Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
258 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
The Work of a Genius !
rondo89828 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
You will, I sincerely hope, not be offended if I were to speculate that you were enticed into inquiring into this movie and, for that matter, even reading this very review, because of the movie's title, yes? And the title obviously reflects on the movie's content which is focused on the reproductive arts. And, I shall further speculate that were the movie instead titled, say, "Existentialism" or such, and the story concerned a group of nuns who begin to question their faith, you wouldn't be reading this at all, would you?

Of course you know that von Trier is a celebrated director, but you didn't quite get around to seeing his masterpiece Dogville, did you? Nor, I suspect, have you seen his quirky 2007 cinema, The Boss of It All. In fact, the only reason you are even remotely interested in "Nymphomaniac" is that it depicts venery in an explicit manner. Confess! It's all true, isn't it?

Wait! Keep reading! Don't go away! It's OK! I know you're not like that, because you have standards. You would never watch or read porn. That's so . . . so . . . so >degrading< and low-class. But since you're a mature adult, very open minded and not bound by the strictures of organized religion, you have no objection to serious cinema with erotic content, do you? I mean, as long as it's tastefully done?

I'm here to assure you that "Nymphomaniac" is >not< pornography, because none of the actresses (or actors, mustn't be sexist here) have had any breast augmentation, nor do they wear cosmetics in the manner of slatternly women. For that matter, rest secure in the knowledge that absolutely nothing arousing occurs during any of the movie. No pleasure whatsoever, so it's safe. Your dog could watch it and not begin to look at you funny.

That's why von Trier is, without question, an absolute genius. Sex is one of the few natural pleasures we enjoy here in this vale of tears, and just as the finest minds of industry have ruined the joys of victualry and turned the simple act of eating into a problem, the brilliance of of von Trier is that he has ruined sex. "Joe," the protagonist of the movie, has sex frequently, but she doesn't enjoy it at all, and von Trier does his best to make certain that you don't either.

If you think about it, that's not such an easy feat. Suppose that you were given a camera, a crew and a group of attractive actors who don't mind nudity and simulating sex acts and were told to make a movie depicting venery, it would be difficult for you to make something completely unpleasant to watch. But von Trier has accomplished something you could never do: in this movie, no one has any pleasure. ex is presented as something perverse and unpleasant. "Joe" only engages in it because she's emotionally disturbed, or because her domineering girlfriend made her do it, or because of some Freudian mumbo- jumbo, and she obviously dislikes each experience, starting with the first brief penetration that hurts her.

>SPOILER ALERT!< Don't fall for the brief scenes near the end, of her actually enjoying her three lovers. Those are fantasies she tells in response to having Bach played for her. The music of J. S. Bach is the sublime representation of empyreal purity, and Bach fathered twenty children, so it's good, clean, church-sanctioned, procreative sex, not the naughty fun kind. (Ooo, look! He's bathing her! How lovely! How clean! How innocuous! What movie is this?) But as soon as the music stops, she announces, while in union, "I feel nothing."

The hypothetical sex movie you would write and direct would be unlikely to have acting that is as bland, tedious and affectless as the acting in "Nymphomaniac," but that's the way Lars von Trier wants it, because viewing good acting would be a pleasure to watch, and he wants to drain anything enjoyable out. I can imagine him shouting direction, "No! No! Make it even more lifeless! More monotonous!"

An obvious exception to this is the salient performance by Uma Thurman, but in that scene, the fine actress is introduced for the sole purpose of making a deliberately unpleasant situation even more disturbing. It goes on for an excruciatingly long time, because von Trier wants to rub your nose in the message: sex ruins lives and makes people miserable. The scene is comedic, but only in the way slapstick is.

Von Trier is not the first director to make a movie depicting sex as repulsive. The late Ken Russell also wrote and directed movies with that effect. Like this movie, Russell's movies were also promoted by ads and posters featuring an enticing shot of a woman in ecstasy, but that was just to lure you in. The movie itself taught you a lesson of rue. It is, after all, the glorious puritanical heritage of those of us of Northern European descent. We're not like those filthy people down there in the tropical climes, going at it like they was rabbits. Shame, shame, double shame on their gratification and pleasure! No wonder God punishes them!

