1,581 reviews
- ohenderson-04319
- Jan 22, 2024
- Permalink
- giuliajeanofficial
- Feb 1, 2024
- Permalink
- scentedpetrichor
- Jan 27, 2024
- Permalink
- fatacattiva
- Feb 6, 2024
- Permalink
This film offers a very unique experience which cannot be fully categorized into a genre, but is more creating one of its own. The director introduces us to Bella and her world by using specific camera lenses and color schemes. This as well as the surreal world illustrates the absurdity of the movie.
It reminds the viewer of an arthouse film in some apsects, but I would not go along with calling it such one. What is most clear is that it stands out of many films. Either you hate it or you love it. Personally, I can understand both sides but I am one of its enjoyers. If you are looking for an absurd experience and want a diversion of generic movies, give it a go!
It reminds the viewer of an arthouse film in some apsects, but I would not go along with calling it such one. What is most clear is that it stands out of many films. Either you hate it or you love it. Personally, I can understand both sides but I am one of its enjoyers. If you are looking for an absurd experience and want a diversion of generic movies, give it a go!
- MarvinLeroy
- Mar 3, 2024
- Permalink
I usually like quirky original movies, and there are a lot of individual elements that are great in this film such as the character's, acting, and world, but at its core this film has little to say and is deeply disturbing.
The core premises of this film without giving too much away is that a child's mind resides in a woman's body. The child is maybe 1-2 years old but no older than 5 and the plot is how much this kid has sex with other adult men.
I felt deeply uncomfortable thinking about a toddler discovering sexual organs and having wild sex and masturbating constantly and publicly because they don't know any better. Some people may say "that's not the point of the film" but it's a purposeful and prominent aspect that gets heavy emphasis throughout the entire run-time.
It feel like the writer wanted to tell the cliched story of the naïvety of a child but also wanted to tell a story about how promiscuous women upset insecure men and I think it's wildly inappropriate or just a bad idea in general to mix those two stories together. Wouldn't you think so?
Which is too bad because I liked everything else surrounding the premise. The cast was perfectly cast and Mark Ruffalo's terrible English accent, although distracting, was very fitting for his phoney shallow character and Gondi loved every second of him on screen. The world was rich and realized, every shot was interesting and the music was fantastic, I just wish it didn't all hinge on such a creepy "what if a kid had a lot of sex".
Not to mention there was a scene where two literal children watched a man and woman have sex. It was played for laughs and it was funny on its own as a concept because it's so absurd, but it made me wonder why twice now we're focusing on underaged people witnessing or engaging in sex acts.
I can see people being upset and getting defensive because if they liked the film maybe I'm saying they're a bad person or something, I'm not saying that. If you think all these aspects are fine then by all means enjoy the film, but I think it's fair to be critical on something like this and think about why some decisions were made when making this film. Like I said, there is a lot to love and if the premise doesn't bother you then you will love this movie.
I'm not a prude, have as much sex with whoever you want or however you want it, just maybe keep the theme of kids away from it.
The core premises of this film without giving too much away is that a child's mind resides in a woman's body. The child is maybe 1-2 years old but no older than 5 and the plot is how much this kid has sex with other adult men.
I felt deeply uncomfortable thinking about a toddler discovering sexual organs and having wild sex and masturbating constantly and publicly because they don't know any better. Some people may say "that's not the point of the film" but it's a purposeful and prominent aspect that gets heavy emphasis throughout the entire run-time.
It feel like the writer wanted to tell the cliched story of the naïvety of a child but also wanted to tell a story about how promiscuous women upset insecure men and I think it's wildly inappropriate or just a bad idea in general to mix those two stories together. Wouldn't you think so?
Which is too bad because I liked everything else surrounding the premise. The cast was perfectly cast and Mark Ruffalo's terrible English accent, although distracting, was very fitting for his phoney shallow character and Gondi loved every second of him on screen. The world was rich and realized, every shot was interesting and the music was fantastic, I just wish it didn't all hinge on such a creepy "what if a kid had a lot of sex".
Not to mention there was a scene where two literal children watched a man and woman have sex. It was played for laughs and it was funny on its own as a concept because it's so absurd, but it made me wonder why twice now we're focusing on underaged people witnessing or engaging in sex acts.
I can see people being upset and getting defensive because if they liked the film maybe I'm saying they're a bad person or something, I'm not saying that. If you think all these aspects are fine then by all means enjoy the film, but I think it's fair to be critical on something like this and think about why some decisions were made when making this film. Like I said, there is a lot to love and if the premise doesn't bother you then you will love this movie.
I'm not a prude, have as much sex with whoever you want or however you want it, just maybe keep the theme of kids away from it.
- mcdonaldparis-83809
- Mar 14, 2024
- Permalink
To be honest it really is a weird Masterpice. I knew it was gonig to be bizarre and I was prepared. However, I never thought that emma stone could shoot such difficult sex scenes. The vestuary was stunning and I really like the characters and their development throught the movie. Of course there were some foolish scenes like the one on the ship, but it was kind of a transition. Finally I left the theater happy to actually seen something diferent of all the hollywood superheros movies. It has super good dialogues and it is even funny, but also the sex escenes and the beginning in black and white was not my favorite. You should definitely go watch it.
- margaritaportilloc
- Mar 12, 2024
- Permalink
This film is a reminder that ratings are actually almost entirely subjective, and that no matter how acclaimed or highly rated it is, you can be disappointed. In fact, the more you pin your expectation based on amazing ratings, the more likely you are to be disappointed. So my mistake on that part.
WAY too many unnecessarily explicit and long sex scenes.
Slow moving.
All the more interesting things happen in the plot at the very end.
Bella's 'discoveries' of aspects of the world are deep and meaningful, especially her discovery of inequality and indifference of humanity to others' suffering.
Funny and quirky with an interesting plot, but I just really don't agree with the +8/10 rating.
WAY too many unnecessarily explicit and long sex scenes.
Slow moving.
All the more interesting things happen in the plot at the very end.
Bella's 'discoveries' of aspects of the world are deep and meaningful, especially her discovery of inequality and indifference of humanity to others' suffering.
Funny and quirky with an interesting plot, but I just really don't agree with the +8/10 rating.
- yj-c-70356
- Feb 12, 2024
- Permalink
Willem Defoe is a deranged, mutilated Dr. Frankenstein; Ramy Youssef: Igor and Emma Stone his Monster. Masterfully acted by all involved, this is a love story to one's child, coming to terms with growth and "letting go of a being of free will."
Stone is the embodiment of childhood wander, the free growing flower that attracts attention. The journey through her growth and discover is worthy of winning a second Oscar, solidifying her place in cinematic history. She may never catch Meryl Streep for most nominations but her performance should put her in reach of Katharine Hepburn for most wins.
Mark Ruffalo's performance is unlike others in his career. His attempt to contain his counterpart is the perfect juxtaposition of character development.
The change between camera creates a jazz feeling worthy of a dance break during dinner. The journey is strange but one to look back on and wonder.
Stone is the embodiment of childhood wander, the free growing flower that attracts attention. The journey through her growth and discover is worthy of winning a second Oscar, solidifying her place in cinematic history. She may never catch Meryl Streep for most nominations but her performance should put her in reach of Katharine Hepburn for most wins.
Mark Ruffalo's performance is unlike others in his career. His attempt to contain his counterpart is the perfect juxtaposition of character development.
The change between camera creates a jazz feeling worthy of a dance break during dinner. The journey is strange but one to look back on and wonder.
Clearly a lot of people enjoyed this grotesque movie, but it wasn't for me. Some of the scenes in it made me feel sick, and maybe they were supposed to, but it seemed unnecessary. Don't even get me started on how pretentious the movie was.
