Babygirl

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.

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.

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.

This film is really different from other love affairs between young girls and young girls this year. The focus is not on having an affair with a young girl, but on the heroine as a middle-aged person trying to explore her long-standing sexual fantasies and struggling with whether to face the reality. Self, or suppressing and covering up the need to be a normal person. Because what she likes is not young meat, but alternative sexual fetishes. Moreover, in several other old-young romances, the woman is single (widowed or divorced). The purpose is to avoid moral condemnation and just to please the female audience, so they are all presented in the form of romantic comedies. But this film deals with ethics such as cheating and inappropriate behavior in the workplace, and emphasizes the heroine's inner condemnation, shame, and desire to stop. Therefore, it is no longer a comedy or fantasy, but is presented in a suspense-thriller manner, and it explores not love but self-awareness.

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.