Poor Things Review
There are some spectacular insights and laughs in Poor Things. The film would have been better off with the name Bella instead of Poor Things. The director wanted to honor the novelist, Tony McNamara, who wrote the 1992 book the movie is based on and thus didn't change the title. Also, Yorgos Lanthimos may have thought fans of the novel should be clued into the film based on the novel.
The film looks amazing, the costumes and sets are spectacular and the makeup is well done. The plot choices are again the downfall of a Lanthimos film, as it was with Lobster. The Favorite worked throughout for me.
People produce so much pablum and infantile cinema that are poorly done films today that any film that is well produced, shot and acted gets praise, often too much praise. Poor Things is one such good, not great, film.
The ending is fun and works and the introduction also works. But the basic themes regarding of what is life, what is being alive, and how an infantile mind can grow and mature mentally and sexually is ruined by the director's choices.
Often, less is more. Why is the shark so frightening in Jaws? It's a mystery, and our fear of it is heightened by the mystery. In Poor Things, Lanthimos often films Bella as an object, not a subject, especially in the sex scenes, and with a little more subtlety and mystery, it would have been a better film. Why do we have to explore Bella's sexuality in a brothel? There are better, less problematic ways to demonstrate a characters sexual awakening. Perhaps Bella finds a sexually adventurous couple that offers themselves to her for sex. She could have survived in Paris if hadn't given away her money to her possessive ex. It was that choice that forced her into prostitution, and without that choice, she could have lived freely and explored and the audience could have enjoyed Bella's-played wonderfully by Emma Stone-childlike wonder even more.
The film would have been better with Bella freely exploring Paris than selling her body. Prostitution is generally harmful to women involved in many ways and it shouldn't be treated lightly in film. And that Bella apparently has no choice shows how Bella is objectified by the director and writers. Was this their way to say, 'see, brothels aren't so bad'? If it was about sexual awakening, there are better ways to do that.
Knowing when to step back and being subtle, however, is not Lanthimos' style.
Rating: Matinee.
Tex Shelters.
There are some spectacular insights and laughs in Poor Things. The film would have been better off with the name Bella instead of Poor Things. The director wanted to honor the novelist, Tony McNamara, who wrote the 1992 book the movie is based on and thus didn't change the title. Also, Yorgos Lanthimos may have thought fans of the novel should be clued into the film based on the novel.
The film looks amazing, the costumes and sets are spectacular and the makeup is well done. The plot choices are again the downfall of a Lanthimos film, as it was with Lobster. The Favorite worked throughout for me.
People produce so much pablum and infantile cinema that are poorly done films today that any film that is well produced, shot and acted gets praise, often too much praise. Poor Things is one such good, not great, film.
The ending is fun and works and the introduction also works. But the basic themes regarding of what is life, what is being alive, and how an infantile mind can grow and mature mentally and sexually is ruined by the director's choices.
Often, less is more. Why is the shark so frightening in Jaws? It's a mystery, and our fear of it is heightened by the mystery. In Poor Things, Lanthimos often films Bella as an object, not a subject, especially in the sex scenes, and with a little more subtlety and mystery, it would have been a better film. Why do we have to explore Bella's sexuality in a brothel? There are better, less problematic ways to demonstrate a characters sexual awakening. Perhaps Bella finds a sexually adventurous couple that offers themselves to her for sex. She could have survived in Paris if hadn't given away her money to her possessive ex. It was that choice that forced her into prostitution, and without that choice, she could have lived freely and explored and the audience could have enjoyed Bella's-played wonderfully by Emma Stone-childlike wonder even more.
The film would have been better with Bella freely exploring Paris than selling her body. Prostitution is generally harmful to women involved in many ways and it shouldn't be treated lightly in film. And that Bella apparently has no choice shows how Bella is objectified by the director and writers. Was this their way to say, 'see, brothels aren't so bad'? If it was about sexual awakening, there are better ways to do that.
Knowing when to step back and being subtle, however, is not Lanthimos' style.
Rating: Matinee.
Tex Shelters.
Tell Your Friends