I saw this was going to win a shitload of awards at the Oscars and heard great things so I gave it a shot.
What the frick is this? I've never been one to say a film is pretentious or too gross to watch but...well...
This film is pretentious and too gross to watch.
The soundtrack is interesting and the camera work is good if a little extra and the sets are fantastic, but the basic story of "woman with the brain of an infant is a sexual object for awful men" disgusted me to the point that I turned off the movie right around the time she had sex with Mark Ruffalo (which turns the film from black and white to color?)
It's baffling to me that this film, which seems to heavily sexualize abuse and portray it as a positive, is getting anything but widespread condemnation. It should be Cuties 2.0 but instead it's a critical darling.
 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
|
>OP doesn't know that women crave to be objectified and raped... but only by men they deem attractive
Tell me you wouldn't enjoy being objectified and raped by your favorite female celebrity/porn star.
He doesn't pretend that he doesn't.
This was your first time watching a Yorgos Lanthimos film I take it?
All his films are like this. His head is firmly up his own arse huffing his own farts.
>This was your first time watching a Yorgos Lanthimos film I take it?
It is, yes.
They're all this gross?
I haven't seen Poor Things so I can't speak to how gross it is but yeah all his films feature elements that could be described as crass.
Plz dont see DogTooth if you find Poor Things gross. The killing of the Sacred Deer and Lobster, are the most tame movies of his work. At least he is not a complete degenerate like Von Trier, but he is getting there
The Favourite is his most tame, "conventional" work.
I havent seen that one, so this is why I didnt mention it
The director is a lunatic degenerate
Dog Tooth was kino though. I agree though that Poor Things is ass.
>DogTooth
Read the description
Christ, zero interest in watching that
So this guy is basically just getting his rocks off during filming and hiding it behind "it's art," yeah?
Just a shame Emma hit the wall. Imagine prime Emma (Easy A, even La La Land) doing this movie.
No
It wasn't gross in a visual sense, I love horror/slasher flicks
It was gross in a "the way this subject matter is portrayed is extremely disturbing" way.
Like I said, Emma Stone's character literally has the brain of an infant and is described by the first male lead as a "pretty moron," but that doesn't stop him from wanting to marry her while being portrayed as a good guy for doing so.
Then a smarmy lawyer sexually assaults her Trump-style (he grabs her by the pussy on-camera) and she runs off with him to have sex and presumably be exploited by a new cast of men while still having the brain of a baby.
>It was gross in a "the way this subject matter is portrayed is extremely disturbing" way.
I knew that's what you meant lad. Yes all his films are like that. That's his schtick: extremely weird scenarios or cirumstances that are treated with the utmost normality in-universe to the point of almost banality. There are often moments that are so absurd they're funny.
It did have moments that were very funny, but what little levity they injected was lost under the constant sexualization of a woman with the mental capacity of a toddler by both the camera and every other character
They even go out of their way to imply that her creator/"father" would have fricked her already if HIS father hadn't made him a eunuch.
I've seen enough of his films now to know that I'm not a fan. What credit I can give him is that his films do indeed elicit a strong emotional response, often in the sense of a "what the frick am I watching here?" reaction. So in that regard he is a good filmmaker I suppose.
I just... dont' enjoy watching them. They feel self-indulgent and, to me, boring so I don't watch his stuff anymore. If you do watch his other stuff and get the same reactiion that you had with Poor Things then you'll know that he's not for you either. Killing Of A Sacred Deer or 'The Lobster', watch either of those and if you don't like it then I'd write him off as I have done. I'm not shitting on people who do like his movies either,
>It elicited strong feelings so it's successful art in that sense
I guess I can see that but it doesn't make me want to continue watching the movie.
All that aside when looking at discussions of the movie I see people that share my opinion getting shouted down with either "IT'S NOT REAL SHE'S NOT REALLY CHILD-BRAINED IT'S FICTION IT'S FINE" or "ACKSHUALLY IN AN INTERVIEW EMMA WATSON SAID THE GIRL THAT CAN BARELY WALK AND TALKS IN BROKEN BABY ENGLISH WAS MENTALLY 17"
I suppose I'm just confused as to how the film community that is supposedly at peak woke and metoo levels is ok with this film. I assume nobody at the academy actually watched it, they just saw Emma Watson and Black and White and went OSCAR!