All the enthusiastic reviews here are written under the pretense that there is some profound message embedded in this movie (especially the bedpan scene). The profound message is that sex must be presented strictly in terms of social isolation and as a manifestation of emotional disturbance. "Joe," represents all the repressed feelings of guilt and shame metastasizing deep within you. After all, if sex were depicted in a uniformly joyous light, you'd have to go to some sleazy site where they'd rip-off your credit card information.
276 out of 454 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
If all you saw in this movie was sex, I pity you.
locasuscelli10 April 2017
So many people wrote how "disturbed" they were by "this shitty sex movie". I divide them into two groups:

1. First group decided to watch the film because they love sex, porn, and the title "Nymphomaniac" sure sounds like their kind of thing. Then they went to cinema (or Internet), watched it, and were disappointed because "they had to listen to a lot of boring dialogues before there was a sex scene" (to which they could masturbate to if they were alone). Then when a sex scene would finally come, it wasn't as exciting as it "should have been". So they were disturbed at how much this movie didn't fulfill their expectations.

And they are right, it didn't. Because it's not a shitty, cheap movie, meant to get them turned on. As unbelievable as it sounds to them, the purpose of both the film and the sex scenes go much deeper. And if only they had bothered to pay a little more attention to the "boring dialogue", perhaps they would have noticed that the meaning of the movie - and the real story - goes on in that conversation. And the sex scenes were not as sexy as they "should have been", according to them, because it's not about turning people on. It's a film for you brain, not your genitals. And that is precisely why people from the group one were disappointed. Good.

2. The second group are the people who were "disturbed" because there were too many explicit sex scenes. I have nothing to say about this except: Are you serious??? Have you looked up the definition of the word "nymphomaniac" before you decided to watch it? And again, they missed the purpose because for some reason unknown to me, they were too focused on the "filthy" sex scenes in the film named ~Nymphomaniac~ that they missed to actually watch it.

The point is: If you focus on the ~sex~, you won't like this movie, nor get it. Therefore, if you want a cheap turn on, just go watch porn, and let artists like Lars take sex to a different level, a little above the primitive urge.

Because the reason Joe was "a horny bitch" is a little different than yours.
109 out of 172 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wondering if you should watch this film?
Anon_A_Mouse18 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Don't. Your time is far too valuable.

This film features unsimulated sex of pornographic actors digitally edited onto the parts of the real actors. So if you're looking for smut, you should instead watch a production from the "Silicone Valley" (or wherever it is the porn industry heads out of now). At least you won't have to labor through pretentious dialogue just to see some real action. It gets painful--the dialogue. There's a part in the movie where Skarsgard's character tries to rationalize the protagonist's nymphomania via the Fibonacci sequence. It really doesn't add anything meaningful to the plot, it's just von Trier trying to convince you that he went to college. No, I'm only half kidding. Read the spoiler.

*SPOILER* Assuming you don't heed my warning, and still decide to waste your time watching this film, then I won't won't give away too much, but Skarsgard's dialogue is supposed to build you up so you can be shocked by the, like, totally ironic ending of Vol. II...As if you couldn't see that coming, or as if you'll even care at that point. Just be glad it's over so you can go back to watching real porn ;) *END OF SPOILER*

And if you're looking for a film that debases contemporaries and challenges social taboos, well...I guess you can say this film does that, or at least attempts to. It's all pretty shallow, though, and really comes off as an excuse to feature unsimulated sex in a movie full of renowned actors. I would not feel so strongly about this if the actors' performances weren't so laughable. I might have even forgiven von Trier if the characters were redeeming or at least believable. For start, LaBeouf's character speaks with an accent not of this world. And Slater's performance as the aged father is comparable to a parody straight out of SNL. Without giving away spoilers, I'll just say I couldn't find one character I could sympathize/empathize with, because they were either too dull, too deplorable, or too comical.

