Long-time movie critic Rex Reed said that the good reviews of this movie have called it “weird, exhausting, repugnant, raunchy, garish, demented, twisted and bonkers,” which are perfect descriptions. However, Mr. Reed hated “Poor Things” because of those qualities, and I loved it in spite of them. Or maybe I loved the movie because of the way those qualities were employed to tell the story, but I am of the squeamish sort. 

Its freak show weirdness is undeniable, but this peculiar movie isn’t being odd or trashy for prurient or gratuitous reasons  (though you might get a kick out watching Emma Stone pee on the floor).

The grotesqueness is necessary in this Frank N Fun of a movie in order to explain how central character Bella Baxter (Emma Stone) evolves over time after a Frankenstein-like experiment was performed on her. (I won’t spoil the plot by stating exactly what was done to her, but the experiment is revealed over time in the movie. Once the reason this was done to her is finally divulged, you might even change the revulsion you are sure to feel when you first find out about the experiment.) And, ir one accepts the initial premise of this experiment, then everything done thereafter is going to seem trashy and crazy. It’s inevitable. And it is entirely plausible that a mad scientist like Dr. Godwin Baxter (brilliantly played by William Dafoe) would try such an experiment which sets off a series of unfortunate events. Yet Bella Baxter ultimately triumphs. 

“Poor Things” deserves its nomination for Best Picture. The story is entirely unique, artfully told, and thought provoking. It made me think about what it means to be human. And though I have not seen three of the ten nominated movies yet, I cannot imagine anyone giving a more engaging and believable performance than Emma Stone in this extremely challenging role. See it, but be prepared to look away.