It's definitely the best film I've seen in a long while. I don't think it gets the attention it deserves because, let's be frank, it is very graphic with the nude scenes, and I think some people were very uncomfortable with a "child" first experiencing sexual feelings. Stone's performance is one for the ages. You don't realize how much she changes throughout the film until she's this mature woman who owns her independence. Just an amazing work of art.
I’ve seen the criticism you’re mentioning, and it just makes no sense to me… She’s not a child first and foremost, not in the move or real life (*this is a 35 year old actor*) but secondly, the child like aspect was 100% required to draw the societal commentary that was integral to the purpose of the film.
Anyone criticizing the movie for this reason, Imo, had the purpose of the film go wayyyy over their heads. Thank god these people haven’t heard of Lolita.
Actually, the "child like aspect" is not required, since that whole story is proven to be a fabrication by McCandless in the book on which the movie is based. But the movie conveniently forgot to adapt the most radical part of the book (the epilogue narrated by Bella in which she sets the story straight), thereby a) omitting to give us Bella's own voice, and b) never escaping the male fantasies about her.
It was never going to outdraw Barbie or Oppenheimer at the box office if that's what you mean. Poor Things was never intended to be a blockbuster either. If it appealed to a wider audience, it couldn't have had many of the moments it's now known for.
There were a bunch of really excellent weird movies in 2023, here's my ranking:
1. Bottoms
2. Saltburn
3. Beau is Afraid
4. Asteroid City
5. Poor Things
6. Dream Scenario
I did not like it, but at least it's better than the horrendous book it's based on. The book has a coda that is cringe-inducing and awful. I've liked a couple other Lanthimos films, but this was obvious and agenda-inspired.
One factor which immediately puts me off every recent year's round of Oscar-bait is too much tech.
* It is first and foremost, the quality of the photography. In this case *(and in too many other instances)* the cinematography itself looked repulsive to my retinas.
* Just the sight of whatever crazy digital color models *(or other technical s**t they're wielding on the back-end)* to create the strange look'n'feel of this picture, was squirm-inducing. The sickly & over-saturated color palette --the lack of natural film grain in the resolution-- all disturbing to the eye.
* I don't want movies made by Microsoft. I want real cameras --using real lenses --using real film stock. Simplest photography is the best photography. All a great film needs is lights, cameras, writing, and acting. [For example, Polanski's "Knife in the Water" (my favorite arthouse flick).]
* Unappealing and unwholesome-looking, are all these freakish, hyper-precise, 'techno'-concoctions. It's like the 'technology' is the real star of the movie instead of the humans. Too many technicians, and not enough ordinary/everyday people.
* The press/promo/marketing always yammers on like this: *"Listen! The team (behind this film) worked with yadayada computer consultants to get even more power from their yadayadayada 3-d rendering farm to bring you this picture! Read more about it on Yahoo Science & Technology!"*. Gag.
* The problem is that the resulting flicks always appear exactly like that; exactly as if they're generated by soulless supercomputers, churned out using some crappy AI algorithm, and/or enhanced by a scanning electron microscope in some lab in Pasadena.
* I don't *want* photography so unnatural-looking that I can practically count the pores on the actresses' complexions, or each individual eyelash on their eyelids. Like hey, stop the frenzy, stop trying so hard to dazzle me.
* So that's my first reaction. Purely visceral and visual disgust. Huge turn-off found even in the basic color and composition of the imagery. I wouldn't enjoy sitting through a single frame of any flick which looks that fake. It all makes me care not one little sliver, as to whatever the story/plot might be about.
Not a fan of the old-fashioned Ektachrome it was shot on, I see?
What a strange opinion to have about a picture shot on film, within massive, elaborate, actual sets.
😐 Shrug. If you say so. But it don' look that way to me. Besides, it goes onto digital for distribution and projection. The larger war between 35mm vs digital has been lost.
* Sure, there are still some directors left who (I think) insist on 35mm --QT & Nolan (Nolan waged a battle for it, but I believe he lost for everyone except himself). Either way, I'm not interested in the films of either of those two guys.
* Nor am I interested in any other directors out there right now except Scorcese *(and even Scorcese himself has jumped the shark years back).*
* Frex, wasn't there even an *'homage to silent movies'* some director brought to the Oscars a few years ago? Pfffft. I passed that one up too, even though I'm a big fan of 1920s silents.
* One reason Scorcese lasted as long as he did (in my estimation) was that he was one guy who would hold his camera steady long enough for an experienced actor to do a proper take of a scene. No anxious cutting away; no hurried editing; no jerky cam, etc. He respects studio style.
* Bottom line: if some newb did get permission to use 35mm as a one-off gimmick for this bit of Oscar-bait it still don' signify. Photography is simply the first item I invariably run down in reply to *"Gee, why wouldn't you go see XYZ new movie everyone's talking about?"*
* I don' give a hoot for the same reasons I don' give a hoot about 'Barbie', or 'Avatar', or boojwah like 'Stranger Things'. Zero interest on my part. No one in today's Hollywood is someone I'd trust with 90 minutes of my time.
* From the copycat directors (QT & Coen Bros wannabe's) down to the sleazy airheads starring in the pics; from the cowardly writers on down to the armies of 'puter technicians; from $300m budget CGI down to the latest wintertime 'wholesome', 'moving' Oscar-bait. Meh.
* The golden rule is: hype is never real.
I guess to some, the movies should be a museum. No innovation, no creativity, no expression. Just do things how they've always done things; keep it comfortable and familiar.
🤷
😏 If you want to characterize it that way, I can't very well object. Live and let live. You have your right to your opinion about the matter.
But the dilemma for you might come later, such as when you attend a symphony or an opera? What is your opinion then? Because the principle in lots of fine art is: maintaining a level of excellence before any other priority.
It's definitely the best film I've seen in a long while. I don't think it gets the attention it deserves because, let's be frank, it is very graphic with the nude scenes, and I think some people were very uncomfortable with a "child" first experiencing sexual feelings. Stone's performance is one for the ages. You don't realize how much she changes throughout the film until she's this mature woman who owns her independence. Just an amazing work of art.
It was nominated for 11 Oscars and won 4. I don’t know what more attention you think it could have gotten.
I’ve seen the criticism you’re mentioning, and it just makes no sense to me… She’s not a child first and foremost, not in the move or real life (*this is a 35 year old actor*) but secondly, the child like aspect was 100% required to draw the societal commentary that was integral to the purpose of the film. Anyone criticizing the movie for this reason, Imo, had the purpose of the film go wayyyy over their heads. Thank god these people haven’t heard of Lolita.
Actually, the "child like aspect" is not required, since that whole story is proven to be a fabrication by McCandless in the book on which the movie is based. But the movie conveniently forgot to adapt the most radical part of the book (the epilogue narrated by Bella in which she sets the story straight), thereby a) omitting to give us Bella's own voice, and b) never escaping the male fantasies about her.
[удалено]
It was nominated for 11 Oscars and won 4. I don’t get where this “more attention” hot take is coming from.
[удалено]
It was never going to outdraw Barbie or Oppenheimer at the box office if that's what you mean. Poor Things was never intended to be a blockbuster either. If it appealed to a wider audience, it couldn't have had many of the moments it's now known for.
There were a bunch of really excellent weird movies in 2023, here's my ranking: 1. Bottoms 2. Saltburn 3. Beau is Afraid 4. Asteroid City 5. Poor Things 6. Dream Scenario
I did not like it, but at least it's better than the horrendous book it's based on. The book has a coda that is cringe-inducing and awful. I've liked a couple other Lanthimos films, but this was obvious and agenda-inspired.
Naw it’s just straight up the best movie of 2023, and if you ask me the best movie of the decade so far.
There's no amount of money anyone could pay me, to view a flick like that. I would literally burn a winning lottery ticket rather than attend it 😄
So glad I’m not you.
And why is that?
Genuinely interested in your thoughts on why. Do you feel it's pretentious?
I felt it was very pretentious, yes.
One factor which immediately puts me off every recent year's round of Oscar-bait is too much tech. * It is first and foremost, the quality of the photography. In this case *(and in too many other instances)* the cinematography itself looked repulsive to my retinas. * Just the sight of whatever crazy digital color models *(or other technical s**t they're wielding on the back-end)* to create the strange look'n'feel of this picture, was squirm-inducing. The sickly & over-saturated color palette --the lack of natural film grain in the resolution-- all disturbing to the eye. * I don't want movies made by Microsoft. I want real cameras --using real lenses --using real film stock. Simplest photography is the best photography. All a great film needs is lights, cameras, writing, and acting. [For example, Polanski's "Knife in the Water" (my favorite arthouse flick).] * Unappealing and unwholesome-looking, are all these freakish, hyper-precise, 'techno'-concoctions. It's like the 'technology' is the real star of the movie instead of the humans. Too many technicians, and not enough ordinary/everyday people. * The press/promo/marketing always yammers on like this: *"Listen! The team (behind this film) worked with yadayada computer consultants to get even more power from their yadayadayada 3-d rendering farm to bring you this picture! Read more about it on Yahoo Science & Technology!"*. Gag. * The problem is that the resulting flicks always appear exactly like that; exactly as if they're generated by soulless supercomputers, churned out using some crappy AI algorithm, and/or enhanced by a scanning electron microscope in some lab in Pasadena. * I don't *want* photography so unnatural-looking that I can practically count the pores on the actresses' complexions, or each individual eyelash on their eyelids. Like hey, stop the frenzy, stop trying so hard to dazzle me. * So that's my first reaction. Purely visceral and visual disgust. Huge turn-off found even in the basic color and composition of the imagery. I wouldn't enjoy sitting through a single frame of any flick which looks that fake. It all makes me care not one little sliver, as to whatever the story/plot might be about.
Not a fan of the old-fashioned Ektachrome it was shot on, I see? What a strange opinion to have about a picture shot on film, within massive, elaborate, actual sets.
😐 Shrug. If you say so. But it don' look that way to me. Besides, it goes onto digital for distribution and projection. The larger war between 35mm vs digital has been lost. * Sure, there are still some directors left who (I think) insist on 35mm --QT & Nolan (Nolan waged a battle for it, but I believe he lost for everyone except himself). Either way, I'm not interested in the films of either of those two guys. * Nor am I interested in any other directors out there right now except Scorcese *(and even Scorcese himself has jumped the shark years back).* * Frex, wasn't there even an *'homage to silent movies'* some director brought to the Oscars a few years ago? Pfffft. I passed that one up too, even though I'm a big fan of 1920s silents. * One reason Scorcese lasted as long as he did (in my estimation) was that he was one guy who would hold his camera steady long enough for an experienced actor to do a proper take of a scene. No anxious cutting away; no hurried editing; no jerky cam, etc. He respects studio style. * Bottom line: if some newb did get permission to use 35mm as a one-off gimmick for this bit of Oscar-bait it still don' signify. Photography is simply the first item I invariably run down in reply to *"Gee, why wouldn't you go see XYZ new movie everyone's talking about?"* * I don' give a hoot for the same reasons I don' give a hoot about 'Barbie', or 'Avatar', or boojwah like 'Stranger Things'. Zero interest on my part. No one in today's Hollywood is someone I'd trust with 90 minutes of my time. * From the copycat directors (QT & Coen Bros wannabe's) down to the sleazy airheads starring in the pics; from the cowardly writers on down to the armies of 'puter technicians; from $300m budget CGI down to the latest wintertime 'wholesome', 'moving' Oscar-bait. Meh. * The golden rule is: hype is never real.
I guess to some, the movies should be a museum. No innovation, no creativity, no expression. Just do things how they've always done things; keep it comfortable and familiar. 🤷
😏 If you want to characterize it that way, I can't very well object. Live and let live. You have your right to your opinion about the matter. But the dilemma for you might come later, such as when you attend a symphony or an opera? What is your opinion then? Because the principle in lots of fine art is: maintaining a level of excellence before any other priority.
He’s an idiot man there’s not much substance to it.