I also found this movie very frustrating because the acting was good, the sets and costuming were good, and some scenes used striking cinematography. These things all made me feel like I should've liked the movie, but I don't. It could have been put to much better use.
The sex and nudity is beyond gratuitous. I'm usually not bothered by sex scenes in movies, but for this particular film it felt perverted. Maybe the director has a weird fetish.
Ultimately, this film made me want to crack my own head open and pour bleach over my brain. It's one of those movies I'd like to block out. I don't think I'll ever watch anything else by Lanthimos.
I also found this movie very frustrating because the acting was good, the sets and costuming were good, and some scenes used striking cinematography. These things all made me feel like I should've liked the movie, but I don't. It could have been put to much better use.
The sex and nudity is beyond gratuitous. I'm usually not bothered by sex scenes in movies, but for this particular film it felt perverted. Maybe the director has a weird fetish.
Ultimately, this film made me want to crack my own head open and pour bleach over my brain. It's one of those movies I'd like to block out. I don't think I'll ever watch anything else by Lanthimos.
- awagne-29536
- Dec 27, 2023
- Permalink
1) The misandry is strong in this one. Not surprising though, seems that this is the Holywood way from now on : Every man is dumb or pathetic or disgusting or criminal or childish. Condemning toxic masculinity is one thing. Condemning masculinity in its entirety, is another.
2) Seems also that in order to achieve Enlightment, you have to be a sex worker. It's so obvious i wonder why noone thought about this in the entire Human History. I guess Lanthimos is a pioneer. A Marco Polo of Wisdom. It made me so uncomfortable watching Stone's character dealing with this disgusting debauchery (I mean the "Paris" segment). But i guess it's a sign of toxic masculinity if you don't like watching a woman get humiliated. Lanthimos is beloved in Holywood because obviously he preaches Women empowerment. I didn't know that Humiliation/Depression = Empowerment. Happy to find out.
3) Sarcasm aside, this could ve a very good movie. I am a man but i would gladly watch a movie showing a woman's path to Self Actualization. Until the PARIS segment, i thought that this movie is something like that. And i was enjoying it. A very good dark fairy tale/comedy drama fantasy. Not just funny but even hilarious at times. German Expressionism meets Terry Gilliam or something like that. A visually stunning movie with GREAT acting. Stone was magnificent but the other actors were amazing too (Dafoe, Ruffalo, Carmichael etc). Not a brilliant movie but a clever one. I wish that Jerrod Carmichael had more screen time, his character was very interesting. But i don't wanna nitpick it, it was a good movie overall. Even with the misandry element.
However, the PARIS segment ruined this movie. Literally, one of the most unnecessary parts of all time. Meaningless, empty, vulgar. Even misogynistic i'd say.
And, of course, the ending. A ridiculously simplistic and naive ending for all brain dead people to enjoy.
2) Seems also that in order to achieve Enlightment, you have to be a sex worker. It's so obvious i wonder why noone thought about this in the entire Human History. I guess Lanthimos is a pioneer. A Marco Polo of Wisdom. It made me so uncomfortable watching Stone's character dealing with this disgusting debauchery (I mean the "Paris" segment). But i guess it's a sign of toxic masculinity if you don't like watching a woman get humiliated. Lanthimos is beloved in Holywood because obviously he preaches Women empowerment. I didn't know that Humiliation/Depression = Empowerment. Happy to find out.
3) Sarcasm aside, this could ve a very good movie. I am a man but i would gladly watch a movie showing a woman's path to Self Actualization. Until the PARIS segment, i thought that this movie is something like that. And i was enjoying it. A very good dark fairy tale/comedy drama fantasy. Not just funny but even hilarious at times. German Expressionism meets Terry Gilliam or something like that. A visually stunning movie with GREAT acting. Stone was magnificent but the other actors were amazing too (Dafoe, Ruffalo, Carmichael etc). Not a brilliant movie but a clever one. I wish that Jerrod Carmichael had more screen time, his character was very interesting. But i don't wanna nitpick it, it was a good movie overall. Even with the misandry element.
