Babygirl

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.

This is not the movie I was hoping for. It felt awkward at times, with cringe worthy scenes. As much as I enjoyed Nicole Kidman, Harris Dickinson was not enjoyable for me on screen. I felt like it could have been sexier, and more kink satisfying. I literally laughed at some scenes when I should have enjoyed them. A theme I'm into, but this wasn't it for me. Antonio Banderas was a perfect fit for the part! You felt for the husband, and i bought his pain. I really wish this would have been better, but as it is, I don't think I'd care to ever watch it again.

Saw in theaters at AMC with Nicole on 12-27-2024.

What really carries this film are the two excellent central performances from Nicole Kidman and Harris Dickinson. Without them, this film would be entirely forgettable, particularly because this film doesn't really break new ground in its genre and the plot is thin. Sophie Wilde and Antonio Banderas are also good in their supporting roles. Kidman is great in portraying a woman who wants to sink into her desires, but is constantly conflicted in doing so.

The score, soundtrack, atmosphere, the costumes Kidman wears, and cinematography all really elevate this film. The film feels very cold and aloof, which is in keeping with our protagonist. As alluded to earlier, the film's biggest issue is that the story is tenuous and not really anything new. It's surprisingly tame for what it is. It almost felt like the film was self-conscious and scared to really go there and be prurient. But perhaps that was intentional, to mirror Romy's reluctance to go there herself. While there is some nudity, it never really feels sexy. Perhaps that was the director's intent though. While sex scenes in erotic thrillers tend to be sexy, passionate, salacious, almost fantastical, the sex scenes in this film feel very organic, and even awkward at times. Between Romy and Samuel there are awkward silences, confusions as to what to do next, insecurities about intimacy. The result is that you feel like a fly on the wall. However, as a viewer, that is both positive and negative. Positive because it feels realistic, perhaps relatable. But negative because much of the film is difficult to watch. What really would have elevated this film is fleshing out Romy's past and her dark desires.

A nitpick I had with the film is regarding Samuel's tattoos. It felt like he was a walking bad-boy stereotype; the tats felt a bit too on-the-nose and obvious. Dickinson's presence alone was sufficient enough to signal to the audience his dark, dominant interiority. Dovetailing off of that point: while it was refreshing to see a power dynamic in a film wherein the younger of the two parties has the power, as it's typically portrayed as being the inverse, the abrupt jump from new intern to a forbidden affair with his boss was jarring and implausible, if we are to believe this film takes place in reality. But the director's conceit here very well may be a heightened version of reality, a fantasy.

That being said, the film is worth checking out, if only for the great acting.

In the genre of "erotic thriller" it is typically the male that is portrayed as the cheating spouse who gets caught up with the femme fatale.

Here, the role is reversed... it's the middle-aged career woman seeking sexual satisfaction outside her marriage with a younger co-worker.

Despite what some reviews here suggest though, this is not an audacious concept. It has been mined in such movies as Unfaithful and Ryan's Daughter.

And for a movie being marketed as an erotic thriller/mystery, there's none of that here. It's just a straight up drama more in the vein of 9-1/2 Weeks than movies such as Fatal Attraction or Body Heat.

There's a hint of what could have been in just one scene where Kidman's philandering corporate officer and her younger lover threaten each other with exposure. Which of them has the better ammo? We'll never know because the subject is never broached again.

Kidman deserves nods for leaning hard into her role as the unsatisfied wife who has kept a lid on her darker desires during the course of her marriage. Unfortunately, the younger man she takes on, Harris Dickinson, is no match for her. He doesn't have the gravitas or screen presence to suggest that Kidman's character would be at all interested in him.

An okay one-of watch for Kidman's performance.

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.