Anonymous
Post 03/15/2024 23:19     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
This film is weirdly absurd and dumb.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 20:34     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I loved it. It’s beautiful and quirky. Definitely raunchy - did not mind. It made sine good points about identity, free will, misogyny, self awareness/actualization. Some of it was silly. Worth a watch for sure.


Sorry PP but "raunchy" is not the right word for this movie. It was gratuitous after a point and anyone with two eyes would realize that.


Nope, not even close to gratuitous. She has her tits out quite a bit, and a lot of simulated sex, but nothing gratuitous. I bet you’re the same type of person that was frothing at the mouth over Saltburn.
To be frank, it’s a very weird movie, but Emma Stone puts in a phenomenal performance here and should win the Oscar.


The point was made early in Poor Things and yet the scenes continued throughout. That's gratuitous.


To you.


Most people got the point pretty quickly...guess you didn't.



I got the point. I just also happen to enjoy all the sex scene. I also thought it was really interesting as her brain developed how her reflexes improved and she became more fluid, not necessarily related to the sex scene, but in her walking mannerisms and vocalizations. It was really interesting. I didn’t need a point I was enjoying the entertainment.

But also, there was a richness to it visually that I enjoyed. Let’s be honest you’re clearly not strictly watching the criterion collection either if you’re posting here.



lol yes the Criteron Collection that will slap its name on anything it can license
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 20:33     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Anonymous wrote:
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.


Mark Ruffalo is a gross person. He also was terrible in Thanks for Sharing. I don't watch him.


Everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves because of the creepy pedo storyline, including the Academy for the awards given to the film. I'm confused why there isn't backlash. Oh, but if we call it art... it's somehow fine.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 20:24     Subject: Re:“Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
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?
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 20:21     Subject: Re:“Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Anonymous wrote:
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.


A lot. It’s a 3 hour sex comedy
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 11:08     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
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.


Mark Ruffalo is a gross person. He also was terrible in Thanks for Sharing. I don't watch him.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 11:04     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 10:58     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
I agree I loved The Lobster. I thought The Favourite was better too.

It was still interesting though. Liked it. Can see why it’s not everyone’s cup of tea.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 10:42     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Absolutely gorgeous, brilliant, weird film. Once I realized the director was the same director/writer from The Lobster, it all made sense.

Weird because I loved the Lobster and hated this.


Same! Or at least I liked the Lobster and found it interesting and worth watching, whereas I thought this was terrible. I can't believe Emma Stone won an Oscar for this! When there were some really phenomenal performances from women this year. Not this one though, ugh.
Anonymous
Post 03/12/2024 10:37     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/11/2024 03:45     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
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.
Anonymous
Post 03/10/2024 17:35     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Anonymous wrote:Absolutely gorgeous, brilliant, weird film. Once I realized the director was the same director/writer from The Lobster, it all made sense.

Weird because I loved the Lobster and hated this.
Anonymous
Post 03/10/2024 17:32     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Absolutely gorgeous, brilliant, weird film. Once I realized the director was the same director/writer from The Lobster, it all made sense.
Anonymous
Post 03/10/2024 17:15     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
I'm shocked in myself because I had to turn it off at the 10 min mark. The gross behavior of Emma Stone's character was such a turn off that I just didn't want to sit through it. I know how silly that sounds. I usually love quirky, Oscar darlings.
Anonymous
Post 03/10/2024 16:07     Subject: “Poor Thing” -good all around or just cinematographically
Just finished it and didn’t really like it. The themes were trite, the sex stuff was kind of gross yet boring, and the movie just had no soul. I didn’t feel an ounce of emotion. And Mark Ruffalo’s accent sucked.