leftists are pedogroomers, women are rough sex loving morons, giving them rights was a mistake
noone mentions STD, you didn't watch the whole movie- later on bella joins brothel for 30franks per client-about 5 dollars and she is lovinf it as she makes money and is having sex at the same time.
not joking.
you have your emmas all in a mix
>"watched" for 30 minutes
>doesn't even know the actress
>thinks depiction = endorsement
>invoking Cuties culture war
OP is the real toddler moron
>main lead
>yes it's about emancipation
>director
>emancipation
>critics
>emancipation
>viewers(roasties)
>go gurl frick patriarchy
>you(coping)
>noooooooo it's not endorsing whoring yourself out
Emma Stone, you know what I meant
>thinks depiction=endorsement
I didn't say anything like that, I said the depiction was gross and I didn't want to watch it.
That said "depiction isn't endorsement" is an awfully convenient defense for a movie that heavily sexualizes what amounts to a very developed toddler
>and presumably be exploited by a new cast of men
>presumably
uh-huh so you haven't finished the movie.
Yes, I said that already. Did you not even bother reading the OP?
> I turned off the movie right around the time she had sex with Mark Ruffalo (which turns the film from black and white to color?)
>No
Why?
Yeah going through the Oscar list I'd much rather watch "Weepy Holocaust: A German's Tale" or "Middleaged Asian Woman Doesn't Love Her Husband Anymore" over "Woman Is A prostitute And That's Everything"
funny movie i like
Why the frick I would.. even bother watch this pure bullshit intent of "soft porn"
If I wanted to watch sum porn
Then
I would watch jia Lissa , Maitland ward or Ella Hughes getting "raped" by three fricking BBC's
Not gonna trick me into watching some pseudo-pedophile movie. Number of sexually demented movies made that don't co-star Willem Dafoe: 0
>woman with the brain of an infant is a sexual object for awful men
How did you reach that conclusion? Bella pretty much do as she likes and everyone gets played by her to an extent.
>How did you reach that conclusion?
...because that's what happens?
The "good guy" describes her as a "very pretty moron" and openly lusts after her before the father figure that only doesn't frick her because he's a eunuch tells him to marry her.
The lawyer is literally just trying to frick her as soon as he lays eyes on her and the first thing he does is grab her pussy while she's talking to him like she's 5.
It seems very intentional that she's viewed as an object in different ways by the different adult men in her life, I can see how that might be part of an overall feminist theme that is otherwise very poorly delivered. It's just gross to watch.
I guess Bella is supposed to be a "very pretty woman"(Emma Stone has a very weird face to be convincing) so every man is lusting over her. I think Dafoe didnt really want to have her as a woman in first place, since it was a experiment and since his paternal feelings were stronger, and that eunich shit was just a bit too much as a a reason.
Also, that philosophy homie didnt try to frick her.
Besides that, men will usually lust and hit on a very pretty woman, so Poor things is accurate on that account.
>men will usually lust and hit on a very pretty woman, so Poor things is accurate on that account.
Right, like I said I can see it being part of a feminist narrative that's just delivered very perversely, it's just really fricking gross to watch multiple grown men want to/try to/succeed in banging a woman we are repeatedly told and shown has the mental capacity of a toddler
Yeah, the whole movie is feminist oriented. Bella has the brain of her child and so she usually speaks her thoughts unfiltered because she is a pure being in mind.
This narrative tool is being used to show us the inner workings of a woman's mind under a positive light, but if I had to apply these metaphors to reality, Poor Things pretty much shows how destructive, naive and childish a woman's mind is in its core, and how they perceive men in such a black n white fashion.
I guess it can be enjoyable if you only perceive it as a "fairy tail made mostly for grown up women"
Somehow it makes me think of that comic by yudoridori where she tries to spin sexual assault as a positive in a desperate attempt to cope with her abuse
>Movie about "muh wyman suffering"
Women don't suffer. It's not a thing. I'm not watching this.
>woman with the brain of an infant
So average woman?
-pros: makes a persuasive point about the nonmoral aspects of sexuality, great cinematography/cast (including supporting roles), OST is jarring but works
-cons: third act is poisoned by pro abortion, anti gun shitty feminism as the main character sets a socialist "utopia" with her beta male and dyke lover (who was the one guilty of infecting her w/socialist literature)
-verdict: worth watching (but not paying for) with a grain of salt
upvote
This movie looks like worse feminist trash than Barbie