The specific overall average Letterboxd rating for Poor Things (2023) cannot be accessed through standard web searches, as Letterboxd ratings are dynamic and update continuously as users rate the film.
However, we know that Emma Stone’s Yorgos Lanthimos-directed film has garnered substantial engagement on the platform, with individual user ratings ranging across the full spectrum from two stars to five stars, indicating a divided but active audience response.
To find the exact current rating, you would need to visit the film’s Letterboxd page directly at letterboxd.com/film/poor-things-2023/, where the aggregate score is displayed prominently alongside thousands of user reviews and diary entries.
- Letterboxd Rating Poor: Table of Contents
- How Letterboxd Ratings Work and Why They Matter
- The Range of Letterboxd Ratings for Poor Things and What They Reveal
- Emma Stone's Performance and Critical Reception on the Platform
- Comparing Poor Things to Other Lanthimos Films on Letterboxd
- The Limitations of Crowdsourced Ratings and Letterboxd's Specific Challenges
- Where to Find Detailed Poor Things Reviews and User Perspectives
- The Future of Poor Things's Letterboxd Rating and Its Place in Cinema History
- Conclusion
- You Might Also Like
Poor Things received significant attention in Letterboxd’s 2023 Year in Review coverage, suggesting the platform recognized it as a culturally significant release. The variation in ratings—from five-star raves to lower scores—reflects the film’s polarizing nature; its experimental visual style, surrealist narrative, and unconventional storytelling either captivate viewers or leave them cold.
This pattern is typical for auteur-driven films that prioritize artistic vision over mainstream accessibility.
Table of Contents
- How Letterboxd Ratings Work and Why They Matter
- The Range of Letterboxd Ratings for Poor Things and What They Reveal
- Emma Stone’s Performance and Critical Reception on the Platform
- Comparing Poor Things to Other Lanthimos Films on Letterboxd
- The Limitations of Crowdsourced Ratings and Letterboxd’s Specific Challenges
- Where to Find Detailed Poor Things Reviews and User Perspectives
- The Future of Poor Things’s Letterboxd Rating and Its Place in Cinema History
- Conclusion
How Letterboxd Ratings Work and Why They Matter
letterboxd ratings represent a crowdsourced evaluation system where users assign films between half-star and five-star ratings based on their viewing experience.
The platform’s algorithm displays an aggregate average that synthesizes thousands of individual ratings, making it one of the most comprehensive crowd-sourced film rating databases available—more granular than imdb in some respects because Letterboxd users tend to be passionate cinephiles rather than casual viewers.
For a film like Poor Things, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival before its theatrical release, early adopters and film festival audiences likely shaped the initial rating trajectory.
The significance of a film’s Letterboxd rating goes beyond simple numerical metrics. The platform doubles as a social network and diary app, meaning ratings exist within a rich ecosystem of written reviews, director/actor rankings, and genre categorizations that provide context.
A four-star rating on Letterboxd often carries different weight than a four-star rating on IMDb because Letterboxd reviewers frequently explain their scoring in detailed write-ups, allowing readers to understand whether a lower rating reflects genuine artistic disappointment or simply personal taste misalignment.
The Range of Letterboxd Ratings for Poor Things and What They Reveal
The fact that Poor Things received ratings across the full two-to-five-star spectrum indicates a genuinely divisive film rather than one with universal consensus.
Some Letterboxd users gave it five stars, responding enthusiastically to Stone’s transformative performance, the film’s baroque production design, and Lanthimos’s maximalist directorial approach. Others awarded it four or 4.5 stars, appreciating the ambition while noting certain pacing or narrative clarity concerns.
Three-star ratings appear in the Letterboxd ecosystem as well, typically from viewers who found value in the film’s technical achievements but struggled with its accessibility or thematic coherence.
A critical limitation when interpreting any crowdsourced film rating is the self-selection bias inherent to Letterboxd’s user base. The platform attracts film enthusiasts, critics, and cinephiles—people who actively track and rate their viewing habits—rather than casual moviegoers. This means Poor Things likely received more thoughtful, nuanced ratings from people inclined to engage with experimental cinema.
A mainstream audience on a platform like rotten Tomatoes or general IMDb users might have produced a different aggregate score.
Additionally, the timing of ratings matters; early adopters and festival attendees may rate differently than viewers who encountered the film in its wide theatrical release months later.
Emma Stone’s Performance and Critical Reception on the Platform
Emma Stone’s lead role in Poor things became a major talking point across Letterboxd reviews, with many five-star raters specifically praising her commitment to the character’s peculiar physicality and emotional arc.
The film required Stone to adopt an unusual posture, vocal delivery, and mannerisms as Bella Baxter, a reanimated woman discovering the world, and this choice resonated strongly with appreciative audiences.
Letterboxd users who rated the film highly often highlighted this performance as a career high point, comparing it to her Oscar-winning turn in La La Land but noting the greater risk and artistic daring required here.
Conversely, some lower-rated reviews on Letterboxd cited the performance’s artificiality as a barrier to emotional investment, finding Stone’s choices too mannered or distancing. This divide reflects a fundamental question about Lanthimos’s filmmaking philosophy: whether stylization and authenticity can coexist, or whether pursuing one necessitates sacrificing the other.
For viewers who align with the director’s vision, the performance is a triumph; for those who don’t, it can feel like an obstacle to connection.
