The bioessentialist question 'How come we never talk about women's pleasure or problems? If men had periods we'd hear about them all the time" posed early into its runtime followed up with a conversation about 'mansplaining and womensplaining' should've alarmed me to how surface level the film's politics are. They don't remain the only instances as the film is ripe with shoe-horned references to the #MeToo movement that don't address any of the movements' concerns in the serious matter it deserves. Which becomes clear when there's an attempt at critiquing male privilege where one of the protagonist's love interests defends making rape 'jokes' and follows it up with 'jokingly' calling someone a whore. It's actually less so a critique than a mere mention because the film isn't interested in tackling this issue seriously either. It chooses to not only sideline, but completely gloss over it. What I'm trying to show is how the film loves to bring up all these topics, but has zero interest in treating them with the nuance or care they deserve -- it is not taking them seriously. Within its framework they all become reduced to hollow buzzwords to throw out to signify it's "in-the-know", to appear relatable and understanding of subject matters without offering anything of substance.

When it comes to the film as a whole, it's clear that it's a character-driven film that either works or does not by how well you can connect or relate to these characters, And for me they were completely unrelatable people with zero personality to cling onto, which most egregiously applies to the lead men in this film. They're cardboard cutouts for our protagonist to engage and somehow fall in love with, which in turns makes the film lack any chemistry and magic for the messy and possibly life-altering romances and situations the film wants us to not only believe in, but feel struck by. Even the supposedly sensual and intimate scenes felt cold and artificial.

To make matters worse, I recognized a jarring pattern in this film. Trier seemingly has little to no trust in the dialogue nor the actors? It's shown by how often he lets narration bury the leads' performances in moments where they could shine, convey stakes and emotions. By repeating what they said or overlaying it with narration, which insists on spelling out their intentions and feelings as this wasn't happening in an audiovisual medium, it robs the scenes of the impact they could've possibly had. The music tries to help with emotional resonance and gets used often, arguably too often, but in this case I will not complain about it because it was a welcome change in this completely hollow bore of a film. It's undeniably shot well, but what does it matter if the other choices you make undercut its potential for resonance in pivotal moments?