Poor Things is very pretty, I’ll give it that much. Colors pop, and the watercolor, blurry sky and the scaling but condensed environments of Lisbon and Alexandria both convey the miasma of Bella’s mind quite well. How the background blurs in our young memories and how we remember all the buildings and places that looked large over us but so rarely the walks to them. Those work for me. So much of the rest of the film doesn’t.

I see what it’s going for- it’s hard not to. A journey of womanhood through the conceit of a child’s brain in a woman’s body, when women are treated as children and property to begin with. But it’s so fucking weird, with that conceit, to devote so much time to sex. Sex is an important part of being human for many people, I’m not denying that. But the attention it gets here throughout compared to brief, paltry scenes of Bella reading, seeking knowledge, having an interest in medical science and surgery is disproportional. Especially when the film wants to play her coming home and following in Godwin’s footstep as a culmination of her journey when it’s a facet of the film that barely gets any play in comparison. Angelica Jade Bastien, whose Variety review you should all read, brings up how in a film ostensibly about a cis woman and her relationship with her body menstruation does not come up once. It’s so telling where the film’s true focus lies.

And yes, sex can be beautiful, and conversely so can sex scenes. But the ones here are done dispassionately yet voyueristically. There’s no interiority, no sensuality, no sense of emotion and character felt through them. Compared to films like The Handmaiden they are sterile in heart if not content. It’s a big swing to go from black and white to color, and I can see sex being the impetus for it, sure, but when it’s done like this I don’t buy it. It’s interesting to me that her first time having sex is portrayed like this, with penetration until the man comes, thrice over, and yet her first time with cunnilingus is off screen. I feel like all the sex in this film is similarly narrow and lifeless.

None of what this film is trying to say is new, but much of it is muddled. It wants to rail against the entitlement of men, how they see women as property, how they want them to be exciting and adventurous but only in service of them. And yet it gives Max no grief at all for falling in love with. A child. Literal child, this is not a metaphor, it’s a child’s brain. And marrying her but refusing to have sex with her until marriage because that would be taking advantage, as if marriage would not be taking advantage and has not been used as the ultimate control. On some level the film condemns this, but only in the opposite direction, as part of Emily leaving Max is her frustration over not having sex. It’s baffling that the film seems to take the viewpoint that we ought to let children consent to sex with adults, that it is part of their development and journey to personhood. The film is similarly forgiving to Godwin, who used a woman’s body in a way she would very likely not have consented to all while the film extols a woman’s choice and ownership of her body.

Everything the film has to say about the nature of man and people, about women’s place in society, about sex work, etc, is rote. Nothing here is new, and nothing is heightened by the core conceit. It’s so surface level. And the cast is game enough. Dafoe is Dafoe and that’s always a good time, but I wouldn’t call this one of his greatest roles. Carmichael, much as I love his standup, just is not working here. Stone and Ruffalo are acting for the back seats, and while that has its moments of charm, it’s too much for most of the runtime. And Stone is just. She’s playing into ableist stereotypes for so much of this performance. The film drops the r slur and we’re just gonna pretend that Stone isn’t doing an insulting caricature at the same time? I don’t even want to delve into all the questions raised by the mental disability angle, others could do that better than me, but it’s another level of thoughtlessness and surface level depth.

The score is similarly cloying and overbearing. It insists on a scene rather than being a part of it. It doesn’t enhance it or complement it, it beats you over the head with how the scene is meant to make you feel. I could enjoy the sound of it in isolation, but as a score it’s distracting more than anything else. It’s a bit surprising to me how much this film has been praised as outside of the production design, I don’t see it. I just don’t. For me, this is as much a misfire as Barbie, if not more. Poor things.

I'm disappointed. The movie looks and sounds beautiful - the costumes and the world both are very intricate. I enjoy the language that is used, how the dialogues are written and I especially love the concept of the movie. It's not something new, plenty of books cover basically the same idea of a "clean" human, who grew up without societies influence, discovering the world. Nontheless, I was intrigued. Sadly since Bella is a woman, clearly the only way for her to explore the world is through having sex with men, because how else. And that could have been fine, talking about sex and sexuality is important, but this movie just uses it as a way to make jokes and show her tits. It is shown as something great and liberating, even when grown man assault her as a child or when she works at a brothel. Besides this weird portrayal of sex, there is not much substance. A few buzz words are thrown around like socialism, worker unions etc., but the writers were happy with just mentioning this stuff. Even when talking about prostitution, the commentary is restricted to "what if the prostitues would choose who they have sex with" - what a great, elaborate thought. This shows just how little though went into the writing. Overall there is nothing worthwhile to be found here - at best you will get an ignorant commentary about topics they clearly have never engaged with.

“I must go punch that baby.”

The first film of the Leeds International Film Festival 2023 (LIFF), and what a strong start!

Poor Things is a humorous, sexy, and Gothic tale that can be philosophically but in the most bizarre ways. There is something so wonderful about the weird, especially in art.

Emma Stone's performance as Bella Baxter was just glorious. It’s also a very “risky” performance because when we first meet her, she is a child in an adult body after being reanimated, with her vocabulary being on the same level as a three-year-old, and her uneven body posture/moments, as if she’s still learning how to move. There is A famous movie saying, “Never go full stupid”, but Stone finds the right balance that prevents it from being embarrassing to watch, which other actors failed at. However, that section is only at the beginning, and as the film progresses through her journey of becoming herself, we see her understanding of language and walking improve significantly.

Bella is a fantastic main character, and she’s easy to care about. We want to see her succeed, and Emma Stone was terrific.

