Babygirl: Deseo Prohibido

It's a drama about sexual fantasy and control set in December in modern New York City. The family in question is 50-ish high-powered executive Romy Mathis (Nicole Kidman), her Broadway play director husband, Jacob (Antonio Banderas), and their two teenage daughters, Isabel (Esther McGregor) and Nora (Vaughan Reilly). Romy is highly successful and innovative at her job but sexually unsatisfied in her marriage.

Romy meets Samuel (Harris Dickinson), a 25-ish intern at her company, who she is attracted to because of his assertive behavior. His behavior and her fantasies collide in a relationship with predictable problems, including Samuel also dating Romy's assistant, Esme (Sophie Wilde). After things get out of control, there is climactic conflict and resolution.

"Babygirl" is a virtuoso Nicole Kidman performance. That's the best that I can say for the film. Harris Dickinson is adequate as a manipulative jerk, as is Antonio Banderas as a preoccupied husband. Esther McGregor has a nice little subplot in the film. "Babygirl" is no feminist movie, and there are no attractive characters. The film's ending is superficial and ludicrous. The cinematography is creative at points, and the sex scenes are not graphic. However, any "truth" in "Babygirl" is lost in the unrealistic ending.

Maybe if young actor Harrison Dickinson didn't play such a smug, arrogant creep, it would be easier to believe Nichole Kidman's character could instantly develop such a dangerous attraction to him in the new erotic thriller "Babygirl." And maybe if there weren't a real person named Luigi Mangione seducing millions of social media followers with a similar posture of sexy entitlement as he faces murder charges for a cold-blooded killing, it would be easier to dismiss this kinky drama written and directed by Halina Reijn as pure fantasy.

Either way, the movie is pretty much of a mess.

It's getting a bit of buzz at the moment for Kidman's recent Golden Globe nomination, and for the - gasp - lengths she went to to earn it.

In case you've missed the sizzling ad campaigns, "Babygirl" opens with an apparently nude Nicole testing the limits of R-ratings in the throes of passionate lovemaking with her husband (Antonio Banderas). As though that's not steamy enough, she finishes up with a kinky encore orgasm in front of her computer screen.

All this before the opening credits, and the scenes establishing her character Romy Mathis as the founder and CEO of a cutting-edge company that's streamlining Amazon-style commerce with robotics.

With her successful playwright husband, two beautiful teenage daughters, a corner office with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the Manhattan skyline, a penthouse and a mansion in the country, Romy's got it all. And she rules her domain with aloof, absolute control.

At least until the intern shows up.

His name is Samuel (Dickinson) and they meet by accident when he saves her from a savage German Shepherd attack on the sidewalk in front of her office. Later that morning she is formally introduced to the dog whisperer as a member of her company's incoming class of interns.

Samuel stands out of the crowd - at 6-foot-2 he towers over them, actually - but this doesn't explain why Romy can't keep her eyes off the condescending sneer usually on his face. He makes his disregard for her authority clear from the get-go, with the kind of attitude that would a guy fired, pronto, in any corporate setting in anyplace remotely resembling the real world.

Instead, Romy chooses to risk everything she has created and built in her corporate empire and perfect family to get him to practice some of that dog whispering on her.

What follows is lots, and lots, of seedy hotel rooms, office desk tops and even a rave, for her to keep discovering how low can she go. Turns out she was faking it in her perfect world. This young-enough-to-be-her-son lover is offering her a way out ... she thinks, and she's willing to commit career suicide to prove it.

Last year Emma Stone won the Oscar and a Golden Globe for her bold foray into sexuality in the brilliant "Poor Things." She made sex mainstream for awards season.

Kidman gets points for guts for following Emma's lead, and for still having an if-you've-got-it-flaunt-it body in her late 50s. But she still comes in a distant second to Stone's groundbreaking performance, which sealed the deal with a healthy sense of humor on the whole subject of sex.

Besides the corporate backstabbing and snake pit treachery, there are themes of fragile family dynamics along with Romy seriously twisted psyche in "Babygirl." But that's not what the audience has come to see.

Unfortunately, for those of us who never got the concept of power as an aphrodisiac, or are color-blind when it comes to differentiating 50 shades of gray, Reijn's screenplay doesn't make much sense. The eroticism the publicists are banking on gets tedious in a hurry, and would be of even less interest if it weren't Nicole Kidman up there, baring it almost all.

She remains one of the most versatile actresses on screen today, but "Babygirl" is at best a sideways step rather than a thrilling advance in her brilliant career.

A lot has been said about Babygirl, mostly involving Kidman's performance. The remainder of chatter has been about the uniqueness of its story and how it pushes boundaries around this topic. Unfortunately I have issues with both of those talking points: yes, Kidman does push herself to new territory she has not necessarily been to before as an actor, but it's really just her very personal artistic growth but not one the audience actually shares in. This story/script doesn't really cover anything new. It's basically an older woman in power cheating on her husband with a much younger man. I've seen this story numerous times before and some of them were better told. Sure, their specific sexual dynamic is not as common but it just all seemed so familiar. If it were a lesser known actress in the lead novel one would be talking about Babygirl, because it just doesn't warrant it. As for Kidman's performance, she does nail the sex scenes quite well but otherwise her character isn't that interesting and she's done much better work in numerous other films.

Poorly written script, no meaningful plot or character development, generic emotions and shallow submission psychology all packed in "own your kink like a boss" pseudo-feministic narrative that can sell pretty much anything nowadays. No eroticism, no emotional depth, no intellectual or psychological insights, no story.

Interestingly, after "Eyes Wide Shut" Kidman had another wish to play a frigid woman who marries a guy that never brings her to orgasm... Why oh why? One failure was more than enough.

Sex sells, celebrities sell - sadly, these are the only reasons why this boring film got so much attention.

Fatal Attraction, 9 1/2 Weeks, Unfaithful, 50 Shades etc - one of these moody, erotic films comes along about once a decade. Everyone either gets off a little, clutches their pearls or sees it for it is - a sexual fluff piece. They are almost always shot really gracefully and the cinematography is also always on point. Fine acting and a smoking hot couple for everyone in the audience to have a little something. The difference here is the all woman collaboration which was probably a really attractive draw for these actors - to see how this film in a genre dominated by Adrian Lyne compares. I can't believe I'm going to say this because I really enjoy her but I don't think Kidman was the right casting for the lead. She's beautiful, aging beautifully and has give some really good performances over the years - I didn't like this one. And the dude is cute but a little creepy too. It was entertaining and a little jaw dropping but the story and especially the ending was really clunky.