An account of the fantastical evolution of Bella Baxter, a young woman brought back to life by the brilliant and unorthodox scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter.An account of the fantastical evolution of Bella Baxter, a young woman brought back to life by the brilliant and unorthodox scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter.An account of the fantastical evolution of Bella Baxter, a young woman brought back to life by the brilliant and unorthodox scientist Dr. Godwin Baxter.
- Won 4 Oscars
- 123 wins & 425 nominations total
Anders Olof Grundberg
- Kid in London Street
- (as Anders Grundberg)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Summary
Reviewers say 'Poor Things' is visually striking with standout performances by Emma Stone and Willem Dafoe. It delves into feminism, liberation, and societal norms through a surreal lens. Critics laud its unique cinematography and bold storytelling but note uneven pacing and character depth. The film's sexual content and portrayal of Bella have sparked controversy, making it a thought-provoking yet divisive experience.
Featured reviews
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.
I loved this movie from start to finish. Went into it having zero clue what it was about, and only knew Emma Stone was in it. 2 mins in I leaned over to my partner and said "this movie is absolutely bonkers, and I love it!"
What kind of genius is that! All of the acting was on point, the cinematography was A++ the costumes and sets/scenes/CGI, I actually just can't fault it. I laughed so loud, so many times, and I shed a few tears too.
Very poignant, and poetic, with fantastic "morals of the story" I took away a lot, it had beautiful messages of self growth and discovery. Had the good, the bad and the ugly, all mixed into a weird lil soup.
Best movie I have seen in a very long time. Big fan.
What kind of genius is that! All of the acting was on point, the cinematography was A++ the costumes and sets/scenes/CGI, I actually just can't fault it. I laughed so loud, so many times, and I shed a few tears too.
Very poignant, and poetic, with fantastic "morals of the story" I took away a lot, it had beautiful messages of self growth and discovery. Had the good, the bad and the ugly, all mixed into a weird lil soup.
Best movie I have seen in a very long time. Big fan.
It is hard not to make a comparison between Poor Things and Barbie due to both being released within six months of each other and both dealing with Cartesian themes.
What Barbie lacked with its exploration of existentialism, Lanthimos gifts us with an abundance. At times, it seems we are presented with a nonsensical tale, but we view the world through the eyes of Stone's character, Bella, while she makes sense of what it means to be human.
It is a feminist tale committed to science fantasy that keeps us engaged through its comedy, incredible sets and fabulous costumes.
If you think you love Lanthimos, therefore, you will!
What Barbie lacked with its exploration of existentialism, Lanthimos gifts us with an abundance. At times, it seems we are presented with a nonsensical tale, but we view the world through the eyes of Stone's character, Bella, while she makes sense of what it means to be human.
It is a feminist tale committed to science fantasy that keeps us engaged through its comedy, incredible sets and fabulous costumes.
If you think you love Lanthimos, therefore, you will!
This isn't an easy film to watch and capture everything it tries to convey, on the contrary, it's quite complex.
I'm not a deep connoisseur of Freud, on the contrary, I studied some of his texts when I went to journalism school, but I remember very little, I'm actually unfamiliar with the subject, but clearly "Poor Things" seems to me to work with some points of psychosexual development human developed by Freud.
I may be talking nonsense, but it seems to me that the sexual phases of children described by Freud (oral, anal, genital, etc.) are shown in Bella's development during the projection, as well as her total independence and freedom in relation to the world and in the passage of each of those phases, without being repressed, allowing her to reach the superego.
While working with complex concepts of the development of the human psyche, the film also flirts wonderfully with the frustrations of love, and social, political and human issues, and I honestly couldn't capture everything the work was offering me, a lot of details must have escaped my attention.
So much content, so much complexity, inserted in a spectacular, wonderful cinematography, with exuberant sets, elaborated down to the smallest details, with perfect use of vivid colors and black and white, actors shining on the screen, all of them without exception, incredible direction, and a soundtrack very strange that fits like a glove.
I rate it 8 out of 10 because my ignorance really didn't allow me to capture everything that was being offered to me, and at some moments I felt a little tired from demanding so much of my brain, but it's a great film in all aspects. It's just not for everyone, as it's not what you would call popcorn entertainment cinema, on the contrary, it's the opposite, and perhaps the trailer could mislead certain types of audiences.
I'm not a deep connoisseur of Freud, on the contrary, I studied some of his texts when I went to journalism school, but I remember very little, I'm actually unfamiliar with the subject, but clearly "Poor Things" seems to me to work with some points of psychosexual development human developed by Freud.
I may be talking nonsense, but it seems to me that the sexual phases of children described by Freud (oral, anal, genital, etc.) are shown in Bella's development during the projection, as well as her total independence and freedom in relation to the world and in the passage of each of those phases, without being repressed, allowing her to reach the superego.
While working with complex concepts of the development of the human psyche, the film also flirts wonderfully with the frustrations of love, and social, political and human issues, and I honestly couldn't capture everything the work was offering me, a lot of details must have escaped my attention.
So much content, so much complexity, inserted in a spectacular, wonderful cinematography, with exuberant sets, elaborated down to the smallest details, with perfect use of vivid colors and black and white, actors shining on the screen, all of them without exception, incredible direction, and a soundtrack very strange that fits like a glove.
I rate it 8 out of 10 because my ignorance really didn't allow me to capture everything that was being offered to me, and at some moments I felt a little tired from demanding so much of my brain, but it's a great film in all aspects. It's just not for everyone, as it's not what you would call popcorn entertainment cinema, on the contrary, it's the opposite, and perhaps the trailer could mislead certain types of audiences.
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.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaWillem Dafoe described the makeup process, "Four hours in, two hours out every day - I'm showing up at three o'clock in the morning, sitting in the chair, meditating and trying to deal with standing still. You can't sleep because it's intricate enough that you've got to work with the people applying it. It's a grind, but I liked working with a mask in there - quite literally, a mask."
- GoofsMark Ruffalo's attempt at a British accent is extremely unconvincing.
However, an unconvincing accent is simply a limitation of the actor's ability and not a mistake on the part of the filmmakers. Also, what is considered unconvincing is a subjective matter of opinion.
- Quotes
Bella Baxter: [on the wailing infant] I must go punch that baby.
- Crazy creditsThe opening and closing credits are shown as a frame around the image.
- Alternate versionsThe UK's BBFC viewed the film during editing to provide advice on classification, and informed the distributor it required changes to one short sequence to secure an "18" rating. The scene depicted sexual activity in the presence of children. Under UK law, this could be illegal and therefore required removal before being distributed within the country. The changes were made before formal classification, and this same version of the film was ultimately released everywhere.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 Best Movies of 2023 (2023)
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Pobres criaturas
- Filming locations
- Origo Film Studio, Budapest, Hungary(soundstages)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $35,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $34,553,225
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $661,230
- Dec 10, 2023
- Gross worldwide
- $117,625,455
- Runtime2 hours 21 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.66 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content