One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. Emma Stone’s inability to act was the least of its problems. It will be utterly forgotten in a few years.
Reviewers have lost their minds
One of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. Emma Stone’s inability to act was the least of its problems. It will be utterly forgotten in a few years.
is this the one with the sex scene?
This one has like 50 sex scenes.
I don't think it's a great movie or anything but it's entertaining enough. I guess there were just enough socialist talking points to sway the "critics".
Greatest film of the audio visual medium ever to be released. Emma Stone is a QUEEN and the modern day Meryl Streep. I smell an Oscar sweep
>the modern day Meryl Streep.
Oh is Emma also implicit in an underground child sex trafficking industry?
Who gives a frick, they’re all pedos
meds, poltard. take them
They didn’t lose their minds. They’re just nonces and ought to be put on a watchlist, along with everyone involved in the movie’s production.
stopped reading at that ridiculous hyperbole
>Emma Stone’s inability to act
Stopped reading here
It was truly hideous narratively and spiritually. The best jokes were rehashed from The Favourite. The visual aesthetic might be so appealing for some people to overcome all that, but watching Emma Stone flap her arms around and make O faces while waiting for a lucid moment of meaning that never arrives is not cinema.
>It was truly hideous narratively and spiritually
Up yours, Christcuck!
pedophile
>It will be utterly forgotten in a few years.
I mean, it obviously won't be. It's not like this was made by some unknown director. Lanthimos already has quite a lot of fans.
>Lanthimos
Who?
one of king arthurs knights
>inability to act
Never seen anything before by this director? Everyone acts like a fricking autismo in his movies.
Where can I see the sex scenes? It's the only thing that interests me.
skip them, she's actually much more bland than you're expecting
this really triggered the tradlarping incels. Ill have to check it out
You’ve got me wrong there, it’s nothing to do with being anti prostitution or even about her being cognitively disabled and having sex (tho the eurotrash shallowness of that stuff is a bit annoying)
I challenge you to watch this movie and feel any emotional connection or care for a single character.
filtered
just watch marvel shit and don't bother with anything else
The films messaging was genuinely terrible. First of all its core message is the conflation of personal agency, which is the girls 'quest' in the film, with living with exactly zero accountability to people around her. Tied into this of course is the pretty explicit message that her body is hers to use, and she ought to be able to frick whomever she wants whenever she wants with zero sense of obligation to anyone, even as far as to directly suggest men who dont want a literal prostitute for a wife are simply insecure and unmarrigeable. I also find the suggestion of prostitutehouse prostitution as a means of self discovery to be genuinely vile, and anyone whos read an ounce of Victorian era lit, such as Victor Hugo should know that it was miserable work, and the women who did it led desperate lives. When she gets bored, or decides to leave, she simply ups and tramps off back to London without a care. Of course her Matron simply lets her leave, which is an absurdity. The film makes a banal attempt at indicating some kind of personal growth via the girls pain over the poor living in a literal underground hole on a island, but contextually it simply comes across as an absurdity, and her expression fo concern simply comes down to impoverishing her lover, again with no remorse or sense of consequence. Genuinely any woman who imbibes the films message will just totally frick their life up. Im beginning to suspect it might actually be coded satire.
Not reading until you edit this into paragraph form. Thanks in advance
you need to go back
Fix it or I ain’t reading, quickly before I lose interest
Why would I give two fricks whether a phonerotten zoomer mulatto is interested. Get fricked.
cared enough to reply
You are brown (spiritually and physically)
only spiritually
Learn to write like a civilized human being rather than a strung out boomer scribbling a confused free love manifesto in a soggy college notebook
>Im beginning to suspect it might actually be coded satire.
You'd think that, but then you'd be overestimating the mental fortitude of the modern feminist.
When I was young they were pushing for girls to act more "masculine" now there pushing for actions to not have consequences.
Well put
Should you be contrasting this with the event that started the movie? She has the brain on an infant. Of course she is going to make dumb and immature decisions.
These actions or choices are shown, but not necessarily endorsed.
A good comparison that can be made, which I think sitck due to yorgos greek upbringing and love for is platos symposium. The first few speeches at the party are told as a way for the reader to deduce what love is not while socrates' speach guides the reader to begin the process of understanding what love is.
Bella goes through this journey and arrives at the end wanting to carry on her father's love of knowledge.
My issue with the film is not that she was depicted doing those things, it's that there never seems to be a meaningful realization that agency entails obligation. I think you're right insofar as we're discussing her relationship with her father, and I hadn't considered that, but I think principally her 'quest' was about personal agency. I think the issue is frankly with how the film treats most of its male characters. We only get two types of men in the film, outside of her father, which is either those with exactly zero expectations of personal conduct of commitment, such as with the bookish scientist, or controlling and dictatorial, such as with the lover and her ex husband. The film is pretty explicitly sympathetic toward the former, and associates any presumption of accountability with attempting to control a womans ovaries.
