Poor Things

Leading up to Poor Things, it's been a curious path of expectation setting for me.

On one hand, it looks highly unique, features an interesting premise, an all-star cast, and the trailers are funny enough. 

On the other hand, I was almost anticipating it being one of those films that's "weird just for weird's sake" and hating it, diverging from the general critic sentiment. 

It created a fun movie-going experience in my completely-packed Thursday night theater and I'm very happy to say that Poor Things is quite fantastic and much more mainstream-accessible than I would have guessed. 

It tells the twisted tale of Bella Baxter (Stone) who is a unique creation of "Dr. God" (Dafoe). To reveal the finer details of that creation would give too much of the plot away, but I did find it captivating. It's an absolutely ridiculous premise to be sure, but director Yorgos Lanthimos has also crafted an absurd world so you don't really question it all that much. Over the course of the film's ~2.5 hour runtime, it follows Bella Baxter as she evolves from essentially an infant to a mature woman. There are complexities throughout, including some late-stage events, and while the pacing feels off near the end (the last half hour felt like it was approaching 3 hours), the story overall is captivating. 

Emma Stone does an incredible amount of heavy lifting in Poor Things, and a lot is required of her. It's easily one of the best performances of the year when you consider the different stages of Bella and moments of her experiencing new emotion. Mark Ruffalo plays Baxter's first lover in a consistently hilarious role of the womanizing lawyer, Duncan Wedderburn. The film's biggest highs are when Bella and Duncan are interacting as it's an often funny combination of her naivety and his absurdness as a character. Willem Dafoe and Ramy Youssef also provide strong supporting performances to bolster the main star. 

Poor Things is also just kind of a wild movie. In a lot of ways it feels like it shouldn't work - and I'm sure for many people it wont - but it [mostly] did for me. Lanthimos has given this a unique style all his own with gorgeous set designs, costumes, a semi-steam-punk aesthetic, bonkers camera work including a lot of fish-eye lens usage, and a crazy silly original score. BUT, there's also elements he could have reigned in to make this a better experience overall. The original score is one of the year's best, except for moments where high-pitched strings are squeal-screaming out the speakers at you. I'm not exactly sensitive to loud noises, but certain moments these are so loud and so ridiculous, it's hard to understand how anyone thought it was a good idea...example #1 of excessiveness. Example #2 is the sex. I don't have a problem with the excessive sex and nudity, but particularly during a portion when Bella is in Paris, it was beginning to hinder the pacing of the film. I know what point it was trying to drive home and it could have done so (in this specific section) with 50% less "examples". 

Truly unique in nearly every way...

Time will tell how much I end up remembering Poor Things, or if it makes a splash at the Rath Awards. I can't say I'm immediately seeking out a re-watch, but even overnight the memory if it is a pleasant, if not absurd, fairy tale one. Make no mistake that this is an artsy-fartsy vision of a movie, but it's also so genuine and funny that it's easy for many to enjoy. 

Rapid Rath's Review Score | 8.5/10