Want to see a real art film? Un Chien Andalou, because this isn't art. And from a contemporary film's standpoint, there's really nothing to justify the extremes it has to reach in order to tell its story.

Don't do it. Or do it, I don't care. I did my good deed for the day.
304 out of 508 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bl()()dy b()ring.
BA_Harrison19 November 2017
A man, Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård), finds a woman, Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg), beaten and bruised in a snowy alleyway. He takes her to his grotty little apartment where she recounts her life story in which she cannot keep her knickers on for more than a few minutes.

'Am I boring you?' asks sex addict Joe in the middle of Lars Von Trier's Nymph()maniac: Vol. I.

Why yes… yes, you are, you tedious little bint, and so is everyone else in this pseudo-intellectual art-house porn flick aimed at chin-stroking perverts who want to be seen as cultured while getting their kicks.

As you might have guessed, I loathed every single frame of this incredibly boring piece of pretentious X-rated garbage, and all those that made it possible. I hope that none of you ever work again. It's not that I'm averse to the odd spot of cinematic filth, only when it's as pompous and painfully prolonged as this film, which, together with Vol. 2, clocks in at well over four hours.

I wonder how many people who paid to see this first volume actually bothered to go and see the next instalment. I'm guessing not many.
23 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst Adult Movie Ever!.
tommy-158-70816314 November 2014
Lars Von Trier has made a lot of publicity and excessive advertisement of an adult documentary movie called Nymphomaniac. His intention was to make a porno movie and a movie with pornographic sex shots. He shot a very long movie .First it was approximately 4 hours of porno,but then he cut the movie and changed it completely into Drama!!. That is funny and so strange,but this is true.

Nymphomaniac is an adult boring movie documentary which focuses on a horny girl who adores sex. The name of the girl is Joe. She explicitly tells her sexual fantasies and imaginations to an old man called Seligman and how she became addicted to sex and nymphomania. Honestly when I saw the movie I felt so bored and kept looking at my watch and could not wait to leave the cinema because of this bad if not worst movie!.
314 out of 546 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A rather pretentious, boring, long and vaguely insightful film.
kaymages28 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH VOLUME I AND II: I give a 1 to this film to balance if possible the high rating it got in this site. The film was rather pretentious and was at a certain degree a classic example of emptiness trying to present itself as "high art". The parallels of nymphomania with fishing in the first half of the film and with Christianity later where pointless and just to make impressions in my opinion, even insulting or blasphemous in some points i could say. Another thing i found strange was the extreme use of "deep" and "wise" references to mathematical, scientific and philosophical concepts. But it all seemed rather forced, messy, and meaningless. It also failed in my opinion to get deep in the human psyche and explore effectively or at least expose the spherical/ holistic nature of the phenomenon of nymphomania. It was quite single sided and narrow minded as i see it. As for the people that claim it was a deep psychological journey, sorry von Trier fans, but the impression this film gave me is that he is a person with poor and shallow insight on the human being not to say prejudiced. In the end i didn't feel being left with some serious food for thought, intriguing questions or spiritually benefited and more self-aware or with self doubt and criticism. I also had the impression that the film was quite naive in some psychological aspects and delivered a rather childish, unrealistic or idealistic view of the human psyche and reality (yes despite all the cruelty and misery depicted it still gave me that impression). Especially at the depiction of the first years of her life and her maturity to adulthood. The showing of nudity as some said and the sex scenes, where not that extreme and had a reason to be there in some moments, but in others i agree that they where there just for the shake of being, no help to the plot or anything. The exploration of the human perversions and fetishes was rather forced too, like the bdsm chapter, gave me the impression that it was there so that the director could state "look! we have put bdsm too in it" and didn't necessarily deliver the desperate odyssey and degeneration of a tortured soul in a realistically climaxing way. It is also important to mention that this was a humourless movie whatsoever. Every attempt of "humour" was rather too dark, trolling, unintelligent, immature or just provoking. Even the born to be wild song in the train scene. Or the casting of Shia Labeouf, if this had a humorous intention in the first place of course. So no mature and original humour. The acting was a bit sloppy too i think, i especially didn't like much the acting of the old Joe (who is the protagonist for god's shake)at a major part of the film but wasn't impressed by young Joe's either. Another weak point was the excessive use of tiring narration, exposition, a sign of weak writing that cannot deliver it's messages subtly and with ease but rather immoderately throws them at the viewer's face. One of the few things i liked in the film was how we got little secret messages and warnings from the beginning about the final scene, where the old man would try to take advantage of her. Honestly i expected that from the beginning. Some will say that it was another drawback of the film cause it was predictable, linear, unintelligent etc bit i think it was delivered in a nice and well thought way. One of the few well thought things of the film. The answers he gave to her shocking stories, how he always tried to justify her actions but came a bit needy, his body language and acting, even some verbal slip-ups. All came to draw the picture of a perverted, repressed old geezer that was ready to explode any moment now. Even he stated he read everything literature has to give on sex, showing his obsession but impotence to make his urges real. If it was just an asexual philosopher he would have read some things just to have an opinion on love but wouldn't have obsessively and explicitly exhaust all the relevant literature. I liked the depiction of the oppressed man, it was more effective than the nymphomaniac's unfortunately. I liked the antithesis of the two main protagonists. The insatiable one that fully gave in in her passion and the "ascetic monk type" that fully repressed it for a life. The one ended up repenting and the other dying for letting his passion feed inside him for all these years. They weren't so different in that sense that's why they came to all these distorted conclusions about love and life, each one by his perspective. Even that "catchy" phrase on love was talking about sinful destructive passion of egoism than love, but they never lived true love so they couldn't have a valid opinion on it. There where also practical mistakes in the film like plot holes, logical inconsistencies, unnatural time loops etc. but i don't want to waste time on these, let other commenters exploit these. For example she went to medical school and did a gyno exam in the beginning? how? was she on her medical specialty? no. she was just a sophomore where they just open corpses and such, they don't do gyno exams. (except if things are different in england and i'm mistaken). The p girl chapter near the end i found it rather bizarre, unrealistic, not making much sense and just being there to make more shocking impressions or hopelessly try to save something that seemed doomed already. So in conclusion four hours are far too much for a film that has no much to offer you (i include volume 2 too). But if you are so curious arm yourselves with patience and watch it.
182 out of 310 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An utter waste of your time.
Rob_Taylor6 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It's rare I give a movie a single star, but I'll do it here. Before anyone freaks, let me say that the pornography did not in any way bother me at all. I've seen plenty of porn in my time and all of it, without exception, was done better than in this film.

The problem I have with this movie is more to do with the fact that it is deadly tedious and boring! No, seriously, with this much T&A in a film, it still manages to be utterly boring. It is impossible to empathise with the central female character because she seems so totally unlikable. She happily screws anyone and anything that she lays eyes on.

As a study of actual nymphomaniacs, I find this rather blunt portrayal of people with a sexual problem to be gratuitous and sensationalist and totally without any real concern for the subject matter being "showcased". It wasn't enough to simply follow the plight of a woman with a problem, you had to put her into every conceivable sexual cliché there was, just to get across your point that she was a sex addict?

Let me put it this way. If I went to a local porn shop, rented a dozen different movies about a dozen different aspects of sexual activity, then spliced the footage together with the non-sexual content from Nymphomaniac, you wouldn't notice the difference. Everything from bondage and sado-masochism, to threesomes, anal, oral, lesbianism and interracial material shows up here. It's like a porno pick 'n' mix!

Most of the time I was laughing so much at the utter absurdity of it. As I said, it's impossible to feel any kind of sympathy for the woman in the "story" (yeah, I used quotes deliberately there..) because the whole thing is such a sorry mess.

