|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
162.232.81.100
Should Emma keep her clothes on and remain the cute girl next door?
Follow Ups:
along with Barbie which I absolutely found a waste of time! I have not seen Poor Things and won't. A film about a female Frankenstein with a baby brain that LOVES to f**k is NOT my cup of tea... Emma Stone is a good actress, but frankly I thought she had better taste in material.....
Edits: 01/30/24
"Poor Things" is, on the surface, as TWB describes. But that analysis is like saying that Moby Dick is about a whale. No, Poor Things is about a woman controlled by and defined by men who takes control over her sexuality and then over her life.
You may not like the movie or its message, but clearly it's not a nudie remake of Frankenstein.
was?
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Several people posted their opinions about "Poor Things" apparently without having seen it.
So I guess I can add my opinion about "Oppenheimer" here (because I haven't seen it): It's too long. You can't hear the dialogue. It's funny without being vulgar. Cillian Murphy ran the gamut of emotions from A to B. Emily Blunt isn't as hot as Elsa Lanchester.
Agree about Oppenheimer, which we did see.
The Elsa Lancaster comment was a Frankensteiny riffette.
Mary Shelly was hotter than Emily Blount, too.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
Look up the 1990 low budget horror/comedy "Frankenhooker".
There is more than a passing similarity in the conceptual basis of the two movies.
I am somewhat surprised that the Poor Things "remake" got the critical acclaim it is getting.
Trying to hide from entropy
John K
Is that the only thing you have to say about this truly unique film? That Emma Stone appears naked?
Not really so unique - see my post to TWB above.
It is big budget though.
Trying to hide from entropy
John K
. . . most critical aspect of any film he posts about. I haven't seen "Poor Things" myself, but I suspect he's right in this case too! ;-)
I saw it. It was a fascinating, creative, unique movie.
I don't fall for the gimmickary of visual overload.
I dozed off a couple of times.
to see what all the hoopala was about... It took me 3 or 4 attempts to get through it, I kept falling asleep. I still stand by what I said about it from the get go. I will add that some of the technical aspects of the film are interesting. Having said that, it reminded me of what a friend mine used to say... "It was weird, for the sake of being weird". THAT I believe is true! Also, I am NOT a fan of the "fish eye" filming technique... I find it distracting and does not further the narrative of the film. Emma Stone WAS the stand-out, but I really was not invested in her character and could have cared less what would happen to her....
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: