435 reviews
Nicole Kidman is giving a performance in "Babygirl" that no doubt many people will be calling "brave," mostly because it suggests that women over the age of 50 (gasp!) like to have sex and maybe even like to get kinky once in a while.
She does give a good performance, and it's the movie's biggest selling point. It's a shame that by the time the film is over her performance has been diluted by a muddled screenplay that doesn't know what it wants to say about gender dynamics or the sexual power play between men and women. Maybe confusion is the point, because Kidman's character doesn't completely know what she wants. She enjoys her place as a powerful female leader in the professional world, but she also enjoys relinquishing that power in the bedroom and giving into submissive fantasies. But only up to a point -- submissiveness for women can quickly veer into uncomfortable territory if taken too far by the man they're with. Scary can be fun, but after a certain line is crossed, scary is just scary.
I applaud a film that's honest about female sexuality, but I wish the topic had been given a better movie than this.
Grade: B.
She does give a good performance, and it's the movie's biggest selling point. It's a shame that by the time the film is over her performance has been diluted by a muddled screenplay that doesn't know what it wants to say about gender dynamics or the sexual power play between men and women. Maybe confusion is the point, because Kidman's character doesn't completely know what she wants. She enjoys her place as a powerful female leader in the professional world, but she also enjoys relinquishing that power in the bedroom and giving into submissive fantasies. But only up to a point -- submissiveness for women can quickly veer into uncomfortable territory if taken too far by the man they're with. Scary can be fun, but after a certain line is crossed, scary is just scary.
I applaud a film that's honest about female sexuality, but I wish the topic had been given a better movie than this.
Grade: B.
- evanston_dad
- Jan 5, 2025
- Permalink
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.
Underdeveloped characters' storyline, the dialogue between them is flat, absolutely no chemistry between the main character and the young man. Nicole Kidman's character, meant to be a layered portrayal of vulnerability and control, comes across as shallow and poorly developed. The supporting cast, including Antonio Banderas, is equally underutilized, leaving their roles feeling more like afterthoughts than essential parts of the story. The script lacks depth, relying heavily on melodrama and predictable tropes rather than offering any fresh perspective on female desire or empowerment. Scenes that aim to be provocative or intense often feel forced and unconvincing, making the film's attempts at emotional resonance fall flat.
The pacing is another significant issue. The movie drags in its middle act, with repetitive dialogue and unnecessary subplots that add little value to the overall narrative.
The pacing is another significant issue. The movie drags in its middle act, with repetitive dialogue and unnecessary subplots that add little value to the overall narrative.
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.
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.
- filmephile
- Dec 25, 2024
- Permalink
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.
- yogabella-65303
- Jan 11, 2025
- Permalink
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.
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.
- steiner-sam
- Dec 27, 2024
- Permalink
I can't get over how much my husband and I did not like this movie. There's nothing to it except too much of Nicole Kidman panting. The plot is boring, scenes are drawn out, and there's no character development. I didn't care what was going to happen and I thought it wasn't believable. There's no way some young intern would behave the way he did and not get fired. He was way too confident and weird. I really would just like my money back and move on. Warning to anyone who's sensitive to jumpy/blurry filming style, there's a lot of it. I had to close my eyes sometimes to avoid getting a headache. Basically this was an entirely forgettable movie.
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.
Saw in theaters at AMC with Nicole on 12-27-2024.
- skylerkennethkidd
- Dec 27, 2024
- Permalink
- smertens-06820
- Jan 5, 2025
- Permalink
There are so many movies like "Babygirl" that don't understand the emotion behind things like infidelity, power, and lust, using them as devices instead of primal aspects of the human condition. When one is done this well, it feels like a bolt of lightning.
Reijn is unafraid to have her characters play out all the wobbles that come with negotiating one another's boundaries, reinforcing how pleasure comes from good communication. That the Dutch female director manages to do so while crafting some of the hottest sex scenes in a major film in years and without dropping the ball in pacing this satire on the era of the politically correct feels almost impossible.
Babygirl is that movie and most likely because it's subject matter is written from a female perspective.
Reijn is unafraid to have her characters play out all the wobbles that come with negotiating one another's boundaries, reinforcing how pleasure comes from good communication. That the Dutch female director manages to do so while crafting some of the hottest sex scenes in a major film in years and without dropping the ball in pacing this satire on the era of the politically correct feels almost impossible.
Babygirl is that movie and most likely because it's subject matter is written from a female perspective.
- David Mills
- Dec 23, 2024
- Permalink
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.
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.
- laplante-co-672-297856
- Jan 1, 2025
- Permalink
This is the biggest cringe-fest I have seen in ages. I expected something at least interesting or sexy. Yuck...there is no sexiness to be found here. There is zero chemistry between Nicole Kidman and the young dude, no proper build up to their relationship or whatever the hell it is, and the director appears clueless as to what she's making.
The best part of the whole damn movie is when the daughter asks Kidman why she puts that crap in her face because she looks like a dead fish because it's what we all really want to know. Why is she doing this to her face? Does she think it looks good? It looks ridiculous and the weird unnatural face is very distracting on a big screen.
The dead, unmoving "fish face" has taken away her previous acting abilities and she's completely flat here. Her face is expressionless, even as hard as she's trying (and she's trying hard), but the 800 units of Botox and 30 syringes of filler is hard to defeat. She looks embalmed, and on top of it her breasts look like two hard rocks. Why is she continuing to play these supposed "sexy" parts? Nicole, you look like a plastic grandma please just stop. It's becoming stomach churning.
But nothing in the entire film is as stomach churning as Samuel's "dance" to George Michael's Father Figure. Seriously? I'm still trying to recover from the cringe. What sort of dance moves are those? Is this supposed to be sexy? Who are the people who find this sexy?
I haven't been this irritated by a movie in quite some time. This is the crap that is going to put theaters out of business. Save your money and watch the trailer because there is nothing more to see and a whole lot you will wish you hadn't seen.
The best part of the whole damn movie is when the daughter asks Kidman why she puts that crap in her face because she looks like a dead fish because it's what we all really want to know. Why is she doing this to her face? Does she think it looks good? It looks ridiculous and the weird unnatural face is very distracting on a big screen.
The dead, unmoving "fish face" has taken away her previous acting abilities and she's completely flat here. Her face is expressionless, even as hard as she's trying (and she's trying hard), but the 800 units of Botox and 30 syringes of filler is hard to defeat. She looks embalmed, and on top of it her breasts look like two hard rocks. Why is she continuing to play these supposed "sexy" parts? Nicole, you look like a plastic grandma please just stop. It's becoming stomach churning.
But nothing in the entire film is as stomach churning as Samuel's "dance" to George Michael's Father Figure. Seriously? I'm still trying to recover from the cringe. What sort of dance moves are those? Is this supposed to be sexy? Who are the people who find this sexy?
I haven't been this irritated by a movie in quite some time. This is the crap that is going to put theaters out of business. Save your money and watch the trailer because there is nothing more to see and a whole lot you will wish you hadn't seen.
- CatDayAfternoon
- Jan 2, 2025
- Permalink
- RRiley9945
- Dec 28, 2024
- Permalink
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.
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.
- rickchatenever
- Dec 26, 2024
- Permalink
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.
- margrettvan
- Dec 15, 2024
- Permalink
There's something particularly maddening about a movie that demands two hours of your life but gives absolutely nothing in return. "Baby Girl" is one such disaster-a bewildering, pointless exercise in bad storytelling, uninspired direction, and empty performances.
The film struggles from the outset, failing to establish any meaningful plot or purpose. Its attempt at being profound is laughable at best, with scenes meandering aimlessly, leaving viewers questioning why they're still watching. Any hint of a narrative is buried under layers of incoherent dialogue, abrupt tonal shifts, and characters so shallow they could evaporate in direct sunlight.
The protagonist-if you can even call her that-spends most of the film alternating between brooding and making incomprehensible decisions. Her motivations are never clear, and by the time the credits roll, you're left wondering if the writers even knew what they were trying to achieve. The supporting cast fares no better, delivering stilted performances that seem more fitting for a community theater audition than a feature film.
Visually, "Baby Girl" offers little to redeem itself. The cinematography is uninspired, with a bland color palette and unimaginative framing. Even the soundtrack-typically a saving grace for many films-is forgettable, leaving scenes feeling even more lifeless than they already are.
Perhaps the most damning aspect of "Baby Girl" is its utter lack of direction. It's as though the filmmakers had a vague idea but no clue how to execute it. The result is a film that's not just bad-it's utterly pointless. There's no emotional payoff, no engaging story, and certainly no reason for anyone to endure it.
If you're looking for a movie to hate-watch, "Baby Girl" might fit the bill. But for anyone hoping to be entertained, moved, or even mildly interested, steer clear. Life's too short for films like this.
The film struggles from the outset, failing to establish any meaningful plot or purpose. Its attempt at being profound is laughable at best, with scenes meandering aimlessly, leaving viewers questioning why they're still watching. Any hint of a narrative is buried under layers of incoherent dialogue, abrupt tonal shifts, and characters so shallow they could evaporate in direct sunlight.
The protagonist-if you can even call her that-spends most of the film alternating between brooding and making incomprehensible decisions. Her motivations are never clear, and by the time the credits roll, you're left wondering if the writers even knew what they were trying to achieve. The supporting cast fares no better, delivering stilted performances that seem more fitting for a community theater audition than a feature film.
Visually, "Baby Girl" offers little to redeem itself. The cinematography is uninspired, with a bland color palette and unimaginative framing. Even the soundtrack-typically a saving grace for many films-is forgettable, leaving scenes feeling even more lifeless than they already are.
Perhaps the most damning aspect of "Baby Girl" is its utter lack of direction. It's as though the filmmakers had a vague idea but no clue how to execute it. The result is a film that's not just bad-it's utterly pointless. There's no emotional payoff, no engaging story, and certainly no reason for anyone to endure it.
If you're looking for a movie to hate-watch, "Baby Girl" might fit the bill. But for anyone hoping to be entertained, moved, or even mildly interested, steer clear. Life's too short for films like this.
- pstaalesen
- Dec 28, 2024
- Permalink
My wife and I saw Babygirl (2024) in theaters this evening. The storyline centers on a New York CEO married to a Broadway play director. She harbors a deep, dark sexual urge that her husband cannot satisfy. When an interim employee joins her company, he notices something about her, and she notices him-setting the stage for her darkest desires to be fulfilled.
This film is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies) and stars Nicole Kidman (Cold Mountain), Harris Dickinson (County Lines), Antonio Banderas (The 13th Warrior), Sophie Wilde (Talk to Me), and Esther McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi).
This is a unique and well-crafted film. It explores intriguing intricacies surrounding unfulfilled desires, highlighting how they can consume a person when finally realized, becoming as addictive and destructive as a drug. Kidman delivers an elite performance, portraying her character's internal struggles with nuance and depth. The storyline is smart, with indirect analogies to AI and the complexities of the human mind adding layers of thoughtfulness. The cinematography, wardrobe, and settings are exceptional, fully immersing the viewer in the film's world. While not flawless, there's much to appreciate here.
In conclusion, Babygirl is an artistically crafted and executed film that will likely receive award recognition. I'd score it a 7/10 and recommend seeing it at least once.
This film is written and directed by Halina Reijn (Bodies Bodies Bodies) and stars Nicole Kidman (Cold Mountain), Harris Dickinson (County Lines), Antonio Banderas (The 13th Warrior), Sophie Wilde (Talk to Me), and Esther McGregor (Obi-Wan Kenobi).
This is a unique and well-crafted film. It explores intriguing intricacies surrounding unfulfilled desires, highlighting how they can consume a person when finally realized, becoming as addictive and destructive as a drug. Kidman delivers an elite performance, portraying her character's internal struggles with nuance and depth. The storyline is smart, with indirect analogies to AI and the complexities of the human mind adding layers of thoughtfulness. The cinematography, wardrobe, and settings are exceptional, fully immersing the viewer in the film's world. While not flawless, there's much to appreciate here.
In conclusion, Babygirl is an artistically crafted and executed film that will likely receive award recognition. I'd score it a 7/10 and recommend seeing it at least once.
- kevin_robbins
- Dec 25, 2024
- Permalink
This movie fails to engage the viewer's empathy for or interest in any of the characters, and thus fails to create either belief or suspension of disbelief.
A large part of the problem lies in the confused montage of themes/motifs throughout the film. In the opening sequence, Romy pretends to have an orgasm with her husband, but then leaves the room to masturbate to porn. This idea could have been explored and developed along a very interesting route, however, it's never picked up on again. Instead, later in the film we hear about Romy's needing to have an element of danger to have an orgasm - a completely different idea.
Also early in the film, there's a scene where the intern subdues a violent dog. Presumably Romy relates to the dog and wants to be subdued by the intern. The dog imagery is confused in the middle of the film by Romy actually acting like a cat (lapping milk from a saucer while on all fours). The dog disappears until practically the last scene, when we see it winding around the intern's legs.
These kinds of disconnections and confusions occur repeatedly throughout the film. You just feel the movie is all over the place and doesn't make sense, and you're being asked to care about a character's orgasm when nothing about it is interesting at all. Silly ideas are presented to us without any background or development as to why they came to be, or why they're significant.
Additionally, there is curiously zero onscreen physical chemistry between either Romy and her husband, or Romy and the intern. You wonder how the cast was chosen.
I'm surprised Kidman took this on. I spent the greater part of the two hours wishing it would end.
A large part of the problem lies in the confused montage of themes/motifs throughout the film. In the opening sequence, Romy pretends to have an orgasm with her husband, but then leaves the room to masturbate to porn. This idea could have been explored and developed along a very interesting route, however, it's never picked up on again. Instead, later in the film we hear about Romy's needing to have an element of danger to have an orgasm - a completely different idea.
Also early in the film, there's a scene where the intern subdues a violent dog. Presumably Romy relates to the dog and wants to be subdued by the intern. The dog imagery is confused in the middle of the film by Romy actually acting like a cat (lapping milk from a saucer while on all fours). The dog disappears until practically the last scene, when we see it winding around the intern's legs.
These kinds of disconnections and confusions occur repeatedly throughout the film. You just feel the movie is all over the place and doesn't make sense, and you're being asked to care about a character's orgasm when nothing about it is interesting at all. Silly ideas are presented to us without any background or development as to why they came to be, or why they're significant.
Additionally, there is curiously zero onscreen physical chemistry between either Romy and her husband, or Romy and the intern. You wonder how the cast was chosen.
I'm surprised Kidman took this on. I spent the greater part of the two hours wishing it would end.
I love it how this guy just takes a good look at her and reads her just like that. Is that how it really happens? I doubt it, but...
Antonio Banderas' white beard and leprechaun ears are very distracting.
Why would you marry a vanilla man when you're not into that?
George Michael's Father Figure.
Did I need to watch this? Not really. Did it do anything for me? Not much.
So this didn't really speak to me, but I guess you can watch it as a curiosity about human behaviour and how messy it can get and thank god you're fine in your own little life, without rich people problems. Also, there are so many more convenient reasons to cheat, lol... After all what do I know about the needs and desires of high powered women? Not exactly my niche, is it? Although I thought every Nicole Kidman movie was my niche. Anyway, most of us are out here are trying to find men that are actually nice to us and don't tell us what to do and be every other second, so no, can't relate to this one.
Did anybody else get the feeling that maybe Samuel had been a honey trap planted by Esme all along?
I guess much better than Fifty Shades of Grey though, right?
Why would you marry a vanilla man when you're not into that?
George Michael's Father Figure.
Did I need to watch this? Not really. Did it do anything for me? Not much.
So this didn't really speak to me, but I guess you can watch it as a curiosity about human behaviour and how messy it can get and thank god you're fine in your own little life, without rich people problems. Also, there are so many more convenient reasons to cheat, lol... After all what do I know about the needs and desires of high powered women? Not exactly my niche, is it? Although I thought every Nicole Kidman movie was my niche. Anyway, most of us are out here are trying to find men that are actually nice to us and don't tell us what to do and be every other second, so no, can't relate to this one.
Did anybody else get the feeling that maybe Samuel had been a honey trap planted by Esme all along?
I guess much better than Fifty Shades of Grey though, right?
- lilianaoana
- Feb 1, 2025
- Permalink
This movie is bad all around. The acting was blah. The plot & story were almost nonexistent. They threw some random character descriptions in but those things were vague and never revealed much purpose in the story (ex. Gay daughter, Nicole's upbringing in a cult and commune). There were times I laughed out loud because the movie was so poorly directed. It truly was laughable. It could have developed into much more but it failed.
It's so disappointing to take the time to see movies in the theater when there's nothing worthy. No effort, no story, lame! I'm tired of wasting money on horrible movies. Add this to the list!
It's so disappointing to take the time to see movies in the theater when there's nothing worthy. No effort, no story, lame! I'm tired of wasting money on horrible movies. Add this to the list!
Go Halina, loved every minute of it!
Baby Girl is a deeply moving and beautifully nuanced film that took me by surprise. It offers a rare and honest glimpse into the inner world of a woman, her strength, her vulnerability, and her hidden desires. What struck me most was how unapologetically human the main character is. She's not just strong or just fragile, she's both, all at once.
The way the film explores female sexuality felt raw, real, and refreshingly unfiltered. There's a quiet power in the way it doesn't try to explain or justify her longing, it simply shows it. And in doing so, it touched something deep in me.
Baby Girl is a deeply moving and beautifully nuanced film that took me by surprise. It offers a rare and honest glimpse into the inner world of a woman, her strength, her vulnerability, and her hidden desires. What struck me most was how unapologetically human the main character is. She's not just strong or just fragile, she's both, all at once.
The way the film explores female sexuality felt raw, real, and refreshingly unfiltered. There's a quiet power in the way it doesn't try to explain or justify her longing, it simply shows it. And in doing so, it touched something deep in me.
They REALLY should have had a warning. There is one scene that makes anyone nauseated with the strobing. The scene lasted about a minute, and was extremely stimulating. The film itself was erotic and strange, and a lot of gasps/shocked laughs in the theatre. The main male character was salacious and Kidman was good with her role of bored, submissive CEO. The film itself was half-baked, but the sex scenes were done tastefully. I wish I knew more about all of the characters, as they were all surface level. Also, I definitely wouldn't consider this a thriller. I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, but it never did. Left a lot to be desired.
This is a terrible movie with a thin plot. I didn't fint it 'erotic' at all and I don't think it is a 'feminist' movie. Don't let the filming location (New York), the international star cast (Nicole Kidman and Anotnio Banderas) and the language (English) fool you: this is just a typical bad Dutch movie!
Dutch movies are characterized by:
Unfortunately Halina does not seem to have the ability to produce a proper film. This is just a wanna-be arthouse version of 50 Shades of Grey. Very bad! Don't waste your time or money on this... this is 2 hours of my life I will never get back!
Dutch movies are characterized by:
- the desire to shock
- thin plots
- cursing
Unfortunately Halina does not seem to have the ability to produce a proper film. This is just a wanna-be arthouse version of 50 Shades of Grey. Very bad! Don't waste your time or money on this... this is 2 hours of my life I will never get back!