“Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was very clearly written by a man with a fetish. Who else would create a story about a woman’s brain being replaced by a toddler and their first cognitive experiences being sexual awakenings?

I had a similar reaction. A male director who got Emma Stone to go an along with a lot of gratuitous scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read somewhere that it’s now the second movie where Mark Ruffalos character falls in love with a child trapped in a woman’s body. (13 going on 30) and can’t unsee that. Creepy pedo vibes from Hollywood.

Holy crap. Some people need to get a grip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was very clearly written by a man with a fetish. Who else would create a story about a woman’s brain being replaced by a toddler and their first cognitive experiences being sexual awakenings?

I'm curious about the book which I understand is clearly a satire of Frankenstein, and also is told from both the doctor's point of view, and then Ella's.

I didn't feel this came through in the movie really and found it kind of stupid. I am really surprised Emma Stone (who I generally like) won an Oscar for this. It felt approximately on the level of a protracted Family Guy episode.

[Anonymous]

Deeply weird movie. I liked it but I didn't love it. If I had not heard anything about it I would have found the sex scenes shocking. But because that's such a part of who Bella is, I didn't find them gratuitous. It's actually kind of sly how the director has prompted the exact same reactions to the movie that some of the characters have to Bella.

I thought Ruffalo was really good in this. Really spot on as a guy who is so incensed that he's unable to control a woman that he planned to reduce to a social pariah that he goes to extreme lengths to make sure she is controlled.

I was disappointed that there wasn't more examination of Dafoe's character and his motives and entitlement. The thing that most disturbed me about this was how Bella was created and then the appearance of Margaret Qualley as another subject. And turning the husband into a goat was gratuitous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: There’s one other aspect that confused me that no one mentioned - the anachronisms in the movie. The coach had a horses head but no horse. The movie design and costuming seems to allude to Victorian times but there were flying cars. Was this done just to contribute to the weirdness, or is there an explanation for it in the book that wasn’t present in the movie? She also leaves the hotel in her underwear and no one on the streets seems to acknowledge or care.

Steampunk - https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/steampunk - well, other than the underwear bit - ITA with you there!

[Anonymous]

We just watched it last night. Thought is was very original, bizarre (in a good way) and funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This film is weirdly absurd and dumb.

Yeah I just don’t get the idea that this movie had a strong message. Or was feminist. She ran away with a strange man while her brain was a tween at best. That’s not about wanting to be free it’s adolescence. Then for freedom she decides to become a sex worker but it is shown as if the other sex workers chose to be there in the same manner she did. Why not just let her sleep around but with men on her own terms? Then she turned the dude into a goat and we are supposed to see they as a humane choice instead of letting him die or saving him?

Emma Stone was pretty good in the role- I don’t think she should have won the Oscar, her childlike movements and phase were really weird to me. I really liked Mark Ruffalo’s performance for some reason but I get why others didn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was very clearly written by a man with a fetish. Who else would create a story about a woman’s brain being replaced by a toddler and their first cognitive experiences being sexual awakenings?

I'm curious about the book which I understand is clearly a satire of Frankenstein, and also is told from both the doctor's point of view, and then Ella's.

I didn't feel this came through in the movie really and found it kind of stupid. I am really surprised Emma Stone (who I generally like) won an Oscar for this. It felt approximately on the level of a protracted Family Guy episode.

Pp here- felt the same. I really like Emma stone but I just felt uncomfortable watching this movie and couldn’t get through it. It’s not the sex. It was the idea of glorifying taking sexual advantage of someone who is cognitively a young child. As I said, it felt like a man’s fantasy and not something that would be imagined from a woman’s perspective.

[Anonymous]

WTAF. Just finished this and although I had been forewarned by a friend, I was still shocked. I like Emma Stone, but winning an Oscar for this??

The whole time I kept thinking her daughter will one day be watching this…

[Anonymous]

Are we talking full on nudity or what? Haven’t seen it and am kind of afraid to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was very clearly written by a man with a fetish. Who else would create a story about a woman’s brain being replaced by a toddler and their first cognitive experiences being sexual awakenings?

I had a similar reaction. A male director who got Emma Stone to go an along with a lot of gratuitous scenes.

Emma Stone has always been as artistically wild as an actress as Yorgos Lanthimos has been as a director.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are we talking full on nudity or what? Haven’t seen it and am kind of afraid to.

Yes, in variation for a dozen scenes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This film is weirdly absurd and dumb.

Yeah I just don’t get the idea that this movie had a strong message. Or was feminist. She ran away with a strange man while her brain was a tween at best. That’s not about wanting to be free it’s adolescence. Then for freedom she decides to become a sex worker but it is shown as if the other sex workers chose to be there in the same manner she did. Why not just let her sleep around but with men on her own terms? Then she turned the dude into a goat and we are supposed to see they as a humane choice instead of letting him die or saving him?

Emma Stone was pretty good in the role- I don’t think she should have won the Oscar, her childlike movements and phase were really weird to me. I really liked Mark Ruffalo’s performance for some reason but I get why others didn’t.

It wasn't a humane choice, it was punishment for his crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: There’s one other aspect that confused me that no one mentioned - the anachronisms in the movie. The coach had a horses head but no horse. The movie design and costuming seems to allude to Victorian times but there were flying cars. Was this done just to contribute to the weirdness, or is there an explanation for it in the book that wasn’t present in the movie? She also leaves the hotel in her underwear and no one on the streets seems to acknowledge or care.

That's Yorgos Lanthimos fantasy visuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Loved the Favorite.
Lobster was a little wierd and Poor Things had a lot of great elements but just didn’t work for me. Too long and drawn out. I liked the sort of “steampunk “ vibe and the costumes and sets were very cool! Maybe the book might be more interesting and entertaining. I liked the overall message at the end. But thought the film tried to hard to be shocking. And I agree that Mark Ruffolo’s British accent was annoying.

The ending was bolted after the book ending to make the whole palatable to audiences. It doesn't really fit the story.