Why Critics Split On Mark Ruffalo Poor Things
Critics on Mark Ruffalo in Poor Things
Critics largely agreed that Mark Ruffalo is one of the film's biggest pleasures in Poor Things, praising his fearless comic timing, physical looseness, and willingness to play Duncan Wedderburn as vain, absurd, and increasingly ridiculous. The main split in reaction was not whether he was memorable, but whether his deliberately exaggerated accent and shameless energy were brilliantly tuned to Yorgos Lanthimos's style or simply too broad for some viewers.
What reviewers said
Many reviewers singled out Ruffalo as a key reason the film works as dark comedy, especially once Duncan enters Bella's story and the movie shifts into a more chaotic gear. Coverage of early critical reaction repeatedly described him as "funniest," "debauched," and "chewing up the scenery," while also noting that his performance depends on total commitment rather than realism.
- Supportive critics said Ruffalo makes Duncan feel like a comic force rather than a conventional romantic lead.
- Some reviewers argued his accent is intentionally unstable, which suits the film's heightened theatrical world.
- Detractors thought the performance was overcooked, with one review calling it "unfocused" and "hammy".
- Even mixed reviews often still acknowledged that he lands the film's most outrageous lines and scenes.
Why the role stood out
Ruffalo's Duncan Wedderburn is not written as a subtle character, and critics responded to that extremity in opposite ways. The role is a showcase for vanity, lust, and collapsing masculinity, so reviewers who loved the performance tended to focus on how Ruffalo weaponized charm into farce, while critics who disliked it saw a mismatch between the actor's usual grounded style and the film's grotesque comic register.
That tension also explains why the performance generated so much conversation during awards season. Ruffalo said he was initially scared by the part and that the character pushed him outside the expectations people had for him, which helped critics frame the performance as a departure rather than a routine supporting turn.
Representative critic reactions
Below is a structured snapshot of the critical split around Ruffalo's performance in Poor Things, based on published reviews and entertainment coverage from the film's release and awards-season run.
| Outlet / Source | Reaction to Ruffalo | Overall tone |
|---|---|---|
| CinemaBlend | Called his turn part of the film's strongest ensemble work and highlighted his comedic impact. | Highly positive |
| Far Out Magazine | Praised the performance as absurdly fitting, while noting the accent can border on pantomime. | Positive with caveat |
| Hollywood in Toto | Suggested he was fighting miscasting, even while conceding he makes the most of comic opportunities. | Mixed |
| Letterboxd user review | Called the performance "unfocused" and "hammy," with the accent cited as a problem. | Negative |
| Good Morning America coverage | Described him as "letting his freak flag fly" in one of his funniest performances. | Positive |
Awards-season context
Critical enthusiasm for Poor Things helped turn Ruffalo's performance into a major awards-season storyline. The film was widely acclaimed overall, with reporting at the time citing a 93 percent Rotten Tomatoes critics score, and Ruffalo went on to earn his fourth Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor for the role.
That nomination mattered because it confirmed what many critics had already implied: even when his performance divided viewers, it was never ignorable. The role of Duncan Wedderburn became part of the film's identity, giving the movie a volatile comic counterweight to Emma Stone's Bella Baxter and Willem Dafoe's Dr. Godwin Baxter.
Audience and critic split
The reaction to Ruffalo also illustrates a broader pattern in reactions to Yorgos Lanthimos films: some viewers treat stylization as the point, while others prefer performances that feel more naturalistic. In this case, critics who embraced the film's artificiality often saw Ruffalo as the perfect embodiment of its grotesque wit, while critics who resisted the style were more likely to call his work excessive or miscast.
In practical terms, the performance became a discussion about tone. If the viewer accepted the film's heightened language, elastic movement, and fable-like absurdity, Ruffalo looked fearless; if not, he could seem like the loudest person in the room.
Key takeaways
- Critics mostly praised Mark Ruffalo for making Duncan Wedderburn one of the film's most vivid characters.
- The biggest criticism centered on his accent and intentionally exaggerated style.
- The role helped drive awards attention and landed Ruffalo a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination.
- His performance is best understood as a comic performance in a highly stylized film, not a naturalistic one.
Historical context
Ruffalo's reception in Poor Things also fits his broader career arc, because the role marked a visible departure from many of his more restrained, emotionally grounded performances. In interviews, he described the part as creatively freeing and said the role let him break out of the expectations that had built up around him over time.
That context helps explain why critics were so engaged: they were not just reviewing a performance, but measuring a recognizable actor against a deliberately strange part in one of the year's most polarizing prestige films. For supporters, the result was a comic triumph; for skeptics, it was an overextended flourish that still could not be ignored.
Helpful tips and tricks for Why Critics Split On Mark Ruffalo Poor Things
Was Mark Ruffalo good in Poor Things?
Yes, according to most critics, he was very good, especially as a comic performer in a stylized film. The main objection from detractors was not lack of commitment, but whether his exaggerated choices were the right fit for the character.
Why did critics talk about his accent?
Because the accent is one of the most noticeable parts of the performance, and reviewers disagreed on whether it added to the character's absurdity or distracted from it. Supporters saw it as part of the film's theatrical design, while critics on the other side saw it as overblown.
Did Poor Things help Ruffalo's awards profile?
Yes. The role contributed directly to Ruffalo's fourth Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor, reinforcing the idea that his performance was a major part of the film's critical success.
What is the overall critical consensus?
The overall consensus is that Ruffalo's performance is bold, funny, and highly memorable, even if not universally loved. In a movie built on extremity, he became one of the clearest symbols of its comic risk-taking.