Poor Things

 

Yorgos Lanthimos's Poor Things is a visually distinct and thematically ambitious film, drawing inspiration from the 1992 novel of the same name by Alasdair Gray. Set in the Victorian era, the story follows Bella Baxter, played by Emma Stone, a young woman brought back to life through unorthodox means. Free from societal constraints, she embarks on a whirlwind adventure, challenging the norms of her time and discovering her voice.

This visual storytelling was creative in the usage of black and white cinematography in the beginning. It created a unique and symbolic atmosphere with the gradual shift to color serving as a metaphor for Bella's increasing independence and exploration of the world. These themes along with the central twist, while intriguing, however were overshadowed by the eccentricity of its presentation.

I appreciated the diversity in the casting as it was a welcome aspect in a period piece. Stone delivered a fascinating performance, embodying the unique physicality and childlike naivety of Bella. Mark Ruffalo portrayed the contrasting worldliness and cynicism as her companion, while Willem Dafoe and Ramy Youssef represented the spectrum of human nature she encountered.

However, Poor Things stumbled in its narrative execution. While categorized as a "genre-defying" blend of sex comedy, gothic elements, and black humor, the film's pacing felt uneven. Despite its relatively short runtime, the unconventional storytelling and abundance of quirky characters left me feeling overwhelmed at times.

While the film's visual style and Stone's performance deserved some praise, Poor Things ultimately felt like a collection of interesting ideas that lacked a cohesive narrative flow. The abundance of awards recognition was a bit perplexing to me, including the Oscar win for Stone, simply because I felt like Lily Gladstone deserved it more for Killers of the Flower Moon. In the end, this movie was too bizarre for my taste and not one I’d watch again.