"Poor Things": Visually Stunning, But What's the Point?

Okay, so I just saw "Poor Things" and WOW. The cinematography, especially the early scenes in Bella's… incubator, is absolutely breathtaking. The use of fisheye lenses and that vibrant, almost hyper-real color palette really puts you in her headspace. It's like, you're seeing the world with fresh, unjaded eyes. I heard someone mention German Expressionism in another post and yeah, I can totally see that influence, especially with the exaggerated sets. Definite nods to films like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Emma Stone is incredible, obviously. She totally commits to the physicality of Bella's development. I was a little less sold on Mark Ruffalo, not because he was bad, but his character felt kinda one-dimensional to me? The over-the-top, drunken lawyer bit got old pretty quick. Visually, the film is stunning from start to finish - the Lisbon scenes were insane, and the black & white section felt really appropriate. I loved how they used different film stocks and techniques to kind of map Bella's experiences. But here's my problem. I'm not entirely sure what the film is saying, you know? It touches on female empowerment, societal constraints, the nature of free will... but it felt a little muddled. Is it revolutionary, or is it just a beautifully shot, somewhat chaotic journey of self-discovery? Maybe I'm missing something? I'm also curious how other viewers interpreted the ending -- particularly her return and seeming embrace of her old life... Is she being ironic? Overall, the visuals definitely elevate "Poor Things" beyond just a weird period piece. But the narrative felt a little less cohesive to me compared to the sheer artistry on display. I still recommend seeing it on the biggest screen possible, just be prepared to have a lot to unpack afterwards. What were your thoughts? Am I totally off-base here?