastes. I would have been inclined to stick it out to see why people liked it so much but DH absolutely hated it and when we looked up how long it was gave up and walked out. Noticed later that the Rotten Tomatoes review were interesting in that they were pretty much all 5s or 1s. You are going to love it or hate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was way too graphically sexual for my tastes. I would have been inclined to stick it out to see why people liked it so much but DH absolutely hated it and when we looked up how long it was gave up and walked out. Noticed later that the Rotten Tomatoes review were interesting in that they were pretty much all 5s or 1s. You are going to love it or hate it.

DP - Agree -- kind of like how people loved or hated Saltburn. Same kind of vibe -- too vulgarly sexual (not just too sexual).

[Anonymous]

What'd you decide, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What'd you decide, OP?

something put matinee off course but think I wouldn’t old it now that see “shock value” .

Fast forwarded through most of Saltbun

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was way too graphically sexual for my tastes. I would have been inclined to stick it out to see why people liked it so much but DH absolutely hated it and when we looked up how long it was gave up and walked out. Noticed later that the Rotten Tomatoes review were interesting in that they were pretty much all 5s or 1s. You are going to love it or hate it.

DP - Agree -- kind of like how people loved or hated Saltburn. Same kind of vibe -- too vulgarly sexual (not just too sexual).

How much nudity are we talking about here? Asking for a friend.

[Anonymous]

I quite liked it and also liked Saltburn. The cinematography in both was fantastic. Emma Stone really did a lot with the role and deserved that Oscar putting it above Saltburn in my opinion because of the top notch acting. I'm not bothered by the sexual stuff so can't speak to that really. Saltburn had more shock value with it IMHO. Neither of these are going to be favorite films ever for me but I don't feel cheated out of 2 hours either, they were both fun!

[Anonymous]

It's a Frankenstein allegory. We watched it last night. Great fun.

[Anonymous]

Garbage disguised as art.

[Anonymous]

I see almost every movie that comes out and always see them in theater/ not at home. I did not love ...or even like Poor Things. It was kind of " too cool for school" for me.

[Anonymous]

Too overt. It's an artistic choice that I don't particularly enjoy.