Poor Things

Starring: Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo, Willem Dafoe, Ramy Youssef, Vicki Pepperdine, Kate Handford, Jerrod Carmichael, Christopher Abbott
Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos
Rating: R
Genre: Comedy, Drama
2023

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: A young woman (Emma Stone) is brought back to life by a brazen scientist (Willem Dafoe) and struggles to adapt to the complicated world she finds herself in.

Review:

Tim: I've long been fascinated by Yorgos Lanthimos. His early films felt visionary but flawed- too extreme, too unnecessarily inaccessible. That all changed with The Favourite, a truly great film. It felt like Lanthimos figured it out. So, I went into Poor Things extremely excited. The film had just won 4 Academy Awards. I couldn't wait to see what all the fuss was about. And, it's good. It's fine. It felt far more flawed than I expected and I enjoyed it far less. Technically, it's an amazing film. From a narrative perspective, it had a lot of issues. I'd consider this a good movie, but I'm perplexed why so many seemed to love it.

The broad strokes of the story make total sense. It's a female spin on Frankenstein, a baby's brain put into a woman's body. Bella Baxter is wholly unique and as she moves through life, she impacts, influences, and changes everyone around her. Her path is unexpected, as she slowly learns how to operate in the world. There's a lot of commentary about women in the world, about how men view and treat them. There's some powerful messages about body autonomy, about the pressures and expectations men place on women. Those parts of the film were brilliant. The message is powerful. The problem is that it feels lost in continually unnecessary moments that try to push the boundaries but end up feeling silly. For example, sex plays a huge role in this film- characters often have sex, talk about sex, etc. I get it and it's an important aspect of this story- watching this woman discover and eventually own her own sexuality. It felt like Lanthimos tried too hard to be front-and-center with this. Like the intent strayed into trying to shock and make audiences uncomfortable- it felt like the focus was on the audience, not on Bella Baxter. There was a way to reign this in a bit and still deliver the message appropriately. This is true for many of Bella's adventures and misadventures. The film tries so hard to be edgy and (I think?) humorous? I rarely laughed at anything that happened here. It felt too misshapen, too outlandish. I get that Lanthimos thinks of himself as this visionary oddball, delivering tonally unexpected, original movies. That's great, but when his style gets in the way of telling the best version of the story, that's when the problems arise. I felt like this could have been a great movie, but we didn't get that version. Truly, the middle of the film feels completely circular. We get these redundant scenes again and again- Bella is fixated on understanding her own sexuality. Duncan is losing his mind over her autonomy and choices. Rinse and repeat. Rinse and repeat. The movie didn't need to be 2 hours and 21 minutes- that's absurd. Twenty minutes could easily have been cut from the soggy middle and this would have been a more engaging, stronger film. This idea that important movies need to continually stretch the time limit is so annoying.

Now, it seems like I dislike this movie. That's not true. I did enjoy it, I liked it- and I was blown away by the technical marvels this film delivered. This is an odd film- truly astounding from a technical standpoint, unnecessarily offputting from the narrative piece. The film won Academy Awards for Best Makeup and Hairstyling. This is well-deserved. To see how Willem Dafoe is transformed into his character, the work done with him and the rest of the cast is so detailed, so impressive that it absolutely deserved the win. The Production Design Academy Award is the one that really stands out to me. Poor Things is often painfully beautiful to look at- the set design is astounding, the colors, the dreamlike quality of many of the shots- this is an absolutely gorgeous film to look at. Lanthimos outdid himself in the production department and I was so happy this film won. The film also won for Costume Design, again, well-deserved. Emma Stone alone has so many wonderful outfits in this film- the colors, the design, it amplifies her character and helps convey the various stages of her character's journey. The film is beautiful to watch and the Production Design, Costume Design, and Makeup and Hairstyling absolutely contribute greatly to that.

The fourth Academy Award was for Best Actress, Emma Stone's 2nd Academy Award. That puts her in rarefied territory. I know there was some controversy with her winning over Lily Gladstone. I really liked Gladstone's performance, but it was so restrained and subtle. Stone is given a larger-than-life character, a woman who undergoes a radical transformation throughout the film. Stone's performance was absolutely stunning. She sells the role, the absurd moments- it was a brutally tough role and she hits all the right notes at the right times. It's an amazing performance, one that she makes look effortless. Stone is undoubtedly one of the best actresses working today and I was so happy she won this award. Even when the movie annoyed me (and it did a lot), I was blown away by Stone's performance. She is indescribably good in this role.

Mark Ruffalo gives a strong performance, too. Ruffalo is such a likeable guy, which is funny because he's brilliant at playing these unlikable characters. He's such a terrible person so often in this film and Ruffalo sells it so well. He's never as funny as the film thinks he is (a criticism I have of the entire movie), but his performance works and is memorable. Willem Dafoe is likewise excellent. He's still (barely) recognizable beneath the prosthetics, but he still manages to give an unforgettable, complex performance. Ramy Youseff adds a nice supporting performance, too. He was far better than I expected.

Poor Things is a complicated movie. Clearly, critics loved it. There's a lot I thoroughly enjoyed about Yorgos Lanthimos' film but I also felt like the story had serious issues with it. Bella's journey is fantastic, but unnecessarily controversial at times. Some of the story decisions felt so odd, not just unexpected, but unneeded. I didn't care for the narrative. I know the film was adapted from a book, so perhaps the source material is at fault? Or, did the adaptation fail to translate well onto the screen? I also found the film oddly unfunny. I know the film tried hard to be funny, but being shocking and being funny are two different things. The film definitely elicited some shock value, but was surprisingly unfunny. That's another big reason I felt like the movie was overrated.

I'll always be interested in whatever Lanthimos does. I doubt he'll ever make a boring movie- there always seems to be an endless amount of controversy surrounding his films. I do think it's interesting that The Favourite is his best movie. It's also the most mainstream (while never conventional). I think Lanthimos is at his best when he reels in his eccentricities just a bit. Poor Things has so many great things going for it, but I don't feel like it's that great of a movie. Half of it (the technical side) is superb, but the movie itself isn't that strong.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: The Favourite, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, The Lobster