Babygirl: From Eyes Wide Shut to Eyes Rolling

So here's the thing. People are going to enjoy this movie. I am not among those people this time. I approached Babygirl with anticipation and curiosity about seeing Nicole Kidman on the silver screen again. Although I was eager, I didn't have much to go on aside from what the trailer suggested. It appeared to be sultry, enigmatic, and a nod to an Eyes Wide Shut era Nicole Kidman. Sadly, comparing this film to Eyes Wide Shut would be deeply disrespectful to Stanley Kubrick. The only strengths here were the strong acting and an unexpected finale, but is that enough to deliver a worthwhile cinematic experience?

The opening sequence might have been the movie's peak, as it effectively sets up the notion that Romy (Kidman’s character) harbors a repressed sexual longing. Then the title card hits, and I’m hooked, eager to see where the story unfolds. Unfortunately, the cracks in the narrative quickly began to show. A scene involving a dog attack in New York felt utterly unconvincing (no one confronted the dog owner?!). The plot soon transitions to a CEO/intern dynamic without adequately establishing who Romy is, her history with her husband (played brilliantly by Antonio Banderas), or what kind of partner she has been. The CEO becomes involved in an intern/mentorship program without her awareness, input, or approval? And then, the assistant has the nerve to expect a promotion after blindsiding her superior?

Shortly after Romy’s first intimate encounter—or what might be considered her sexual awakening—events progress without any clear understanding of the characters’ motivations. Has Nicole’s character cheated before? She so effortlessly discards everything because a young man’s confidence and arrogance are enough to push her over the edge? The power dynamic speaks to something she’s been missing, but the lack of character depth makes it hard to buy into the premise. Here lies the core issue: if the story doesn’t feel believable, the audience is lost.

If you overlook the absence of organic scriptwriting that brings authenticity to the characters and settings, you might enjoy this film for what it aims to be: provocative, seductive, and stylish. For me, it came across as lazy, unfocused, and trying too hard to emulate the "cool A24 aesthetic." The cinematography itself struggled to stay focused on its subjects—not in an artistic way reflecting the character's mental state, but simply as poor camera work.

I may be coming down harshly, but the editing, screenplay, and cinematography held this film back.

The former felt rushed and sloppy, while the latter seemed, well, amateurish. It pains me to be so critical, but this reflects my genuine experience while watching. The film suffers from tonal inconsistencies (similar to my reaction to May December), weak editing continuity, and lackluster camera work (characters were in and out of focus throughout), which made it hard to enjoy. Nicole and the rest of the cast delivered commendable performances, but even they couldn’t salvage the movie from its flaws.

Maybe it’s my fault. Perhaps I shouldn’t have revisited Eyes Wide Shut and hoped Babygirl would be its spiritual successor in my head. Maybe my expectations were too high for Halina Reijn, the director of Bodies, Bodies, Bodies, to match Kubrick’s brilliance (come to find out, Reijn did that herself). But is it wrong to expect more from today’s films? No, because the last two movies I watched this week (A Complete Unknown and Nosferatu) were far superior viewing experiences. At the end of the day, if this movie resonates with you, that’s great, and I hope it inspires you to explore other films in this genre because, I assure you, there are many out there that do it far better.