If the quest is for personal agency why does it matter how males are depicted?
Does a quest for personal agency require a good depiction of "other".
I would point towards Harry Astley as a depiction of a Diotima type figure for her.
I do like your point of lacking a satisfying conclusion to this question though, but again I would bring up her encounter with her ex-husband and learning of her mother/former self to ask the question of how much has Bella changed from that of her mother/former self. It now becomes a bit of nature vs nurture because we can see she still posses some of the characteristics of her oldself/mother (killing the frog, punch the baby, no apparent sympathy for her lovers) with that of Bella (sympathetic to her husband, father, the poor).
>Im beginning to suspect it might actually be coded satire.
I was wondering the same. The way the movie ends was such an over the top feminist fantasy it almost comes across as making fun of it.
>be so disgusted by the thought of being a mother you try to have a nice day
>all men pine for you
>go through adolescence fricking bad boys and cads; you didn't know any better so it's their fault
>pay lip service to helping people but don't actually help anyone
>flirt with socialism
>settle down with a literal cuck whom you won't have to frick
>keep your gay, POC lover on the side
>take a high status profession but don't do actual work
>get revenge on man who asks you to keep your integrity
>live off Daddy's money
>the only good men are metaphorically and literally castrated
>no women to compete with
I still liked it.
I think this describes it pretty well. Overall, I liked Poor Things and I'm not a chud so I understand that bodily autonomy and sex discovery are important, and that of course includes sex, but this movie really went out of its way to make any message pointless.
Of course Bella can discover her love of sex, but the worst fricking way to do it is have her work at a prostitutehouse. When Bella is banging the lawyer, she basically has the mind of a child just learning about sex so it makes sense she falls in love with him at a moment's notice. But like it's explained in the film, she advances in intelligence rapidly, so by the time they're in France, she talks and acts like a full grown woman. But she still acts as a prostitute banging all these nasty men? When people discuss this movie, they say Bella doesn't understand "cultural norms" and that's the reason she thinks it's ok to be a prostitute. When in reality, the reason you shouldn't be a prostitute is because of mental anguish and disease. It's like the cathouse boss says: some men ENJOY the fact that the girls don't like it. Which brings up another good misguided lesson: she says that it's necessary to experience both the good and the bad in life. This is true, but it doesn't mean you should go get syphilis.
The slums are another good example. She berates the black man for being a cynic, but goes ahead and gives her money to a couple of strangers, completely negating any point the movie was trying to make.
Every good guy in this movie is completely emasculated. First there's the doctor who's a literal eunuch. Then, the husband who is ok with her leaving him TWICE, AND sharing her with her French girlfriend. And let's be honest, the black man on the cruise was a bit zesty.
Like I said, overall it was good but there's definitely a sentiment here going in one direction. I don't know how similar this is to the book or this is one of those things that has been "edited for modern audiences."
>Cinemaphile has become reddit
SAD!
>Emma Stone’s inability to act was the least of its problems
Lol! this is not 2012 anymore, she's the best actress working in israelitellywood
Let me guess, it's this year's best movie for "smart" people like EEAAO.
I didn’t like EEAAO that much, there was a great movie there buried under a screen of cringe buttplug and deepthroat jokes, but it was superior to Poor Things
Still waiting for the torrent. Frick my local kinoplex for instituting a no so singles policy.
Stick to capeshit chantard
Hi zach
https://alogs.space/cow/res/21575.html
Tradcels will seethe at this movie yet nobody gets mad at them when they goon at beastility porn
>in my mind everyone that does not agree with me are into beastility (sic) porn
I'm just glad that you took the vaxx newbie
>in my mind everyone that does not agree with me are vaxxed cucks
Enjoy your myocarditis you human rat
Two more weeks and the streets will be filled with the bodies of the vaccinated. Two more weeks
Opinions disregarded
No you just have shit tasted0402
I'll probably watch it this week but I'm expecting not to like it. The only other Lanthimos films I've seen are The Lobster which I didn't really care for and The Favourite which I enjoyed mostly for it being a period piece.
I'm not a moralgay but I think what the moralgays in this thread are getting at is that a lot of the plot is a narrative frame around sexploitation cinema. Several scenes like when Mark Ruffalo meets her childlike self for the first time are borderline pedo
bait... or at least bait for people who want to smash moronic women. That said, I like exploitation movies for the most part. Yeah, it's male gaze-y but I'm male and enjoyed gazing at it.
Cinematography was great. I loved all the shots that referenced Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange. Honestly the worst thing about it was the clunky script - some "jokes" were just characters swearing and even those repeated multiple times.
>Poor Things
>currently at 34mil and going down, might receive late Oscar bump
>their last film The Favorite
>95mil in pre covid inflation money
normies agree
It's great. Don't be a homosexual.
Poor Things > Killing Of A Sacred Deer > The Favourite > The Lobster