Oh dear, what a mess this film is. The script and direction are truly awful. The dialogue is dreadful, and the directing somehow manages to make every actor, even the two talented lead actresses, appear like amateur performers from a local community theater. When everyone on set seems uncomfortable and stiff, you know the director isn't doing their job well. Then there’s the story. It’s baffling; our protagonist is unbelievably foolish, possibly surpassed only by her mother. The writing is so incredibly poor that she feels completely unreal. Imagine having an appointment to sign loan papers with the property seller and his lawyer at a loan office, agreeing with your mother to meet them there, and then she simply changes her mind on a whim, deciding instead to buy a car without informing you. What kind of logic is this? It’s easy to suggest alternative explanations that actually make sense: perhaps the mother is struggling with addiction or has experienced an accident en route, leading to serious injury. But what about the entire setup in the first place? While signing papers requires attention, why such a complicated meeting? Loan documents can be prepared at the office and either sent for signature or presented at your convenience. The seller of the property and his lawyer are completely unnecessary; they aren’t even the lender! This constant lack of sense is incredibly frustrating. Let's continue. Vanessa needs to quickly raise 25,000 dollars and deposit it into the seller’s account for an unexplained reason. Again, why? The house loan—the actual money the seller needs—is already defunct! The lenders had approved a loan with two co-signers, Vanessa and her mother, but now she's withdrawn from the deal. The loan is void; reapplying will likely result in rejection since Vanessa is now solely responsible for the full amount. *That* is the problem that needs solving, and the seller has nothing to do with it. It’s absurd to think sending him 25,000 dollars would make a difference. Has anyone involved ever bought or sold property? Apparently not, and they're too dense and arrogant to even perform a simple online search. The writers are so incredibly clueless that it's infuriating. Now, inexplicably, she needs 25,000 dollars, and her two jobs won’t cover it. So, she resorts to asking a wealthy client—a banker-type—for a loan. He's portrayed as a stereotypical rich man (an Asian one, perpetuating Hollywood stereotypes), of course with a family. He declines. Then they have sex, and he doubles her usual payment from 500 dollars to 1,000. Vanessa is understandably upset. It’s almost comical how the writers missed an obvious solution: if he pays you 500 dollars for intimacy, why not offer a deal—half price for a hundred encounters? It would resolve the problem quickly. Instead, she steals his Mercedes AMG sports car. The expectation is that it will fetch a good price, but she just wants to cause him distress by driving recklessly and abandoning the vehicle under a bridge near homeless people with the door wide open. She's that clueless. Alternatively, she could have blackmailed him, given how meticulously they established his family life—first in an offhand remark, then during a phone call after their encounter. The writers seemed determined to set up a blackmail scenario but were too blinded by their apparent dislike of men (particularly white and “white adjacent” ones) to recognize it. It's baffling; the maximum IQ here is 60, I swear. She returns to her car and drives to her prostitute girlfriend’s apartment, where a politician sugar daddy resides. More nonsensical dialogue follows, but the gist is she wants the three thousand dollars her friend owes her back. This seems odd, given that Vanessa has previously been portrayed as struggling financially. Even more perplexing is the reason: it's an old loan used to get the friend out of jail—a bond. So, the issue should be resolved; the bond would have been repaid. That’s how bonds work. Then you realize the writers are clueless and probably think a bond is like paying bail in Monopoly. It's likely that simple. AI could have gotten this right. Finally, her friend repays 500 dollars of the three thousand she owes by stealing it from her boyfriend’s safe overflowing with cash. Why not pay back the entire amount? Because our thieving prostitute has a “reason” to steal all the money. Another ridiculous scheme involving her getting help from an ex-con friend (who is portrayed as inherently good because he's black, unlike every other white man in this film). Vanessa’s few brain cells fail to grasp that drilling open a safe leaves evidence. Around the midpoint, our prostitute and her convict accomplice decide to retrieve the Mercedes AMG and sell it—the one she left under a bridge seven hours earlier. It would have been stolen by now, or at least towed for blocking traffic. I can’t take any more of this 2025 Hollywood brain-dead, misandrist, boring garbage; it's not even funny. I’m done. Also, the film uses harsh HDR lighting, so you can barely see Vanessa Kirby despite wanting to watch her for a few hours. Hollywood is creatively bankrupt.

Source on TMDB