elliest_5
Joined Apr 2006
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews45
elliest_5's rating
Like others said, this film very much feels like an extended Black Mirror episode, but without a twist or something edgy to make it memorable.
This young couple want to have a baby in a world where babies can be made in artificial wombs i.e. Egg-shaped "pods". The woman (a nice portrayal by Emilia Clarke - the American accent was probably unnecessary given that there's no relevant backstory) is a highly successful professional, working for the same corporation that actually offers the pod services. She's an all around modern woman, having accepted the quirks and conveniences of this very high-tech society. Her husband, on the other hand (a warm and relatable portrayal by Chiwetel Ejiofor) is an old-school botanologist, who loves nature and is sceptical towards all of this tech taking over natural processes like pregnancy and childbirth.
You'd think that this conflict would drive the plot, but it doesn't. It somehow gets resolved very easily, without much of a takeaway and that's the problem of the whole film. No conflict, no high stakes, no twists or sinister revelations, just literally what it says on the tin: a couple having a baby in a pod.
There is no discernible stance or point that the film is making. If the point is "natural is better", it is made in a very underwhelming manner. If the point is to offer some food for thought and debate, then it also fails: there is, for example, the angle of this method of reproduction being liberating for women and an opportunity for men to bond with their unborn baby in a more meaningful way - but this gets quickly dismissed and satirized as if there isn't a deeper discussion about bodily autonomy and gender roles behind it.
One thing I will praise is the pace and aesthetic. I didn't find it slow, despite the lack of an exciting plot. And that's an achievement of the art department, which made the whole flow and visuals soothing and satisfying.
Decent effort, but ultimately powerless.
This young couple want to have a baby in a world where babies can be made in artificial wombs i.e. Egg-shaped "pods". The woman (a nice portrayal by Emilia Clarke - the American accent was probably unnecessary given that there's no relevant backstory) is a highly successful professional, working for the same corporation that actually offers the pod services. She's an all around modern woman, having accepted the quirks and conveniences of this very high-tech society. Her husband, on the other hand (a warm and relatable portrayal by Chiwetel Ejiofor) is an old-school botanologist, who loves nature and is sceptical towards all of this tech taking over natural processes like pregnancy and childbirth.
You'd think that this conflict would drive the plot, but it doesn't. It somehow gets resolved very easily, without much of a takeaway and that's the problem of the whole film. No conflict, no high stakes, no twists or sinister revelations, just literally what it says on the tin: a couple having a baby in a pod.
There is no discernible stance or point that the film is making. If the point is "natural is better", it is made in a very underwhelming manner. If the point is to offer some food for thought and debate, then it also fails: there is, for example, the angle of this method of reproduction being liberating for women and an opportunity for men to bond with their unborn baby in a more meaningful way - but this gets quickly dismissed and satirized as if there isn't a deeper discussion about bodily autonomy and gender roles behind it.
One thing I will praise is the pace and aesthetic. I didn't find it slow, despite the lack of an exciting plot. And that's an achievement of the art department, which made the whole flow and visuals soothing and satisfying.
Decent effort, but ultimately powerless.
This film is primarily satire. It is a playful take on the Frankenstein template: there's a creator and a "monster", except the creator is burdened with his own monster-like and doomed qualities (a victim of experimentation himself) and the creation is blessed with beauty, free will, and power.
The gender-swap is what makes all the difference: Bella (given the name of "beauty" rather than a monstrous name) would have been a "born sexy yesterday" trope, i.e. That common 80s-and-earlier trope, where a sexually appealing grown woman has the mind and world-knowledge of a child, therefore relying on a male mentor to teach her - and use her. But she fully turns the trope on its head when her free will shines through from the very beginning, as she quickly realises she can seize her own freedom and become whoever she likes.
Freudian influences aside (we see Bella going through various stages of maturity, governed by the "ego" and then the "superego"), there isn't too much to analyse about this film's depth. It's all pretty self-explanatory, while also unhinged and most of all fun. I feel that some critics' obsession with finding deep meanings just because it's an art-house film takes away from the film's main mood, which is unapologetically entertaining, up to the very final scene.
Visually, there's so much to enjoy. All the Victorian and Steampunk references, in an unlikely and yet entirely successful marriage with Surrealist imagery (I especially got some Frida Kahlo vibes). After seeing the trailer, I was worried about whether and how the heavy use of CGI landscapes would work, but it really works just fine, specifically within those Surrealist aesthetics.
It's a film that doesn't let you get bored for one second. Emma Stone just slays every single scene, with mind-blowing physicality. All her scene partners are equally enchanting. I loved Mark Ruffalo's buffoonery as Bella's increasingly desperate lover and Willem Dafoe's eerie and almost heartbreaking presence as "God" (short for Godfried, but you see what they did there).
It's unique.
It's masterful.
It's great cinema.
The gender-swap is what makes all the difference: Bella (given the name of "beauty" rather than a monstrous name) would have been a "born sexy yesterday" trope, i.e. That common 80s-and-earlier trope, where a sexually appealing grown woman has the mind and world-knowledge of a child, therefore relying on a male mentor to teach her - and use her. But she fully turns the trope on its head when her free will shines through from the very beginning, as she quickly realises she can seize her own freedom and become whoever she likes.
Freudian influences aside (we see Bella going through various stages of maturity, governed by the "ego" and then the "superego"), there isn't too much to analyse about this film's depth. It's all pretty self-explanatory, while also unhinged and most of all fun. I feel that some critics' obsession with finding deep meanings just because it's an art-house film takes away from the film's main mood, which is unapologetically entertaining, up to the very final scene.
Visually, there's so much to enjoy. All the Victorian and Steampunk references, in an unlikely and yet entirely successful marriage with Surrealist imagery (I especially got some Frida Kahlo vibes). After seeing the trailer, I was worried about whether and how the heavy use of CGI landscapes would work, but it really works just fine, specifically within those Surrealist aesthetics.
It's a film that doesn't let you get bored for one second. Emma Stone just slays every single scene, with mind-blowing physicality. All her scene partners are equally enchanting. I loved Mark Ruffalo's buffoonery as Bella's increasingly desperate lover and Willem Dafoe's eerie and almost heartbreaking presence as "God" (short for Godfried, but you see what they did there).
It's unique.
It's masterful.
It's great cinema.
