“Poor Things” (2023) is Yorgos Lanthimos’ latest film and first novel adaptation. Dr. Frankenstein—though never named—is long dead, but his monster, Dr. Godwin “God” Baxter (Willem Dafoe), continues his father’s legacy as a man of science and teaching a group of medical students at a prestigious medical school. He plucks one outcast and ridiculed student, Max McCandles (Ramy Youssef), to observe his latest experiment, Bella (Emma Stone), who has a child’s brain in a woman’s body. As Bella develops, she decides that she wants to leave God’s home and explore the world. She follows any man who offers that opportunity to her, but each one is unable to keep their promises and tries to confine her thus destroy what they love about her. Once Bella has discovered herself, she decides to explore her origins, claim her father’s legacy, and make it her own.

I have no plans to read Alasdair Gray’s novel, but Lanthimos pursued Gray to acquire the rights before he died, and it is easy to see why. It is a twisted coming of age story that explores societal norms from a fresh perspective and interrogates assumptions about how life should be lived using a sensational premise. If Gray did not already write it, Lanthimos already explored the book’s themes in his earlier movies: the controlling environment in “Dogtooth” (2009), the absurdity of societal rules in “The Lobster” (2015), the amoral tyranny of children in “The Killing of a Sacred Deer” (2017), and the flawed, unlikeable but riveting and pleasure seeking, driven, three-dimensional women in “The Favourite” (20118). Unlike his earlier work, “Poor Things” is Lanthimos’ most optimistic film because the narrative arcs towards a utopian paradise cobbled together from society’s margins, the titular reference, except it would be a mistake to pity any of the characters regardless of the unfortunate predicaments that they find themselves in. The film has feminist ambitions from the minds of men, which means lots of graphic sex and nudity, but to be fair, it is integral to the story. If there was no false narrative of morality superimposed on life, how would a woman live?

Because Bella starts as a child in an adult’s body, she has no impulse control and does whatever she wants whenever she wants. Most of the film chronicles her pursuit of pleasure. She is like any tyrannical toddler, cruel and mischievous even if her intent is otherwise. “Poor Things” follows her at different stages of her life. Her father, God, and his assistant, Max, try to be benevolent, respect and protect her, but confine her against her will and lie to continue to protect her. Dissolute rapscallion Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo) sweeps her away with promises of hedonism and open about his selfishness but is horrified to discover that he cannot live up to his reputation and rather likes obeying some rules, especially if it keeps Bella under his control. Bella and Duncan trade places in terms of emotional intelligence as Duncan becomes a willful toddler, and Bella begins to acquire an education. That education leads her to engage in and expand the range of her relationships—friendships, business, and mother-daughter dynamics. Some characters with ambiguous motives enjoy inflicting physical or psychological pain on Bella while also appreciating her amoral, inquisitive, open qualities. Bella discovers unfortunate realities about suffering in the world, which she embraces until she chooses to return home and has explored enough.

Lanthimos creates a Victorian steampunk colorful fantasy world, which becomes black and white when it is restricted to science and life as an experiment, not when Bella is in control of her journey and living. The visuals are reminiscent of Terry Gilliam’s work, but less grotesque and mocking. Lanthimos’ customary style is usually to be visually realistic with an absurd, fantastical premise, but in “Poor Things,” Lanthimos embraces the aesthetic of a sci-fi world with a storybook bold color scheme and soft-edged lines in the architecture and technology. Lies about Bella’s origins encourages her to latch on to a connection to her past and identify as an explorer of the world and herself. Random coincidence: both this film and “The Marvels” (2023) share a moment of protagonists going to an unfamiliar, strange but beautiful place, finding the tallest building and looking out from its veranda at the panoramic city skyline as a symbol of the character’s sense of adventure, openness, fearlessness and possibility.

Bella is unflinchingly honest, bold and sympathetic, but not a person who is easy to love. It can be hard to watch her appear so reckless and unconcerned about her physical safety, which is where the men doing feminism comes in. I am glad not to see sexual violence onscreen, but one danger of sexual liberation is that the wrong man could ruin sex and life for Bella. While some threaten Bella, Lanthimos depicts them as inadequate buffoons that Bella can handle, which makes “Poor Things” a delightful fantasy in which a woman can conquer patriarchy. Even an elderly woman laughs in the face of imminent danger and threats of murder. Lanthimos implicitly continues his “Dogtooth” incestuous theme with fathers who consider being husbands to their daughters and husbands who are fathers to their wives. That statement will make sense when you see “Poor Things.”

Bella does not repeat her father’s mistakes. She never rationalizes that her suffering and her father’s abuse serve a noble purpose such as science. She has scars but recognizes them as cruel and rejects perpetuating that cruelty except as an act of justice. Bella may hurt people, but it is unintentional except as an act of cathartic turning of the tables. Instead, her existence, which straddles the impossible, signifies where she will end up. She embraces science without rejecting pleasure and emotion. She sees and accepts the flaws of people whom she cares about but will never excuse their flaws. She can challenge and try to change these wrongs. In the end, she gains the upper hand with her father. Bella teaches one to admit that he has an emotional side and helps him surrender to nature. Bella punishes the other father figure for his tyranny and condemns him to the life that he expected from her: a mindless subject.

Once “Poor Things” settles into a routine of shock and awe before developing Bella’s psychological profile, it gets a little predictable, but it is still a fun watch with a lot of hilarious moments. I saw “Priscilla” (2023) the day before watching “Poor Things,” and they share the theme of women who manage to create an independent identity despite living in a world that is inhospitable to nurturing anything except obedience to men whereas the men, who have more autonomy, cling to defining themselves in relation to their power over others and falter when facing the vastness of the world.

While I enjoyed “Poor Things,” the ordinary moviegoer should proceed with caution. The acting is superb but do not expect the same customary performances from the actors. I have many issues with Stone, but I had to wipe the slate clean and give Stone her flowers. There is not a trace of her usual tricks, and her role feels like the unofficial cousin of Sarah Churchill in “The Favourite” except more benign.