What we have here is another attempt to make a "cerebral" movie that falls flat on its face. The audience for this movie is unidentifiable. Those seeking a thoughtful study will be sorely disappointed and those looking for cheap titillation will find themselves bored to tears most of the time. Anyone seeking an actual story will likewise be left feeling cheated.

All in all, it fails. Another over-hyped excuse for "cinematic art" that accomplishes none of its stated goals. If it succeeds, it will be because people have been suckered into thinking its something that it isn't.

This is so preposterous that I expect the DVD/BluRay release will have a bright yellow, star-shaped sticker on the front emblazoned with the words "Contains actual penises and vaginas!" in a sensationalist font.

SUMMARY: Pretentious nonsense masquerading as an art movie. Hollow and dull, relying too much on its much-hyped pornographic content which is, frankly, dull as ditch water. Best avoided, though it is amusing in a "train-wreck" kind of way.
255 out of 454 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Aweful, Disgusting, Obnoxious
marco198518 February 2018
Simply tedious, full of extraordinarily disgusting scenes. Such an ultra-long so-called movie about nonsense, without a particular target or message. Might be useful for perverts. Total waste of time; happy that I paid no money to watch it.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Complete waste of time that give porn a bad name.
jasonboldt15 April 2015
OK, I admit it, you had me at "Nymphomaniac"...but honestly, the swelling of certain extremities normally associated with the anticipation such a title would evoke, left immediately when I heard LeBeuf speak.The accent he used wasn't even questioned by the director? Did the director actually watch any scenes on playback? Are we to believe that a nymphomaniac believes themselves to be worthless humans? Now, I tried to reserve judgement until I had watched both...a considerable task when one isn't even interested after the "end" of the first trainwreck. I will keep my opinion about the "artistry" to myself. This movie had potential and obviously budget to make a strong impression, but all it did was come off as predictable and a bit antagonist toward conventional morality...maybe that was the point, but again, no comment on the artistic content. It was poorly executed and excruciatingly drawn out. The end was almost a relief...even mildly amusing. Both main characters displayed canned hypocrisy throughout and I would guess that to be another part of the "art" content....once again, no comment. Don't waste your time. Sex is fun and simulated sex isn't...especially when the simulation paints sex to be so.....well, no comment.
115 out of 197 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't see it
legolasgr-454258 November 2015
The movie was a lot promising, it could have been a nice social-drama.

Instead it had way too much needless porn scenes. While it may be important because of the movie, its not important to see the details and not just skip it.

Plot was bad, some parts (no spoilers) were more bad than the others.

It could have been a shocking, rebellious movie. Instead its a cheap, irritating movie that twists the sexuality of human into a repulsive evil act. In my opinion it went to far, to challenge the viewer's morality but it was rather pointless and unsatisfying. It was a waste of time just out of curiosity to see how bad it can be.
86 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fortunately movies don't have an aroma (spoiler. If that's possible)
MannyInNewYork13 January 2015
Why I believe this was complete crap. Pretentious dialog, boring unappealing characters and cheap shot shock-value scenes. Some suggest that this was originally constructed as a porn film and that it was later "re-cut" in an attempt to pass it off as an art-film – whatever – it sucked. Much like in the scene where the bondage-boy tells our leading lady that "she isn't ready yet" (which he determined by inserting his fingers into her and then "inspecting " his fingers) – I was clearly not ready either – this is garbage.

Pointless. Depressing. No redeeming value. If I had to find something positive to say about this cinematic turd, I'd have to say that it served as a reminder of just how lame the pompous "artsy" crowd can be. I love the critics calling it "a major work". Work? Really? My fav review says it "succeeds to organically synthesize the world, ideas and filmmaking savvy of Von trier" – "organically synthesize" – what exactly does this mean (if it means it's a POS then I agree. If not, I just don't know)?

