Depraved modern comedy.

….I felt embarrassed watching it on my own….

petra

If anyone is thinking of watching Poor Things with their grandchildren, think twice. It’s very explicit in parts.
Also very gory.

Watching it at my sons ( he has Disney plus) because I realised Emma Stone had won an Oscar for it. I’ve seen some pretty weird films over the years but this is even weirder than Eraserhead! And that’s saying something.

Explicit sex, and swear words in plays are sometimes justified . The trial of the publisher of Lady Chatterley's Lover justified the publication of a novel that contained both explicit sex and swear words.
I have not seen the play that is being objected to in this thread, however do the explicit sex and swear words serve to better tell the truth about human life? That is the criterion: truth.

Doodledog

I don't know what was shown . But if there had been a film of people actually having sex it wouldn't have got a 15 certificate and be shown on Netflix.

Something like that can be hinted at, but it is unlikely to have been pornographic or depraved, is all I'm saying.

I agree

hazelnuts

Sex is something you explore together as consenting adults.
Children do not need to be exposed to these kind of scenes remember children age 11 plus who are watching may have ADHD ,Autism or other mental illnesses and then what does society do to them when they put in to action what they have seen sometimes using force .We have just seen horrific murders by children on other children .Where did they get the ideas from. As a society we should be protecting and nurturing them.
If film makers could go back to making some comedies or musicals that we can watch as families wouldn't society be in a better place? Our young people have years to investigate and establish their sexualities let them be children as long as possible.

Whilst I don’t disagree in theory, this was a 15 film, so I wouldn’t expect anyone under that age to be watching it with their parents or grandparents.

“Children” between the ages of 15-18 are, of course, legally minors/children. In reality these are young people, mid puberty, many with boyfriends/girlfriends, exploring their sexuality and sexual feelings.

I would be far more concerned about those under 15 and exposed to inappropriate content.

If anyone is thinking of watching Poor Things with their grandchildren, think twice. It’s very explicit in parts.
Also very gory.

OP, I totally agree with you. It is disgusting.

If there is consent of all participants it could hardly be deemed ”perverted”. And as such a private matter. Distasteful to some most certainly. Perversion starts at the lack of consensus and some recently widely publicised cases involving the highest echelons of our society would qualify. But do we really need to be shown that? I for one do not wish to see it and then think about it. And certainly do not wish to have it shoved into my face. Most tales can be told very successfully without resorting to illustrating private “shenanigans “. As for swearing, a lot of do at times, when we are upset or similar. It’s when swearing is entirely gratuitous and used instead of punctuation, it then upsets me.

Totally agree with 'Fair2Good'
Far too much explicit behaviour is being shown these days.
Do what they want in private but please, Less on show!

I watched Northern Comfort as part of an international film festival. I can honestly say I haven’t laughed so hard in ages. Thought it was a brilliant film with some excellent comedic set pieces. If you haven’t seen it, I thoroughly recommend it.

Caleo

FYI I am 91 , and I believe children should be age-approriately informed about sexual relationships, amd about what , precisely, is bad about porn

What is bad about commercial porn is not that it depicts explicit sex but that it promotes various sorts unkindness to living creatures including animals. Children need to be forewarned about the actual dangers of commercial porn.

I've been 'informed' - but I refuse to look for myself (being a tad squeamish) - that some of the women in explicit pornography appear nervous and unhappy.

I do wonder how many are coerced, one way or another - either threatened or 'charmed' into doing things they don't feel comfortable with?

I realise that many women are quite willing partners and it's entirely their choice, but I still believe that pornography is very much a 'man's world'.

That children - and even 15 year olds - can fairly easily access this stuff does not, in my opinion, bode well. Particularly for girls, especially if they are impressionable.

age-appropriately of course!

FYI I am 91 , and I believe children should be age-approriately informed about sexual relationships, amd about what , precisely, is bad about porn

What is bad about commercial porn is not that it depicts explicit sex but that it promotes various sorts unkindness to living creatures including animals. Children need to be forewarned about the actual dangers of commercial porn.

MissInterpreted

Oh dear, I'm not even sure where to start here - or even if I want to! Morally degenerate? Perversion? That's unbelievable.
And I'm pretty sure that in 2024, many 15-year-olds have seen far worse on their phones!

They may well have seen worse, but that does not make it right that children far younger than fifteen can watch sexually explicit acting.

What consenting adults do in their homes is their business and I personally would not have used OP's terms to describe what she saw in this film, but surely there should be standards of decency for films scheduled for family viewing, which is surely still what the fifteen and over label is supposed to be stating that the film is?

I would have been most horribly embarrassed when I was fifteen if there had been anything "sexy" in a film I was watching with my parents or worse my grandparents! I doubt the world has changed so much that teenagers are not still embarrassed by these scenes if in the company of their parents and grandparents!

I doubt that full frontal nudity, either male or female could possibly do anyone of any age harm to see. After all nudist beaches exist and most children these days will have seen both parents in the shower when they were small enough to be bathed by their parents.

Anything so sexually explicit should surely have an 18 certificate.

Even the much loved 'Love Actually' movie has a scene where its inferred that Joanna Page is performing oral sex where they're filming a sex film..

I don't agree with the description of what was portrayed but I am surprised it was classed as suitable for age 15.

Yes, I think I agree.
The Queer as folk programme that teen daughter and I watched implied exactly what was being done, but only showed faces (thankfully!!)

I don't know what was shown . But if there had been a film of people actually having sex it wouldn't have got a 15 certificate and be shown on Netflix.

Something like that can be hinted at, but it is unlikely to have been pornographic or depraved, is all I'm saying.

Surely graphic is if the whole thing was clearly shown?

I do get the implication though.

In which case it wouldn't (or shouldn't) have had a 15 certificate, which is why I asked earlier if the sex was suggested rather than graphic. I haven't seen it, so I don't know, but a lot of posters are taking the 'depravity' at face value.

Our original post indicates that this programme does not fall into the category of "nudity without graphic detail", but shows a sexual act being watched by a third person.

ForeverAutumn

SeaWoozle It doesn't though does it? It says Language and Sexual Images. Sexual Images can be interpreted in different ways, and I would accept this describes full frontal male pics on a phone. But for a film rated 15 I feel that a scene showing oral sex watched by a girlfriend should be described as sexual acts.

No, it wouldn't contain sexual acts.

The British Board of Film Classification says that a 15 certificate film may contain (frequent) strong language, strong violence, strong sex references, nudity without graphic detail and hard drugs.

Nudity without graphic detail is not depravity or pornography.

SeaWoozle It doesn't though does it? It says Language and Sexual Images. Sexual Images can be interpreted in different ways, and I would accept this describes full frontal male pics on a phone. But for a film rated 15 I feel that a scene showing oral sex watched by a girlfriend should be described as sexual acts.

hazelnuts

Sex is something you explore together as consenting adults.
Children do not need to be exposed to these kind of scenes remember children age 11 plus who are watching may have ADHD ,Autism or other mental illnesses and then what does society do to them when they put in to action what they have seen sometimes using force .We have just seen horrific murders by children on other children .Where did they get the ideas from. As a society we should be protecting and nurturing them.
If film makers could go back to making some comedies or musicals that we can watch as families wouldn't society be in a better place? Our young people have years to investigate and establish their sexualities let them be children as long as possible.

ADHD and autism are not mental illnesses. They are both a type of neuro divergence.