However, the PARIS segment ruined this movie. Literally, one of the most unnecessary parts of all time. Meaningless, empty, vulgar. Even misogynistic i'd say.
And, of course, the ending. A ridiculously simplistic and naive ending for all brain dead people to enjoy.
- athanasiosze
- Mar 11, 2024
- Permalink
Poor Things simply just wasn't for me. I really don't like to say I hate a movie... so we'll just go with "it wasn't for me". I did appreciate the production design and performances, but a lot of the cinematography and writing/directing choices just didn't work for me. Just a little too weird for my tastes. And felt way too long. I wanted to like it so bad, and was so disappointed to find myself disliking it so much.
I know it's been getting good reviews from most people - I'm in the minority here! So if you're interested, definitely check it out! I'm a huge supporter of going to see a film if you are interested in it and deciding for yourself how you feel!
I know it's been getting good reviews from most people - I'm in the minority here! So if you're interested, definitely check it out! I'm a huge supporter of going to see a film if you are interested in it and deciding for yourself how you feel!
I never thought a movie can be so wierd and yet so amazing... Poor things is not just the plot... It's what you can extract from the plot. The deep meanings and the well hidden messages are the main reason why this movie is so good. I myself made a crazy theory inspired by this movie. Imagine what AI has to deal with if sometime in the future it gains consciousness...That's totally mind-blowing. Giorgos Lanthimos did a great job directing this film but the story itself and the well-written script took it to another level. Emma Stone is extraordinary as well as William Dafoe and Mark Ruffalo. I highly recommend this movie to people who likes better deep and meaningful movies rather than just a plot and some action. To be honest in the beginning I was a little bored and I had so many questions but trust me, your questions will be answered quickly.
Thank you to all the creators.
Thank you to all the creators.
- stefanos-93455
- Mar 14, 2024
- Permalink
Such a strange and Gothic film! I saw the curious costumes displayed in the Barbican. That hinted at what the film would be like. I really enjoyed it. Great costumes, top class actors, engrossing narrative, special effects, a proper plot with no plot holes, and a proper ending. Strangely enough it was convincing and I was absorbed in the story.
The cinematography is wonderful. Sometimes the film felt like a beautiful dream captured within a painting.
One teeny -; the BOOK was set in Victorian Glasgow and I would have liked them to have Scottish accents.
Overall, I would highly recommend it.
The cinematography is wonderful. Sometimes the film felt like a beautiful dream captured within a painting.
One teeny -; the BOOK was set in Victorian Glasgow and I would have liked them to have Scottish accents.
Overall, I would highly recommend it.
- leroyatone
- Mar 22, 2024
- Permalink
- ichjanedutarzan
- Mar 4, 2024
- Permalink
I really thought I would dislike this movie. The sex scenes were being talked about more then the story. But I loved it. The story in short is a reimagining of the Frankenstein story.
Bella, you scared me at times, but loved your evolution. Emma Stone is one of the best actresses working today. Ruffulo nailed his character in humorous, charming and scary ways. And the movie overall is a visual feast eith CGI being used as art. It's amazing what you can do nowadays on such a low budget.
The movie is a little too long (some unnecessary characters in my opinion). But a must see from one of our most creative modern directors working today.
Bella, you scared me at times, but loved your evolution. Emma Stone is one of the best actresses working today. Ruffulo nailed his character in humorous, charming and scary ways. And the movie overall is a visual feast eith CGI being used as art. It's amazing what you can do nowadays on such a low budget.
The movie is a little too long (some unnecessary characters in my opinion). But a must see from one of our most creative modern directors working today.
- ladygiggles
- Dec 24, 2023
- Permalink
- mariagscalia-73482
- Feb 29, 2024
- Permalink
I'm a fan of Lanthimos but this film was ironically the "poorest" of his among those i've watched. I thought of the idea and the style to be very interesting from the trailers and inevitably i was very excited to see this film in the theater after a long wait (thanks to the great marketing efforts). Yet, i was very disappointed to find myself disliking it throughout the viewing.