Go to youtube and watch the Poo Pourri commercials – better acting and the message is clear – some things just stink. This movie is one of them.
86 out of 146 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't waste your money or your time.
rcudney17 October 2014
What else can I say that hasn't been said by other reviewers? Yes, this movie is boring, pretentious, stupid, with pseudo-intellectual dialogs, etc. The first two minutes were interesting...but then the "dialogue" started. It was downhill from there on. At first I thought, "oh, the problem is that this movie is obviously dubbed and it would sound better in its original language," but then I saw Christian Slater appear so I realized that was not the problem. Then the main character says her first sexual encounter was comprised of three thrusts through her vagina and five through the back door, and the old man that is listening to her says "Ah, Fibonacci numbers!" Hell, I am a physicist and I deal with math everyday, and when I hear the numbers 3 and 5 strung together I don't think about a far-fetched Fibonacci sequence, but prime numbers instead. I cannot tell you about what happens during the rest of the movie because I was only able to endure about half an hour more.

Let me sum it up this way: Remember that episode of "Seinfeld" when they all go to see an "art" film, "Rochelle, Rochelle! A young woman's erotic journey from Milan to Minsk," and it is so boring and pretentious that they leave the movie theater? Well, there you go. This movie makes Rochelle, Rochelle! look like "Citizen Kane" in comparison.
157 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An awful, sometimes disgusting and boring movie
hellotonothing2 August 2015
Regarding all the critics and expectations for a topic presented like that, I would just say that this could not keep me interested for more than 10 minutes on the movie. The first music itself (rammstein) at least tries to gain your attention, makes me remember some psychological movie, which would at least makes you feel disgusted (like Srpski Film) or disoriented (like Irreversible), and make you think a little bit on the point of having watched it, to gain a certain sensibility, or a different perception on a specific case.

After the song, all I could see was a porn movie, filmed on a couple of bizarre angles, with a little but none background, of a person who is sad, boring, with a depressing tone of voice, and some pseudo-cult aspects. Sad, plain sad. Boring, plain boring.

Luckily, I was able to awake my mind from this non-thrilling and boring story, after Rammstein song started to play again on the credits.

I like to keep track of the notes given on the movies on IMDb, but his undeniably DO NOT deserve this hype. If I knew, I would keep distance of this specific story, but as a movie lover, unfortunately I'll need to watch the 2nd part.
69 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Fake, dishonest and pedant art
tbiancolino19 June 2016
Well, that is my first review here, and sorry for the English mistakes. But I need to manifest some thoughts about this movie.

The worst thing about art is that when some creation is not art, it uses all dirty disguises trying to be art. And the result normally is something pretentious, pedant, meaningless and BORING!!!

It's exactly what happens here with this movie: pretending to be a example of refined cinema making, it results, in fact, in a very BORING and pretentious movie, full of pedant, slow dialogues that make banal reflections about the main theme, sex. It is, at the end, a dishonest creation, very weak art.

It would be better if that was a simple porn, it would be more honest.
38 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
An intellectually stimulating movie for sexually frustrated teenagers.
christos_martinis9 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This film is not porn. It is not shocking or provocative and definitely not 'deep'.

We get to watch the sexual binging of a person and the effect it has on their life. All would be OK if that was the point of the film. Viewers who have seen genitals before may go in for an exploration of the psychology of a sex addict or even (and preferably if you ask me) an exploration of the philosophical stand point of such a person but all they'll get is the trendy, immature and ill informed opinions of a rebellious teenager who just came across the word 'feminism' in the dictionary.

The only way to save this script is to decide that it's a story about a person who never accepted the consequences of their actions.

Not that Von Trier does anything to help us decide that mind you...

P.s. The film is well made so if you enjoy moving images, go for it.
172 out of 313 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Truly repulsive...Just my opinion.
FromTheInside1925 March 2014
I really am at a loss for words on how to describe how awful and repulsive this film was. I have seen some of Triers other work just out of curiosity. Yeah, he does push the boundaries and takes big extremes in his films which I am not that big of a fan of. Still, I take the time to watch a film, before I criticize. I gave this film a chance. Honestly, I think this is his wort film.

I am not going to into details of the story and plot as it would take too long and this movie doesn't deserve a complete breakdown review, not to mention, it isn't worth my time more than what I am going to type.