Comparing Poor Things to Other Lanthimos Films on Letterboxd
To contextualize Poor Things’s Letterboxd reception, it’s useful to compare it with Yorgos Lanthimos’s previous features on the same platform. The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017) and The Florida Project (2017) both developed passionate followings on Letterboxd, though they occupy different genre territories.
Poor Things sits somewhere between Lanthimos’s more accessible work and his most challenging pieces, which likely explains why it attracted a broader but more mixed audience than his earlier films.
Some Letterboxd users who had given previous Lanthimos works four or five stars approached Poor Things with different expectations, potentially influencing their ratings. The practical takeaway here is that no single Letterboxd rating exists in isolation.
A film’s aggregate score should be read in conjunction with the filmmaker’s other work, the platform’s user demographics, and the written reviews that accompany the numerical ratings.
For someone deciding whether to watch Poor Things, consulting both the aggregate Letterboxd score and reading a sampling of diverse user reviews—five-star and lower—provides far more value than the number alone.
The Limitations of Crowdsourced Ratings and Letterboxd’s Specific Challenges
Crowdsourced rating systems like Letterboxd’s carry inherent limitations that anyone relying on ratings should understand. Rating inflation is real; many users rate films they loved five stars, creating a bias toward higher scores overall. Conversely, some users rate disappointing films one star as an expression of frustration rather than a genuine critical assessment.
For Poor Things specifically, the film’s significant awards buzz and critical acclaim from major publications may have influenced some Letterboxd users to rate it higher than they might have in a vacuum, while others may have rated it lower as a counterreaction against perceived hype.
Another warning worth noting: Letterboxd ratings change over time as more users rate a film. A film that starts with a 4.2 rating based on 10,000 ratings from film festival attendees and enthusiasts might shift to 3.8 or 3.9 once it reaches a broader audience of mainstream viewers months after theatrical release.
Poor Things, released in 2023, continues to accumulate new ratings as it becomes available through streaming services and secondary markets, meaning its aggregate score will gradually shift—likely downward as less engaged viewers encounter it—from whatever it was at initial release.
Where to Find Detailed Poor Things Reviews and User Perspectives
Beyond the aggregate rating, Letterboxd’s real value lies in its review function, where users can share detailed thoughts on Poor Things alongside their starred ratings. Navigating to the film’s reviews page reveals hundreds of written perspectives, many offering specific critiques or defenses of the film’s aesthetic choices.
Readers can sort by rating (viewing only five-star reviews, for instance, to understand why some found it exceptional), by length, or by engagement (most popular reviews). This granular access allows for a far more informed understanding of the film’s reception than any single numerical rating could provide.
The Letterboxd diary function also reveals cultural impact. Thousands of users logged their watching of Poor Things and created personal records of the experience. This creates a living archive of how audiences responded to the film across different regions, demographic groups, and time periods.
For researchers, critics, or simply curious viewers, this represents an invaluable resource that didn’t exist before social media and crowdsourced platforms democratized film criticism.
The Future of Poor Things’s Letterboxd Rating and Its Place in Cinema History
As Poor Things ages and finds audiences through streaming, television, and other distribution channels, its Letterboxd rating will continue to evolve. The film’s initial reception from festival audiences and early adopters may be partially overshadowed by ratings from viewers who encounter it years after release, potentially affecting the aggregate score.
Yet Letterboxd’s strength lies in preserving individual reviews and timestamps, meaning future researchers will be able to trace how the film’s reputation shifted over time—a historical record that traditional review aggregators don’t maintain as effectively.
Poor Things appears positioned to become a canonical reference point in discussions of contemporary cinema, particularly regarding Emma Stone’s career, Yorgos Lanthimos’s artistic development, and the viability of surrealist narratives in contemporary cinema.
Its Letterboxd rating—whatever the exact figure—captures a moment in cultural history where audiences confronted a genuinely uncommon film and responded across the full spectrum of possible reactions.
Conclusion
While the exact current Letterboxd rating for Poor Things cannot be retrieved through standard web searches, the film’s presence on the platform reveals a genuinely divided audience encountering an ambitious, polarizing artistic statement. Individual ratings range from two to five stars, reflecting the film’s experimental nature and its appeal to certain viewers while alienating others.
Understanding Poor Things’s Letterboxd reception requires moving beyond any single numerical score to engage with the platform’s ecosystem of detailed reviews, personal logs, and user discussions that contextualize the film’s critical reception.
For anyone considering watching Poor Things or seeking to understand its cultural reception, visiting its Letterboxd page directly offers the most current rating alongside hundreds of user perspectives that illuminate why audiences responded so differently to Emma Stone’s transformative performance and Lanthimos’s baroque directorial vision.
The platform’s crowdsourced approach captures something genuine about contemporary film appreciation: not universal consensus, but rather an honest record of how diverse audiences wrestle with challenging cinema.
You Might Also Like
- What Is the Metacritic Rating for Poor Things
- What Is the IMDb Rating for Poor Things
- What Is the Rotten Tomatoes Score for Poor Things
For more on Letterboxd Rating Poor, see the full breakdown above – the letterboxd rating poor details cover what most viewers want to know.
Whether you searched for letterboxd rating poor reviews, letterboxd rating poor streaming, or letterboxd rating poor cast, this guide consolidates the relevant letterboxd rating poor facts in one place.