This is the best performance I have seen from Mark Ruffalo, as every time he was on screen, the audience and I were laughing. His character is a loudmouth parody of the ladykiller, who takes Bella under his wing and has her for himself. He chewed up the scenery, and it was astounding. There is a scene in this movie where both Bella and he have a chaotic dance, but the little dance he does on his way to the dance floor, I can't stop thinking about it. It was so funny.

William Dafoe, which should come as no surprise, delivers a superb performance as the monster-looking scientist Godwin Baxter. He is often referred to as 'God' at times, with his patchwork flesh of a face having a distant cross on the right side of his face. He very much plays the role of God, as he does the impossible and gives new life to unfortunate lost souls.

I’m just saying this right now, but the Best Supporting Actor race next year might be the best if nothing ruins it. I hope not. Imagine this: Robert Downey Jr. for Oppenheimer, Ryan Gosling for Barbie, Robert De Niro for Killers of the Flower Moon, and Ruffalo & Dafoe for Poor Things.

Everything on a technical level, such as cinematography, the score, costumes, and the production design - all extraordinary and benefited in bringing this world alive. The whole movie feels otherworldly and timeless.

What I find compelling about director Yorgos Lanthimos is that if you examine his movies, the stories in his movies are simple. The Lobster is about fulfilling societal norms we feel we need to follow, such as getting a job, applying to a college and university, being with a romantic partner, having kids, having interests, and eventually dying. The Killing of a Sacred Deer is a horror revenge tale where a family gets cursed after the fathers' wrongdoings. The Favourite is a period piece drama/comedy about two reveals who try to win the love of a bipolar queen.

Poor Things is a fresh re-imaging of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (also based on a novel by Scottish author Alasdair Gray), remodeled as a coming-of-age story told through a female perspective. The needs, the wants, the issues, and losing our inner child in this demanding world. Unique and isn't afraid to approach sexuality so openly.

At the start, the character of Bella has the mind of a child while having an adult body but is not restricted and not insecure about things. She can be loud, messy, playful, and expressive in emotions. Especially when it comes to sexuality, hence the openness to it. Like, there's nothing wrong with something that everyone does, but we don't talk about it. As we get older and more exposed to the world, we get quieter, speak less, get insecure about things, care too much about what others may say/think, and become closeted. That is one angle of the film that I found incredibly compelling.

But the execution is wild. I do not buy for one second that it’s strange for the sake of it. It leans more into steampunk absurdism. Yorgos Lanthimos presents the events as they are without questioning them, as the surface level normality peeled back, and focuses on the strange happenings in life and people. He's one of the most unique voices in cinema, not only for what he has to say but what he must show and how to show it.

The only issue I had with the film was towards the end when it started to get a bit preachy, going as far as hitting you on the head with it, and I was thinking, "Alright, I get it."

Other than that, the film was excellent and one of the most unique and memorable experiences I had this year. Even if this is Yorgos Lanthimos's most accessible film so far, it may still be too much for some, but even with its peculiar nature, you will find it impossible to take your eyes off the screen.

Where do I even begin? I've been a fan of Yorgos Lanthimos since first discovering 'Dogtooth', which quickly became one of my favourite films of all time. Going from there, I have loved everything he has put out, and it was not long before I started proclaiming him to be my favourite director currently working. I've also greatly admired Emma Stone and many of her performances for over a decade now. So, with all that said, my hopes for Poor Things were at an all-time high.

This was everything I had expected and hoped for. One of the rare times that a film I have exceedingly high hopes for actually manages to live up to what I had circling around in my head.

It's jaw-droppingly gorgeous. Without a doubt the best costume and set design I've seen in years (sorry Barbie). The camera work on display is creative, pretty, and inspiring. Everything about the way this film looks is a spectacle. Fortunately, that's not where my praises for this film end. The plot is captivating, the pacing is perfect, and the performances (especially from Emma Stone) are mesmerising. Lanthimos' direction is sublime, and this film is so full of life and wonderment. It's laugh-out-loud hilarious whilst dealing with some rather complex and disturbing subject matter.

I'd be truly shocked if this film does not sweep up awards this awards season. I couldn't be happier with how it turned out. My only complaint was that I couldn't see it last year.

Can't wait to see what Lanthimos puts out next.

First off, the technicals. I have no trepidation in saying this is the technically most impressive movie of 2023. The visuals are sumptuous, some stills are painting worthy. The fisheye lens, the discordant score, the absurdist and beautifully detailed environments...everything is operating at an extremely high level. Special shoutout to the title cards that split up each section of the movie. In particular, that last one will live rent free in my head. The settings are just perfection. From the very first shot of the movie, you know you are in for an audiovisual feast. Secondly, the performances. Really, this movie starts and ends with Emma Stone. In the most competitive year for Best Actress that I can remember, she is the winner. She puts everything into this character, not just from a physicality point of view but also the way that her facial expressions and speech patterns transform throughout Bella's journey. It's definitely centered around her, but the supporting cast does an admirable job (Mark Ruffalo specifically) in tandem with her. Third, the plot. I think, if I were to criticize the movie, this might be the one area. The movie is 2.5 hours long, and it does drag a bit in a few sections. I thought one or two of them could have been slightly tighter to keep the pacing brisk. I am doing this just to nitpick though because the other sections were brilliant, and I absolutely loved them. Finally, themes. This is a movie about liberation, and it tackles it across a variety of different avenues. Seeing Bella's journey of self-discovery was fascinating, and it was equally fascinating to see how often certain elements tried to contain it. Utilizing this madcap version of the world to really accentuate those competing forces worked. This is the best movie of 2023. Just FYI, this is not a movie you see with family. At all. It is explicit. Extremely explicit. And weird. And absurd. And so good.