To me I saw nothing artistic, I saw nothing funny, it wasn't deep or meaningful in any way. All I got out of it was a grotesque pornographic punch in the face. I believe the plot to be weak. Some of the acting and performances were pretty good and that is all it has going for it.

I am open minded to lots of things and accept lots of things, but this is not one of them. On top of it all, it's just too damn long. It gets so drawn out. Even the sex scenes in the film were a yawn fest not to mention made me feel unclean. They didn't feel erotic or artistic, or anything for that matter. However, I did not walk out on this film as I wanted to see it in its entirety. The film overall made me feel dirty, and unclean. All I got out of it was a glorified porn, with a weak story and average acting if not borderline sub-par for most of the cast.

This movie made me feel dirty despite some of the good acting moments and even a few parts in the story. For the most part, 98% crap cannot make up for the 2% of good that I found in this film. Figuratively speaking of course.

I am not saying don't see it. I would recommend you to not, but it is up to you to decide. It is not my place to tell someone what they can and cannot do or watch what they like. Make the choice for yourself. Take this review as a recommendation, I would advise against seeing it. But ultimately the choice is yours. Make your own opinion. My opinion should never dictate any readers decision.
225 out of 415 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Pretentious Bad Movie For Porno Lovers.
AmericanStud26 March 2014
This movie is pretentious.It contains scenes with explicit pornography.I did not find anything interesting in it.Nothing is artistic about a whore who blows a man and the obscenities of explicit sex & vulgar masturbation can't be classified as art.Most of my friends who saw the movie could not handle it because of boredom and incoherent monotonous dialogue without any action.Those who regard Lars Von Trier as the master of European cinema are bias for most of his movies are commercial with explicit porn dominating them rather than being artful and useful.It is weird to see the heroin Joe( played by Charlotte Gainsbourg) as an insatiable whore who constantly craves for sex and does not seem to enjoy sex.Nymphomaniac is a very dull movie and I could not see it anything good except cheap nudity and some dirty porn.See it on your own responsibility,you are free!.
200 out of 367 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The truth hurts: Nymphomaniac is too awful to watch!.
sexylad12 April 2014
Lars Von Trier is a famous controversial Danish Director.Actually I have never ever heard of him before!.I was really interested to see this movie as Lars Von Trier has been boasting of his works and regards himself as a great director.His movie Nymphomaniac Volume I has let me down.I felt sorry to see how a girl turned from innocence to c**k addiction.Although the explicit sex scenes are hot,yet the movie is generally too boring and a waste of time. The best part of this movie is the brief acting of Uma Thurman. All my enthusiasm to see this movie was completely lost as I watched this movie.I have realized that this film or his producer and director (Lars Von Trier) is making fun of us. I tried to find drama and suspense in it,but against all odds the movie sounded more like a travesty.
188 out of 344 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I did not see art ,I saw some porno in this bad movie.
CarlosEspagna25 March 2014
Hello everybody.This is my first comment on this site.I was very anxious to see Nymphomaniac movie by Lars Von Trier,but after I saw it I became very disappointed with this film for these reasons reasons:The movie does not have art,but it has some porno sex (woman gives a blow job a train and a man giving a blow job to a woman). Also it was a bad movie because it is not interesting at all.I found it boring with monotonous dialogue between Joe and Seligman who are the main characters.The movie offers sex and some porno,but never satisfies movie viewers.We don't know why a nymphomaniac woman is a sex slave who practices sex and masturbation for pleasure only and we see the opposite that she becomes addicted to sex and nudity and seems clearly in this movie she is not enjoying sex.To me Lars Von Trier should really convince us to see a movie and must work hard to make a good plot and not just provide us with porno to make us horny.
233 out of 431 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Storytelling traded for Porn
christian-125-44583423 September 2014
Very rarely I comment on IMDb, but I felt this was necessary. The film is an excuse for porn, if there was just half the amount of turning points, character development, surprise, tension, deeper meaning... as there is uncensored penis and pussy, this film may have saved itself from the hall of shame in post-modern storytelling.

