Babygirl

I can handle steamy scenes when they serve a purpose. But Babygirl isn't erotic. It's clinical. Like the director thought, "What if we filmed Nicole Kidman's pores having an existential crisis?" Close-up after close-up of heavy breathing, trembling lips, and... other activities..

The plot? Something about power dynamics and forbidden desire. Couldn't tell you much, because the camera was too busy playing dermatologist on Kidman's cheekbones to bother with pesky things like dialogue or character development. At one point, I swear the lens was so far up her personal space that I could see her thoughts.

Kidman commits, because she's a legend. But this isn't Eyes Wide Shut artistry-it's Fifty Shades of Yawn with a Criterion Collection filter. The movie mistakes uncomfortable for deep, and lingering for meaningful. By the 17th prolonged sigh into the abyss of a candlelit close-up, I was sighing too-out of sheer exhaustion.

Skip unless you're really into ASMR for people who think "slow cinema" means "let's watch paint dry... but make it horny.

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.

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.

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.

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.