🎭 1. All Style, Little Substance
Lanthimos dumps us into a candy-colored steampunk meets gothic fairytale world—beautiful, yes, but lifeless as a taxidermied robin. It’s dripping with pastel flair and fish-eye angles that scream Look at me, I’m art! But underneath? There’s no emotional beating heart, just a hollow shell dressed up for the Oscars.
The New Yorker sums this up:
“Lanthimos’s style comes without substance; it’s simply ornamental, imposingly garish, insignificant”
You’ll stare at the visuals and think, “Nice,” but not “Wow.”
👩🎤 2. Bella Baxter: Energetic Performance, Shallow Character
Emma Stone wrings every ounce of charisma from Bella—she’s vivacious, curious, free of taboo, and effortlessly commands every scene. It might be her career-best performance, yes—but playing what, exactly?
Bella is brains-replaced-by-fetus trope incarnate: a woman reborn with naive curiosity and sexual voracity. And that’s… it? We never see her grow beyond the novelty. Slant Magazine notes:
“Poor Things relies nearly entirely on comedy with little real pathos… it makes all the ‘furious jumping’ … feel a little… insincere.”
Stone’s performance shines—but the character feels more like a puppeteer’s toy than a person.
🔄 3. Plot Wanders Like a Lost Goat
Origin story: Bella is resurrected with her unborn baby’s brain by mad scientist Dad Godwin (Willem Dafoe). Fine. Then we get a long series of episodic scenes—voyages, parties, seductions… none of which build toward a punch or a theme. It drifts in stop-motion dandyism.
User reviews go blunt:
“Poor Things is kinda bad… not as clever and subversive as we collectively convinced ourselves it is.” It’s like a diet of decadent hors d’oeuvres—flashy, tasty, but no main course arrives.
⚠️ 4. Murky Morals and Dubious Feminism
Is Poor Things feminist triumphant or a male-gaze exploitation? Critics can’t agree:
-
The Guardian:
“Whether a feminist masterpiece or offensive male fantasy… debates continue.” San Francisco Chronicle warns it’s “dishonest… defines autonomy as being exploited and not caring.”So the film wants to celebrate female liberation… but mostly it feels like lusty spectacle wrapped in pastel rudeness—with little depth to actually explore it.
🤢 5. Shocking Content, Not Emotional Impact
It flashes surreal spectacles—franken-bulldog-bird hybrids, dances, self-pleasuring, seductions. Yet these come across more as eye-candy shock cocktails than meaningful narrative moments.
One critic summed:
“Frankenstein update pummels audience with debauchery sans the human element.” You cringe, maybe laugh, but you never feel anything real beyond mild nausea or amusement.
🤹 6. Supporting Cast Doesn’t Save It
-
Mark Ruffalo plays the roguish lawyer Duncan, but his sleazy charisma often misfires (or simply miscasts), kept afloat only by Stone’s intensity.
-
Willem Dafoe is predictably stellar as the quirky Doc Godwin—but he’s stuck narrating a fairy tale he can’t save.
-
Ramy Youssef (as Max) shows glimpses of sincerity, but the script gives him nothing beyond melodramatic boy-band melodrama.
Everyone is beautiful, bold—but emotionally paper-thin.
🛋 7. Tone: Candy-Coated Unease
Lanthimos is a master of tonal dissonance—here it’s sugar-glossed unease. The film wants us to giggle at madness while simultaneously questioning morals. But the emotional feedback loop never fires.
Critics find it hollow:
“It made me smile… but when you overlook questionable content… no compelling character development.”
It’s entertaining like an expensive toy—but playing with it gets boring fast.
🎶 8. Worldbuilding for Show, Not for Meaning
Victorian-steampunk New Orléans-like world, glitzy costumes, jukebox energy. Lots of effort went into creating a plastic carnival… yet you ask, Why?
If a world is built so carefully, we want meaning behind it—social critique, emotional stakes, narrative dynamite. Here, it’s set-dressing only.
🏆 9. Awards, Praise—But for What?
Sure, the film racked up acclaim and wins—Golden Lion, Oscars, acting kudos. Entertainment Weekly even ranked it #2 among Lanthimos’s films.
But praise ≠ depth. The buzz is about novelty (graphics, performance) not emotional weight. It’s popcorn high-brow. Stylish, yes; substantial? Not so much.
⚖️ Final Verdict
Rating: 1.5 out of 5 pastel wigs with no brains.
-
Tone: Quirky, bizarre—sometimes arresting, mostly soulless.
-
Bella: Stone dazzles—but Bella remains a concept, not a fully lived person.
-
Plot: Meanders. Lacks stakes.
-
Themes: Feminism? Autonomy? But paper-thin, muddled through spectacle.
-
Execution: Flashes brilliance… then coasts on it.
👀 Who MIGHT Like It?
-
Fans of visual excess who’ll say “cinematic candy.”
-
Lanthimos diehards who applaud stylistic bravado.
-
Anyone who sees feminist art as a gloss-driven fantasy.
But if you’re seeking emotional engagement, coherent ideas, or a narrative heart—this ain’t it.
✂️ TL;DR
Poor Things dazzles the eyes. It deafens the soul. It flirts with ideas it never commits to. Lanthimos spun a Frankenstein fantasy… but forgot to give Bella a beating heart.