I don't have much to say about the production design and cinematography other than I found those parts of the film mesmerizing and unique, as expected. What I didn't expect was the writing and storytelling to be so cheap and at some points annoying. I understand that there is an intent to create wittiness and absurdness to give a light tone to the movie but it really felt forced and predictable to me most of the time. Honestly, i didn't laugh more than 2 or 3 scenes in the movie and they weren't even that memorable.
I also found Bella's character development rushed and out of nowhere at the ending bits of the film. I really don't want to get into the other characters because non of them i found to be interesting nor well written sadly. Also, the topics this film takes on and the themes it tries to delve into were stayed on the surface in my opinion. About what it is like to become an adult from a child's perspective, about choices of women and how they are treated in the society, about the poor and the rich, about being a human in the modern world, and many more.
Moreover, I would've loved delving deeper into the sensitive sides of Bella and her connection with her mother. Maybe we could've seen some parts of what ignited and caused her mother's suicide rather than seeing a maniac ex-husband holding a gun all the time and then we say "Aha! It makes sense now about her mother jumping from the bridge". Maybe it could've been a cliche but i think i would've rather seeing Bella to realize who she was at the end of the movie rather than in the beginning, just for the sake of witnessing her realization and reaction when she grew up as her surgery would be kept as a secret from her would be more emotional in my opinion.
Sorry for this long review but there were many thoughts i wanted to let it out. Maybe among the points i made, some were a glimpse of positive things, but sadly and mostly it was more about the poor things...
I don't have much to say about the production design and cinematography other than I found those parts of the film mesmerizing and unique, as expected. What I didn't expect was the writing and storytelling to be so cheap and at some points annoying. I understand that there is an intent to create wittiness and absurdness to give a light tone to the movie but it really felt forced and predictable to me most of the time. Honestly, i didn't laugh more than 2 or 3 scenes in the movie and they weren't even that memorable.
I also found Bella's character development rushed and out of nowhere at the ending bits of the film. I really don't want to get into the other characters because non of them i found to be interesting nor well written sadly. Also, the topics this film takes on and the themes it tries to delve into were stayed on the surface in my opinion. About what it is like to become an adult from a child's perspective, about choices of women and how they are treated in the society, about the poor and the rich, about being a human in the modern world, and many more.
Moreover, I would've loved delving deeper into the sensitive sides of Bella and her connection with her mother. Maybe we could've seen some parts of what ignited and caused her mother's suicide rather than seeing a maniac ex-husband holding a gun all the time and then we say "Aha! It makes sense now about her mother jumping from the bridge". Maybe it could've been a cliche but i think i would've rather seeing Bella to realize who she was at the end of the movie rather than in the beginning, just for the sake of witnessing her realization and reaction when she grew up as her surgery would be kept as a secret from her would be more emotional in my opinion.
Sorry for this long review but there were many thoughts i wanted to let it out. Maybe among the points i made, some were a glimpse of positive things, but sadly and mostly it was more about the poor things...
- jalapenochili
- Jan 26, 2024
- Permalink
- melvinwahlen
- Dec 27, 2023
- Permalink
Despite its modest budget, the dedication of the cast and crew behind the film is praiseworthy. However, the film struggles to deliver a cohesive experience. In an effort to break the mold in every possible way, it unfortunately misses the mark.
There is much to say but, for example, the use of unique wide-angle lenses gives the film a distinct visual style that's hard to ignore. Yet, the constant, almost futuristic, camera movements are obviously distracting and ruin the overall effect. A balance between innovative and traditional techniques could have provided a steadier and more impactful visual narrative.
Opting for an exaggerated color palette begs the question: why then dedicate a fifth of the film to black and white? Furthermore, if this stylistic choice was intentional, the rationale behind it was not sufficiently communicated to the audience, leaving them puzzled over the decision.
The film's approach to depicting nudity, intended to symbolise the Bella's journey, ends up feeling excessive and unnecessary in many scenes. A more nuanced and restrained portrayal could have conveyed the same message with greater dignity and impact.
Echoing sentiments found in several other reviews, this story is deeply rooted in women's experiences and carries a potent feminist message. Yet, the film's execution seems distinctly male-oriented, with every creative decision reflecting a perspective that may not fully align with the story's core essence.
Although the story at the heart of the film is genuinely compelling and the acting is admirable, the way it's told detracts from its potential impact. The ambition to stand out in every aspect resulted in a fragmented presentation, diluting the emotional connection and leaving a sense of disjointedness. Ultimately, the film feels like a series of bold experiments that, while individually interesting, fail to come together into a harmonious whole, resulting in a viewing experience that's more bewildering than engaging.
There is much to say but, for example, the use of unique wide-angle lenses gives the film a distinct visual style that's hard to ignore. Yet, the constant, almost futuristic, camera movements are obviously distracting and ruin the overall effect. A balance between innovative and traditional techniques could have provided a steadier and more impactful visual narrative.
Opting for an exaggerated color palette begs the question: why then dedicate a fifth of the film to black and white? Furthermore, if this stylistic choice was intentional, the rationale behind it was not sufficiently communicated to the audience, leaving them puzzled over the decision.
The film's approach to depicting nudity, intended to symbolise the Bella's journey, ends up feeling excessive and unnecessary in many scenes. A more nuanced and restrained portrayal could have conveyed the same message with greater dignity and impact.
Echoing sentiments found in several other reviews, this story is deeply rooted in women's experiences and carries a potent feminist message. Yet, the film's execution seems distinctly male-oriented, with every creative decision reflecting a perspective that may not fully align with the story's core essence.
Although the story at the heart of the film is genuinely compelling and the acting is admirable, the way it's told detracts from its potential impact. The ambition to stand out in every aspect resulted in a fragmented presentation, diluting the emotional connection and leaving a sense of disjointedness. Ultimately, the film feels like a series of bold experiments that, while individually interesting, fail to come together into a harmonious whole, resulting in a viewing experience that's more bewildering than engaging.
Winner of the Golden Lion at the 2023 Venice Film Festival and with around eleven nominations for the 2024 Oscars, Poor Creatures is a surrealist romance, with an M/16 rating, based on the literary work by Alasdair Gray that presents the life of Bella Baxter and her journey for knowledge and a fair, equal and free life in a secretive world oppressed by the moral norms of a society that hides in a veil of uncertainty.
Beginning in black and white, the viewer is introduced to the routine of scientist and anatomy professor Godwin Baxter (played by Willem Dafoe), a brilliant and peculiar scientist who "plays" with nature and, through logic and science, assembles and disassembles creatures, filling his house with four-legged ducks and pig-headed chickens. Tormented by his father (who was also a scientist and the founder of the university where he teaches), Godwin (nicknamed "God" by those closest to him, making a joke in English with the figure of "God") represents the dehumanisation of the Human Being through Science, where all the answers to the Human Body must be answered with crude, graphic and inhuman experiments (which fits in with the film's narrative, as it possibly takes place at the end of the 19th century). Godwin Baxter lives with his maid, Mrs Prim (played by Vicki Pepperdine) - who is the typical stereotype of a grumpy Victorian maid who obeys blindly - and with the slender Bella Baxter (played by Emma Stone), a young adult who is initially treated as having cognitive disabilities and behaves like a child. For Bella, Godwin is the centre of the world (hence the pun on Bella's term "God"), but he is the same one who prevents her from seeing the world and oppresses her thirsty desire for exploration, behaving like the over-protective "oppressive father" often depicted in classic literature. After the viewer learns more about Bella's supposed past, we are introduced to Max McCandles (played by Ramy Youssef), Godwin's only student who doesn't judge him by his appearance and who gains his trust. Godwin invites Max to be his assistant and, later, to help him catalogue the evolution of Bella's behaviour. As time goes by, Bella develops a more refined intellect and a mutual affection for Max that leads to a marriage proposal and the creation of a document that further oppresses Bella's freedom, leading her to run away with a bohemian gallant called Duncan Wedderburn (played by Mark Ruffalo).
Separated into six parts, the narrative focuses on Bella's psychological growth and the way she begins to interpret the society around her, without moral filters and "pure" in a toxic society. Bella's life becomes a projection of the constant struggle for freedom and women's rights in a patriarchal world. From the discovery of carnal pleasure to the impact of the cruelty of social differences, Bella ends up travelling the world accompanied by Duncan, who initially just wants to live a life of luxury with Bella, abusing her innocence and lack of morals. From London they move on to Lisbon, where Pastel de Nata and Fado conquer Bella's heart (now in a world of colour), a cruise on the Mediterranean where philosophical questions about the meaning of life are challenged and finally Paris, where the political ideals of Socialism reach Bella's mind (and free herself from Duncan).
There are some surprising revelations in the course of the film that can't be revealed, as well as moments that take the viewer's breath away. The "horny" scenes (excessive in my opinion) represent Bella's indomitable and free spirit and the strong and important feminist message the film carries is remarkable. With sets straight out of fantasy books (Lisbon being the most superb) and curious costumes, Poor Creatures could be considered a lot of things, but it's definitely a sensational film. The choice of camera shots and the evolution from black and white to colour bring the film to life and we must highlight the performance of the incredible Carminho, an amazing Portuguese fado singer, who gives her voice to a remarkable moment. I therefore conclude this review with a rating of 9.5/10.
Beginning in black and white, the viewer is introduced to the routine of scientist and anatomy professor Godwin Baxter (played by Willem Dafoe), a brilliant and peculiar scientist who "plays" with nature and, through logic and science, assembles and disassembles creatures, filling his house with four-legged ducks and pig-headed chickens. Tormented by his father (who was also a scientist and the founder of the university where he teaches), Godwin (nicknamed "God" by those closest to him, making a joke in English with the figure of "God") represents the dehumanisation of the Human Being through Science, where all the answers to the Human Body must be answered with crude, graphic and inhuman experiments (which fits in with the film's narrative, as it possibly takes place at the end of the 19th century). Godwin Baxter lives with his maid, Mrs Prim (played by Vicki Pepperdine) - who is the typical stereotype of a grumpy Victorian maid who obeys blindly - and with the slender Bella Baxter (played by Emma Stone), a young adult who is initially treated as having cognitive disabilities and behaves like a child. For Bella, Godwin is the centre of the world (hence the pun on Bella's term "God"), but he is the same one who prevents her from seeing the world and oppresses her thirsty desire for exploration, behaving like the over-protective "oppressive father" often depicted in classic literature. After the viewer learns more about Bella's supposed past, we are introduced to Max McCandles (played by Ramy Youssef), Godwin's only student who doesn't judge him by his appearance and who gains his trust. Godwin invites Max to be his assistant and, later, to help him catalogue the evolution of Bella's behaviour. As time goes by, Bella develops a more refined intellect and a mutual affection for Max that leads to a marriage proposal and the creation of a document that further oppresses Bella's freedom, leading her to run away with a bohemian gallant called Duncan Wedderburn (played by Mark Ruffalo).
Separated into six parts, the narrative focuses on Bella's psychological growth and the way she begins to interpret the society around her, without moral filters and "pure" in a toxic society. Bella's life becomes a projection of the constant struggle for freedom and women's rights in a patriarchal world. From the discovery of carnal pleasure to the impact of the cruelty of social differences, Bella ends up travelling the world accompanied by Duncan, who initially just wants to live a life of luxury with Bella, abusing her innocence and lack of morals. From London they move on to Lisbon, where Pastel de Nata and Fado conquer Bella's heart (now in a world of colour), a cruise on the Mediterranean where philosophical questions about the meaning of life are challenged and finally Paris, where the political ideals of Socialism reach Bella's mind (and free herself from Duncan).
There are some surprising revelations in the course of the film that can't be revealed, as well as moments that take the viewer's breath away. The "horny" scenes (excessive in my opinion) represent Bella's indomitable and free spirit and the strong and important feminist message the film carries is remarkable. With sets straight out of fantasy books (Lisbon being the most superb) and curious costumes, Poor Creatures could be considered a lot of things, but it's definitely a sensational film. The choice of camera shots and the evolution from black and white to colour bring the film to life and we must highlight the performance of the incredible Carminho, an amazing Portuguese fado singer, who gives her voice to a remarkable moment. I therefore conclude this review with a rating of 9.5/10.
- rodrigonavalho
- Jan 30, 2024
- Permalink
So I'm sure that people might be judging people who are giving this movie low scores for being prudes, or those who are predisposed to under appreciate artistic movies. This is absolutely not true. I adore strange and artistic films, but this one just seem gratuitously repulsive. I really like something with more of a plot or profound plots and a movie that does not rely solely on nudity or sex, or the abuse of the female body. It was very difficult to watch the scenes. The only reason I graciously gave this movie or four was because Mark Ruffalo. He was absolutely fantastic in this movie, but beyond that, I really didn't see any stand out actors. Emma always does a good job. It won awards for being original, because what other movie would actually be like this? None. What other movies would have constant nonstop sex and nudity? None. I guess people are hungry for this vacuous type of plot, but I just personally did not like it as a woman. Yes, the cinematography was great, yes, the acting by the main characters was amazing. But that's where it ends. I am still, however, trying to trudge to the end of it. We need more movies like this move these like pans labyrinth that are aesthetically, beautiful and where the plot is very different or even oriented around science, fiction or fantasy, but this one fell short. The movie did get better near the end, so I upped the score to 6.
- josborn5136
- Mar 11, 2024
- Permalink
I am a huge fan of The Favourite, The Lobster, and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Those movies were thoughtful, clever, and just truly stunning and original. This movie was pointless and boring. It wasn't empowering in the least. It tried. Really, really hard. It wasn't deep, every moment of it was clearly for shock value. Does having a ton of sex with different men make you a liberated woman? Ridiculous and heavy handed. I guess those of us who don't like it don't *get it*...it's art after all! It shouldn't make sense!
The cinematography was gorgeous, I'll give it that. And I was happy to see Ramy Youssef in a big movie because he's fantastic. Mark Ruffalo should never attempt any accents, ever, and I think he's wonderful otherwise. Oof. So bad. Emma is better than this. So so disappointing!
My favorite characters were the animals roaming the property. They should've given more lines to the chicken dog.
The cinematography was gorgeous, I'll give it that. And I was happy to see Ramy Youssef in a big movie because he's fantastic. Mark Ruffalo should never attempt any accents, ever, and I think he's wonderful otherwise. Oof. So bad. Emma is better than this. So so disappointing!
My favorite characters were the animals roaming the property. They should've given more lines to the chicken dog.
- ccd-172-366308
- Mar 7, 2024
- Permalink
I went to see this with my wife, who does prefer her films to be straightforward and so I was apprehensive as to her opinion after reading a few non-spoiler reviews. She actually appreciated the acting of Emma Stone who deserves to win many awards for this, and also Willem Defoe who is an ideal typecast for the Doctor although he does remind me of Norman Osborn from Spiderman. I also liked Mark Ruffalo as the cad. All actors portrayed the feel of the film which has a sort of steampunk look at times. Emma Stone has the hardest job as Bella Baxter and she pulls off a blinder. This can be uncomfortable at times but the way her life plays out as someone with no baggage is superb. I love the way she sees life for what it is and her naivety is something we should all embrace.