To think that Poor Things is actually a seriously fucked up film?

[AngeloMysterioso]

Spoilers obvs

Basic plot summary- pregnant woman trapped in an abusive marriage attempts suicide by jumping from a bridge. Frankenstein-type scientist retrieves her body, transplants the unborn baby’s brain into her head and brings her back to life. This child-woman is then basically abducted by a dodgy bloke who teaches her all about the joys of fucking, she very naively gives all their money away and because they are now broke and she enjoys sex so very much, she becomes a prostitute, whilst still having the mental age of a young child.

There’s no denying Emma Stone is brilliant in the role, but AIBU to think that it is otherwise one completely messed up Freudian nightmare of a movie?!

Quite. And yet that wasn’t good enough.

I agree.

An appreciation or not of the film is allowed. If people have interpreted the film differently to you that doesn't make it incorrect. It is not personal and you are not entitled to thesis level explanations.

Seeing the old men choose the young girls in the brothel 🤮

I would love to know what the vote on this thread would look like if it was separated out into those who had actually seen the film and those who haven't, including those obvious film lovers who hadn't even heard of it until this thread despite it winning several Oscars just the other day.

The film isn't misogynistic or feminist. It's thought provoking, somewhat disturbing, fairly entertaining (especially Mark Ruffalo) and utterly surreal. I'd be interested to see the film some are imagining in their heads because I guarantee it would be nothing like the real thing.

I dreaded it after reading threads like this and it was nothing like I expected from threads, in a good way!

I dreaded it after reading threads like this and it was nothing like I expected from threads, in a good way!

As in...?

You wished the discussion over this film stop?

I would just move on if I were you.

I had to check the thread title as I was sure this wasn't a thread gushing over the film...

How's it thought provoking - sincerely, I've seen the film and don't understand how it provokes thoughts other than, 'when is this over'.

@Goldenbear maybe watch this on You Tube. It explains the movie. You didn't like it but it doesn't mean that some people didn't find it thought provoking. It won an oscar didn't it?

Sorry several oscars.

Will do.

I'm naturally analytical when it comes to films. I'm interested in the kind of films that inspire thought. Perhaps you prefer a straightforward and easy to interpret narrative. There's nothing wrong with that but this thread alone is proof it's thought provoking. It has inspired everyone on the thread - including those who haven't even seen the film - to ask questions about its purpose and message.

This is so utterly condescending. You can’t possibly conceive that maybe Goldenbear, myself and others on this thread who hold the same opinion, simply don’t like the movie or find it thought provoking? The only way we could possibly disagree with you is if we are thick?

I’m studying a PhD in literary theory. I can assure you that I can handle complex narrative.

I'm not being condescending. I've stated a fact which is that I and most other people on this thread have had thoughts provoked. It's not up to me to justify that to people who don't have thoughts about it. We're all allowed our own views.

I’m not talking about your personal opinion of the movie, I’m talking about your conjecture as to why others may NOT like it. The number of people unwilling to engage in discussion in good faith on this thread is unreal.

You're talking about liking or not liking the film. I get that you don't like it, but surely liking or not liking a film and considering a film to be thought provoking or not aren't intrinsically linked?

I'm naturally analytical when it comes to films. I'm interested in the kind of films that inspire thought. Perhaps you prefer a straightforward and easy to interpret narrative

😆😆😆

that would be great in a film script as a put down

Hierarchy of condescension:
Academic types for whom the film tries to be thought provoking but fails > semi-analytical types who find the film thought provoking > literal types who shout 'paedo' without seeing the film.

I’m not sure if you’re trying to be facetious or you just didn’t read properly. I am not disputing her liking the film, I am disputing her making assumptions about the comprehensive skills of those who don’t agree with her.

Oh the irony.

These clever, superior intelligent beings must feel so out of place among the plebs. Their higher intellect must be such a curse.

Thankyou for gracing us with your superior, intellectual presence on this thread. It enriches us all.

🙏You're most welcome.

How many times - I'VE SEEN THE FILM!

No, you're right, the thematic purpose of a film is totally lost on me; can you remind me again what that is in this film?

But Poor Things was hardly intellectually challenging or requiring deep analysis or interpretation. I don’t think Lanthimos’ films require interpretation anyway. They resist the kind of analysis you allude to because they create worlds that exist on their own terms. You just go with it. This film is one that most clearly corresponds to real life politics and is much the worse for that - imo.

I think you need to re-read my post. I never claimed you haven't seen it. I know you've seen it. I said that even people who hadn't seen it were finding it thought provoking as a response to you querying why I would class it as such.