Frankly, I don't like the attitude of putting someone down, I'd rather recognise my own shadow and deal with that internally... but it comes down to more than a matter of subjectivity when a film that lacks any type of spiritual or even psychological depth makes its way to the screen.

Aristotle turns in his grave.
204 out of 375 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Extremely weak drama with dirty porn.
adamfromaustralia21 November 2014
Danish writer and director Lars Von Trier delivers an extremely weak drama/documentary film full of dirty porn (from explicit oral sex to anal sex and vulgar sex and nudity), Lars Von Trier claims that he is treating the problem of a nymphomaniac woman called "Joe",but in reality we trace the story of a dirty whore who becomes a sex slave and who have all kinds of sex and flesh pleasure for the sake of pleasure. The vulnerable drama is obviously seen in the monotonous Dialogue between Joe and the old man. I am extremely astounded Why Uma Thurman agreed to act in a dull movie like this that contains filthy porn !. Nymphomaniac Volume I is a movie to avoid because it is too boring and totally silly to watch even for porn lovers it is a trash movie.
241 out of 447 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Left the cinema
tizianhollerith9 March 2014
This movie is so naive, boring and stupid I couldn't take it any longer than an hour. The only people that might find this movie appealing are 30-50 year old conservatives who have never seen a porn, these people can either laugh or at least get mad because its so "shameless". Lars von Trier delivered a stupid piece of crap, in which the dialogs are only good for showing how boring the movie actually is. Worst cinema experience ever, terrible acting, terrible story, terrible Shia La Beouf... The only good thing is that due to all the bad reviews Lars von Trier can go back to hating on Cannes and think he's the most underrated artist ever- aside from Kanye West.
187 out of 343 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Children Acting In A Semi-Porno Movie.
bella-159-55545614 November 2014
Nymphomania is a movie that will waste your time and money.

There are many porno scenes in this movie.

You will be shocked to see Joe the 10 year old child working in a movie that is rated X.

No story,just boring storytelling.

No drama,just too much porno!.

A waste of time because a nymphomaniac is a sex slave here who needs a psychiatric.

Go rent or buy an adult DVD If you enjoy porno and don't waste your time in watching a movie without a result at all!.
282 out of 528 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Hey! Like - Hello!!?? All That Fuss Over This!!??
strong-122-4788855 November 2017
Ho-hum!... Well - Here we go again!.... Nymphomaniac, like "Shame" and "Looking For Mister Goodbar", is yet another sordid, unsavoury and sneering look at the consequences that are apparently supposed to result from excessive promiscuity.

When it comes to sheer heavy-handedness - This shamelessly preachy, little picture self-righteously tells the viewer that having lots of sex with many partners is a hateful thing (so don't you dare love it).

This is the sort of movie that neither stimulates the mind nor arouses the libido. Nope. It absolutely numbs both. If you are expecting Nymphomaniac to live up to its title as being an intensely pleasant and wildly erotic experience, you are definitely in for a major disappointment.

Incompetently directed by Lars Von Trier (who must be an utterly despicable prig) - Nymphomaniac amounted to being nothing but a dreary, little soap opera (with lots of graphic sex thrown in for good measure) that took 4 frickin' hours to get its shallow, sex-hating point across..... Sheesh! Like - Hey! Give me a break, already!
16 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I couldn't watch it
tallymc8021 March 2014
I understand that there is a plot and storyline. I was a art major an appreciate tasteful nudity. I am not a religious person either. Let me start by saying know what Nymphos are. I was expecting nudity, but not straight up porn. I think this got the high ratings from men excited porn made it to the big scene. I am not talking soft porn, i mean PORN. I find it funny how other users go into how deep the content was. I guess "Deep throat" had deep content too. I found out later all the "actors" did porn. There must be a lot of IMDb users in there mothers basements postings reviews lately. If you are thinking from the reviews this is more than porn, then you are reaching for excusing.
216 out of 400 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed