It's the most anticipated film of this first part of the 81st Venice International Film Festival. And after the first viewing you immediately understand why. It pushes the boundaries of sensuality, sex, sound, ambition, morality and feminism. All this is possible thanks to a captivating Nicole Kidman, an intimate script and direction by Halina Reijn and a production by A24, which as always never disappoints.

Business executive "Romy" (Nicole Kidman) is initially impressed with the dog-handling skills of "Samuel" (Harris Dickinson) but when she discovers that he is to be an intern in her e-packaging company something else starts to draw her to the man. We already know that though happily enough married to "Jacob" (Antonio Banderas) she's not exactly fulfilled in the bedroom department, and "Samuel" seems to sense that it's an area that maybe he can help with. Were not just talking sex, here - oh. no. This is about a lady with fantasy of being dominated. About her surrendering control completely, and if you're going to do that at all, then why not this tall, handsome and mischievous bit of rough? Of course, like any addiction - it starts to get out of control as the relationship dynamic changes quite profoundly and others start to put two and two together. At times this is quite funny, and milk seems to play a central role from time to time, but as a cinematic version of something akin to tantric, it doesn't really work. Neither of these actors are afraid to get naked yet neither do, simultaneously, here. Indeed I'm sure I saw his black Calvin's shining from under the sheet when the intimacy consultant was at their busiest. I didn't need nudity to augment their unique sort of passion, but I did expect something way more natural, visceral even, and I didn't get it. It's filmed in such a disjointed and bitty fashion, there's no attempt to characterise or contextualise either of these people and in the end I felt like this was little better than a titillation for it's stars that didn't really aspire to engage those watching any more than age-related porn might. Dickinson isn't remotely charismatic and the premiss falls flat quickly, especially when the quite aggravating intervention of "Esme" (Sophie Wilde) rather summed the shallowness of the whole thing up. "Eyes Wide Shut" (1999) or "Beach Rats" (2017) showcase both their talents amidst a sexually charged environment far better: this is all forgettable, over-hyped, stuff.

'Babygirl' is sex and bugger all else. It features two of the more freaky characters in cinematic history, they both kinda creeped me out I'm not going to lie - I will never look at a tie in the same way again, or a glass of milk for that matter. Kudos for creativity, I guess! Nicole Kidman and Harris Dickinson do commit to their respective roles, some of the noises coming out of the former were quite something to witness. In fairness, if this is what they were going for then both actors do a fine job. Antonio Banderas is at least there to add sort of normality. Impressively, aside from a few nips, there isn't much nudity in this, how you show so much without showing barely anything is actually quite the thing. I'm not against seeing films of an erotic nature, I just personally need a bit more substance attached to it. I'm fascinated to see the reception this got, I've no idea.

Babygirl is the story of high-strung CEO who secretly desires to be dominated and controlled. She instead gets into a weird relationship with a young intern who kind of is interested in the same thing, but also just is worried about how much milk she is drinking? There relationship develops throughout the movie but not in any interesting way. At one point he makes her stand in a corner and the music is weirdly intense for no real reason. Also we are expected to believe that she would cheat on Antonio Banderas with this weird looking lanky kid that doesn't know how to comb his hair?

Babygirl (2024) is yet another attempt at making a “provocative” drama that leans too much on surface-level shock value rather than compelling storytelling. The plot, if you can call it that, revolves around an imbalanced relationship dynamic that lacks any real emotional depth. There is no real buildup, no effort to make the audience care about these characters beyond their physical interactions, and certainly no originality. The film tries to be daring, but instead, it feels like a predictable series of events with little payoff. The directing is uninspired, relying on overused shaky cam techniques that have no business in a drama like this. The cinematography does nothing to elevate the story, and at times, it feels like the camera is as lost as the script. The only real standout performance comes from Antonio Banderas, but he’s barely in the movie. Nicole Kidman, despite her talent, is stuck in a role that feels more about aesthetics than substance. And of course, we have the usual over-the-top praise for a “bold sexualized performance,” the same kind of overhyped reaction we saw with Demi Moore in Substance, as if established actors being in explicit scenes somehow qualifies as groundbreaking cinema. The script is painfully weak, with dialogue that does little to make the characters feel real or relatable. The film spends too much time trying to push a message without taking the time to craft an engaging narrative. There are moments where it seems like it might go somewhere interesting, but then it falls back into the same repetitive themes. The pacing is another issue, dragging through unnecessary moments while rushing past anything that could have added depth. The score is outright annoying. It doesn’t complement the film or enhance any of the scenes, it’s just there, adding to the discomfort in all the wrong ways. In the end, Babygirl tries to be provocative but lacks the intelligence or creativity to make an impact. It’s the kind of movie that confuses shock value with substance, leaving you wondering what the point of it all was.