Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2013) User Reviews

The Extended Director's Cut.

[ritera1 · 8/10 · 25 October 2022]

Well, definitely something that would warrant conversation vs what was shown and the questions and themes that it brought up.

Von Trier creates many interesting scenarios but he's given free reign, which I don't think at times services the audience or even his "vision" very well.

Didn't need to be as graphic as it was. Came off as cheap and pandering. For instance, Antichrist was graphic and it served the movie well.

The sequence with the black brothers was kind of racist.

As a character, Gainsbourg wasn't very interesting, especially the young version. SUDDENLY she's a master of male behavior for the final long act. None of that was clear, early on. By and large, I saw an empty addict for most of it.

Dafoe recruiting her for her "skills" was a stretch. But after that, it was interesting. Then the long game of having a "heir" was intriguing but was also a stretch at the same time.

Gainsbourg's character going into the sex business was never considered, which I found highly unlikely.

The abortion scene was horrid, along with what she did to herself in the long run.

I was expecting her father (Slater) to be a molester, which didn't happen. At least it would've made sense vs her behavior. But yes, it would also have been cliché.

Thoughout, Skarsgård being a surprise bad guy was in my head based on the surroundings of that dreary apartment. But his mannerisms didn't foreshadow that. So when that turned out to be the case, I was disappointed, as nothing else said such. Which made me think that the character was Von Trier's likely perversions and him condemning himself for it. Her shooting him was a big jump, too.

Von Trier is a smart guy and creative, too. But he's not equipped to manage that into effective filmmaking, at times.

Not as good as part 1

[rubenm · 7/10 · 3 February 2014]

After having enjoyed the superb first part of 'Nymphomaniac', I felt a little bit disappointed by the second part of this film. It is less imaginative, less playful and less exuberant.

What's missing most is the interaction between the two lead characters: sex addict Joe and her asexual rescuer Seligman. In the first part, their conversation was like ping pong: they exchanged stories and experiences - hers of a sexual nature, his about all kinds of things. The links and similarities between their seemingly different lives made the film so original and attractive.

In the second part however, it's mostly Joe who tells the stories. Seligman is reduced to a minor part, that of the patient listener. Only at a few occasions he really contributes something to the conversation, but after one of his stories, Joe remarks: 'I think this is one of your weakest digressions'. After that, he lets her do the talking.

Even more than in the first part, Von Trier explores all kinds of (sexual) taboos. There's paedophilia (on which Joe has rather original but very wise views), interracial sex, sado-masochism, and all kinds of humiliation. In between, Von Trier also gives us his unorthodox thoughts on motherhood and feminism.

At several occasions, it's clear how we hear Von Trier speak through the words of his protagonist. There's a nice exchange of arguments about political correctness between Joe and Seligman. He thinks the word Negro shouldn't be used, out of respect for a part of society. She thinks that not allowing the use of certain words, is equal to forbidding certain thoughts. Political correctness is hypocrisy, she thinks. Coming from a man like Von Trier, who has committed his life to the combat against political correctness, this is a clear statement. The same goes for the scene where Joe, after having decided to attend a self help group for sex addicts, accuses the group leader of being a member of some sort of obscenity police. This is a clear message to all narrow-minded people who described 'Nymphomaniac' as porn, before having seen one second of it.

Because Von Trier so clearly has no respect for what society considers decent or proper, I was amazed by Seligmans feminist speech at the end of the film. He comforts Joe by pointing out that her behaviour as a nymphomaniac would probably be applauded if she had been a man. That a woman cannot dedicate her life to limitless sex, is proof of society's double standards. Of course this is true, but it sounds strange after so much scenes in which women are being degraded.

After having seen Nymphomaniac part 1 and part 2, I am really curious about the director's cut. Is it just more explicit sex? I hope not, because showing genitals is clearly not what makes this film great. It's everything else that should make you want to go and see it.

A powerful take on traditional sexual

[funkkysoul2002 · 8/10 · 5 February 2014]

Nymphomaniac is a film not easily stomached by most individuals (as are most of Lars von Trier's films) but once one has digested the visual hedonism of its being, then comes the actual dialogue that was unique to this film which added the distinct and flavorful aftertaste... and boy does it linger.

The attributes that the general population will view as 'pornography' is the actual gritty realism of the Joe's life - nymphomania. If one has any sympathy for a type of disease or an insatiable need (an addiction), they will come to understand that this movie seems to explore addiction from the perspective of each character. The addictions that shape life as well as the absence of these needs entirely as one character seems to demonstrate - the question that remains in the end is that how far can one woman allowed to take her needs in a male dominated society?

Each character has their own value in the nymphomaniac's life and changes and shapes her personality to what it becomes in the end. I urge you all before writing distasteful reviews that fuel only some type of parental guidance (this is not a movie for kids obviously) or claiming that this film is porn, to actually take the time to see a deeper meaning within the characters and their dialogue even though it is overshadowed with quite a bit of sex...

Nymphomaniac: Vol. II

[Gordon-11 · 27 March 2014]

This film tells the story of a woman who turns into dark sexual behaviour after discovering that just sex is not enough to satisfy her nymphomaniac urges.

In "Nymphomaniac: Vol. II", there is a lot of graphic sex. The sadomasochism is quite shocking and raw. There are many occasions when I was very surprised by how far the actors and actresses would go. How she descends into a pitiful state is sad. The second half of the film takes a turn into exploring another side of Joe's sexuality. Actually, "Nymphomaniac: Vol. II" explores almost all common sexual minority behaviours - it is almost an eye opener - and in some cases eye closer.

"Nymphomaniac: Vol. II" is a bit too extreme for my taste.

Pass the Popcorn! review

[PassPopcorn · 7/10 · 22 February 2014]

I finally got to see the second part of Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac last night. As you might remember, I didn't really like the first part – it was mostly pretentious artsy stuff that couldn't keep me interested, and also I didn't come to the theater to masturbate, as some people seem to be doing. And seriously, how can they? I admit that this movie can make you horny, but every sex scene is coated with depression and isn't really sexy, which ultimately ruins the mood. But I digress. Nymphomaniac vol. II turned out to be quite surprising. It was better than the first part, and more interesting, as it focused more on the main character's relationship with society and how her 'condition' affected it – and therefore, it was much darker and heartfelt.

Note: skip this paragraph if you plan to see the movie as a whole, as it reveals some important plot points from the first volume. In this part, Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is still telling her story to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), but his role is minor as he mostly listens and doesn't have many witty, maths-related remarks – which I thought was positive, and I liked that Joe asked him how could he possibly be thinking about mathematical formulas while she's talking about sex. My thoughts exactly, but this gets explained, too: Seligman is an asexual virgin. For the sake of drama, could he really have been anything else if not Joe's exact opposite? Also, this part shows us Joe ruining her monogamous life with Jerôme (Shia LaBeouf) because of her addiction, and we can finally see and understand the pain her addiction causes her.

I like to think this part of the movie is more Trier-like: there is less pretentious crap and less oh-so-shocking sex, but more is said about the main character and the story actually goes somewhere (while the first part was mostly about young Joe having sex). Volume II finally tackles the subject of nymphomania as a serious addiction. Just like a junkie, Joe gives up everything for her daily dose, even her loving husband who just can't satisfy her need. And even when she, in one scene, claims she loves herself as she is – a sex addict – it's hard not to smile and feel pity for a person that tries, in every possible way, to justify her behavior, while being aware of the lies she's feeding herself with. Still, I understand why the first part of the movie is lighter and focused on Joe's sexual adventures: every addiction feels awesome at first, just like youth is a much easier life period than all that comes after. Because of this needed transition, it's much better to watch the movie as a whole, if you can manage to sit through its 4 hour entirety.

It was also easier to concentrate on the actors' performances in this part of the movie. Stacy Martin is finally gone, thank God, except for a small part in the beginning that doesn't really show her bad acting. You can now really appreciate Charlotte Gainsbourg as an actress, as she does more than just sit on a bed and talk. Mia Goth is really good as P, even though this is her first role in a movie ever. Willem Dafoe got too little screen time to be really impressive, although he wasn't bad, but Jamie Bell as the sadistic K was great – so naturally intimidating, even his facial expressions make you shiver. There are still some scenes that make you cringe, the pretentiousness isn't completely gone and the movie is tedious from time to time, but I'd suggest you see it, preferably as a whole. It's not perfect, but it's definitely an interesting experience.

Rating: 7/10 Read more at http://passpopcorn.com/

Darker than the first volume

[dcharold · 7/10 · 9 March 2014]

Nymphomaniac Part II is a far darker film than Part I. If the first is the film of innocence then this is of experience and its costs. (Notably the very fine Stacy Martin of Part I disappears early on in this volume with the role being taken over by Gainsbourg). It's also a lot more in keeping with Von Trier's other recent films. Make of that what you will. Personally I found it hard going, but there can be no question that it raises provocative questions about consent and victim hood how those things can transform otherwise identical acts. It briefly flirts with the idea that gender can transform those identical acts too, but in a rushed way that doesn't feel like it really interested the film makers much. Humanist it certainly is and yet, ultimately, somewhat misanthropic too. I doubt I'll need to see this part again, but was glad to have seen it once. If the rumoured Director's Cut of 5+ hours eventually surfaces I'll certainly watch it. Challenging.

Portrait of a failed psychoanalysis

[FrostyChud · 10/10 · 30 January 2014]

NYMPHOMANIAC is the most exciting, intelligent film I have seen in a long time. The moment I saw Seligmann shuffle out of his apartment to Rammstein, I knew I was in the hands of a filmmaker I could trust. This scene was the first of many at which I found myself exulting inside. GO, LARS, GO! NYMPHOMANIAC is von Trier's F-14 and he takes it on bombing run after bombing run, destroying a different pious hypocrisy each time. The film is full of all sorts of audacious touches that no other filmmakers working today have the guts or brains to include in their boring, sentimental, ideological films.

NYMPHOMANIAC is also very funny.

What I liked best about NYMPHOMANIAC was its total refusal of the consolations of ideology. Sexuality is presented truthfully, which is to say, as something which simply cannot be integrated into the smooth social order without one or the other being damaged. No one in the movie has a "healthy" sexuality. In a certain sense, the nymphomaniac herself is the closest thing to a healthy person in that she refuses to adhere to any of the hypocritical moral orders represented by the other characters, from conformism to abstinence to impotent cognitive-behavioral therapy to S&M to crime and so on. She is a stain no matter where she goes and in this sense she incarnates the truth, which also has the status of a permanent stain.

At the same time that von Trier does everything right, he gets everything wrong, but in the best possible way. NYMPHOMANIAC reminded me of the book that OJ Simpson wrote in which he describes how he would have killed Nicole and Ron "if he had done it". What OJ wrote is a confession in scare quotes, one in which every detail is present except the most important one, namely, the actual acknowledgment of guilt. NYMPHOMANIAC has the same structure, although instead of being the story of a murder, it is the story of a psychoanalysis.

A troubled person on a bed is encouraged to speak to a learned, wise, benevolently neutral man who is sitting next to the bed. She is encouraged to tell her whole story. He will refuse judgment and simply listen.

Over the course of a psychoanalysis, patterns and unlikely coincidences slowly take shape and are spotted by the analysand, who eventually comes to recognize them at their true value, namely as the traces of an emergent repressed discourse. Lars von Trier has brilliantly condensed and rendered this process by making Joe's story full of improbable coincidences. How much of this really happened and how much of it is a delusion? Could she really have run into Jerome so many times? Could she really have had a vision of the Whore of Babylon as a pubescent girl? Etc.

The sex life of Joe starts and ends with the exact same scenario: 3+5=8. This circularity is also characteristic of the psychoanalytic process. An analysis reaches its conclusion when the analysand recognizes that she has done nothing but repeat, again and again, her own contingent, sexualized unconscious interpretation of a traumatic encounter. By superimposing this sum on the screen, von Trier condenses and renders visible the fundamentally signifying, even meaningless kernel of the compulsion to repeat trauma that Freud called the death drive. Joe's analysis comes to an end when she is able to witness how insubstantial and senseless her compulsion is. All tied up, right?

And then Seligmann tries to have sex with Joe! At this moment everything crumbles. The moment he whips it out, Seligmann invalidates the nascent story that has begun to emerge from between the lines of her official story. The fragile consistency of this new liberating interpretation of Joe's story is entirely dependent on Joe's confidence in Seligmann's ability to see clearly where she can only dimly intuit. His actions prove to her retroactively that he heard nothing but her symptomatic demand to be used, and in so doing he symbolically annuls her true desire.

Such an ending is a logical necessity in that Seligmann's "asexuality" is completely hypocritical, as is Joe's decision to renounce her sexuality. Here we see why a psychoanalyst must go through analysis himself: if he does not, he can only validate the patient's resistances. Since Seligmann has not integrated his own sexual drives, he is incapable of leading Joe to such an integration. All he can do is lead Joe to his own failed neurotic solution: a refusal of sexuality. But Joe incarnates the intractable stain of truth, which is also the stain of sexuality, and as such she necessarily explodes Seligmann's hypocrisy.

It all holds together. Where von Trier gets it all wrong is in his implicit condemnation of psychoanalysis. Here von Trier is properly perverse. His entire movie is a truthful "confession" and then, like OJ, he winks and tells us that it was all hypothetical. This last act of resistance invalidates everything that came before it, conveniently rendering the exercise sterile and allowing Joe/von Trier to continue ignoring the truth and enjoying their symptoms. In Joe's case, the symptom is nymphomania. In von Trier's case, the symptom is his gratuitous melancholia, his nihilism. Were he to take the quotation marks off of his confession, he would risk facing the consequences of his act, namely freedom with all of its attendant complications and miseries.

Lars walks us right up to the edge and then fails to take the last decisive step. I do not think that this failure takes anything away from the film. On the contrary, this final gesture transforms the film from a poignant depiction of psychological suffering into a meta-depiction of the attachment to this suffering. This is even a necessity, inasmuch as psychological suffering itself always has, by its very nature, such a double structure.

Addicted in Sex and Friendship

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 22 March 2014]

Joe continues to tell to Seligman the story of her life. Joe lives with Jerôme (Shia LaBeouf) and their son Marcel and out of the blue, she loses sexual sensation in intercourse, feeling her vagina numb. Joe seeks kinky sex, perversions and sadomasochism expecting to retrieve her sex drive. Jerôme leaves home with Marcel and gives his son to a foster house for adoption.

Then Joe is sent to therapy by her gynecologist but she does not admit that she is addicted in sex. Meanwhile Seligman tells to Joe that he is virgin and helps her to understand her actions. Joe believes that Seligman is her friend, but is he?

"Nymphomaniac: Vol. II" is a darker sequel of the volume 1. Joe now is in an adult and her sexual experiences are more perverted and without humor. The conclusion is unexpected and without redemption. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ninfomaníaca: Volume 2" ("Nymphomaniac: Volume 2")

The tabu of sex

[SimonD1900 · 9/10 · 10 April 2021]

Sex is tabu, something shameful. At the same time we praise it and obbses over it. It's all most want to talk about, and do talk about, yet there is so much *hush hush* about it at the same time. We love it and we fear it. It's both extacy and it's also pain. It's such a double edge sword. Yet, in reality, it's one of the most common and fundamental parts of human nature and what we are. It's actually mondane. Still, we make such a big fuss over it.

I think Trier tries to tackle this ambivalent complexities we have about sex, also the fact that we humans function sexually in very different ways, in this very long two part film. Personally, I think he did a good job. I do understand if many hate it though and I wouldn't blame them.

And I would like to add, if you enjoy this movie. I would recommend the directors cut version.

Slow but intriguing

[Miloschouten · 6/10 · 7 March 2014]

First of all I'd like to point out that watching the II volume without having seen the first is completely pointless. Nymphomaniac speaks of itself its about a Nymph woman who is found in a alleyway beat up and brought to an old mans house where she tells him her life-story. At first its quite slow but as it goes on it becomes more and more interesting and both characters show nice point of views. The acting is decent and I didn't find the sex-scenes to offending. Apart from being slow the biggest reason I only give a 6/10 is the ending..The ending is unreasonable and a not needed shock factor It was completely out of place and actually ruined it for me If you exclude the ending I could have given a 8/10.

All in all, If its worth watching is up to you.

Feces on a wall calling itself art is still just feces.

[lubchka6 · 1/10 · 5 March 2015]

Where to start? Watching Nymphomaniac, both volumes, is like going to an art show where feces is displayed, and everyone is standing around discussing the contours, layers, lighting, and you're standing quietly thinking to yourself, " I must be missing something. This is art! Isn't it?" Basically, the story of emperor's new clothes at its finest. I will be bold enough to say that no, I'm not missing anything. It really is just sh** I'm looking at. My final thought at the end of both volumes was "wow, those are hours I'm never going to get back." And it's not that the movie was all bad. Charlotte is wonderful, as are all the other actors. The topic is interesting. I didn't mind the nudity and I wasn't offended by any of it. There just isn't any point to it at all! None. Just when you think there may be some point in the friendship she develops with an asexual male, the story stuffs that thought into the toilet in the most confusing unnecessary way. Or when you think there is some point to her love story with Jerome, that is trashed in a very stupid way too. And if the director thinks that he is building up, just to let us down, well, he fails to build anything up since the whole movie is so boring and monotone. There just no point. And if the point of the movie is that there is no point, then why the Hell am I stuck staring at the screen for so long? Anyways, I am utterly disappointed. This is poop.

Everything is explicit, even the meaning if you pay attention

[anaclaudia-7 · 9/10 · 29 January 2014]

I'm thinking about buying a new dictionary so I can express myself correctly because I left the movies basically without expression on my face. Still can't find the exact word to describe it but I'll do my best.

In 'Nymphomaniac Vol. I' we enter in Joe's life to discover how is really to be a sex addicted and living with that - since the very beginning: her childhood problems, her lack of motherly love, her infinite connection with her purist father, her first perverse tendencies (and believe me this movie is so rich of great images and performances that I used to think impossible to reach). After 5 chapters of explanation I wondered what could happen in volume II...

The answer is, basically, everything.

'Nymphomaniac Volume II' is priceless, superb, in its own way so madly profound that you can't get one single word to describe it perfectly.

The (again) reference to the '3+5' already seen in the first volume is like a code to understand all of the movie's essence! Those numbers will always be an association to the first time Joe got intercourses, with Jerôme, to her deep pain and unbelievable disappointment to the succeed. She tries to avoid that sequence of numbers but she has no option but living it once again, this time just watching it happen in front of her eyes, by Jerôme, after being beaten by him.

'8' can't be considered just the sum of 3 with 5. '8' is the key. The key to the meaning and purpose of this all Lars Von Trier's story and the key to the beauty itself. '8' is an infinite symbol, turned 90 degrees (something that makes perfect sense when Seligman refers that everything we know - thanks to our daily routine - fastly becomes common and hides its truly meaning - to reveal it, we need to see it from another perspective) - that's why when you rotate that '8' you can see a reference to Joe's infinite desire to be accomplished and satisfied sexually.

Despite my long explanation I feel I cannot find enough words/expressions to describe 'Nymphomaniac' as it needs. Such beauty should be just seen and absorbed.

Charlotte Gainsbourg is a real woman. Her performance is stunning! I really enjoyed all the nasty moves of Stacy Martin but let's be honest: is easier for a young girl to accept and do a roll based on sex than for a woman who probably has kids in real life to do scenes like the one she is shared by two black-guys at some cheap motel room, just to experiment a new sexual sensation. All of it requires a lot of matureness and dedication but specially an open-mind that the majority of the adult actresses doesn't have.

Willem Dafoe shows himself to the world for a few minutes as a badass guy - you see... this one is one of those rare actors that every time he appears on the big screen everyone around you notice it.

With a great pity, Uma Thurman doesn't appear in this volume to fulfill my most depressive desires on a roll.

'Nymphomaniac' is probably one of the most complete masterpieces I've seen lately - has passion, has pain, has emotion, has fierce, has no shame talking about sex.

The violence showned will probably move the most sensitive ones. It really bothers me that people feel more uncomfortable facing a movie about sex than a movie about explicit domestic-violence. For all the haters.... this one has BOTH ;)

Slightly darker but more of the same

[saraccan · 7/10 · 21 May 2019]

Apparently this was meant to be a single film but because of its runtime it had to be separated into two films. So it's not completely reasonable to evaluate this movie on its own. But since I'm already doing it, I'll just say it has a sadder and darker tone.

As the main character gets older, we follow her journey from being a nymphomaniac into someone who is trying to get out of it.

Awful

[avzwam · 1/10 · 27 May 2014]

Whilst watching Nymphomaniac I found myself often intrigued but when it was over I wondered what I got out of watching it ultimately. It all didn't really go anywhere if you ask me.

Why is it a worthwhile experience to watch this film in Lars von Trier's opinion? Why do we need to see this film in which we among other things see mankind more or less at its worst? What is the point of this film which disgusts at times? It also depressed me as it seemed to have quite a grim, defeatist, misanthropic outlook which I found a waste of time to witness. I think the film lacks focus as well as maturity.

What disgusted me for instance was the moment towards the end during which the girl relieves herself on top of the female protagonist. What is the point of this, Lars? We already knew the girl was bad news.

The fact that there was nudity and sex in the film didn't disgust me in and of itself. I don't have a problem with nudity and sex in films but it has to be there for a good reason and it's like the whole idea behind the film isn't clear; what Lars intended to do with this film is simply beyond me.

A one star rating on here stands for "awful" and I have no choice but to give it that as I truly do think it is an awful film.

Avant-Garde of Filmmaking, My Ass.

[CinemaClown · 13 May 2014]

Nymph()maniac, if I've to describe in a single sentence, is director Lars von Trier trying to sell his bland & banal softcore as a work of art. Divided into 2 volumes, Nymph()maniac is the final chapter in what is now being labeled as Depression Trilogy (preceded by Antichrist & Melancholia) and tells the story of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac named Joe recounting her life's sexual experiences to Seligman; the man who found her badly-beaten up in some deserted alley plus who later tries to connect & analyze her stories with whatever he has read about.

Volume 2 picks the story right from where Volume 1 signed off and continues Joe's retelling of her erotic endeavors to Seligman & how she ended up in his care. And, if the previous half of Nymph()maniac had Joe engaging in one sex session after another down to the point that it became repetitive & boring, then this half shows her sexual ventures going a little extreme as director Lars von Trier throws in sadomasochism & pedophilia into the tale to amplify its shock value but it actually ends up even more repulsive than it already was.

The story goes downhill from the already ineffective narration that was present in the previous part, the pace is still sluggish, some sequences are disturbing to watch while others are present just to stir more controversies or irk as many viewers as possible. The performances still don't carry any complains unlike the rest of this film's aspects although the characters continue to remain uninteresting like before. Charlotte Gainsbourg takes over the role of Joe from Stacy Martin in her stories & even Skarsgård gets to do more as Seligman than just be a listener to Joe's endless stories.

On an overall scale, the 2nd & final volume of Nymph()maniac has nothing to offer except for few appalling moments & more philosophical bullshit. What's even more absurd or idiotic is the resolution of the Skarsgård character, Seligman, who so far was being reflected as a wise, caring friend only for the film to throw away all that notion of friendship out the window in its final moments. All in all, there is nothing artistic about this pretentious crap & if one tries to approach it as a porn feature, then the overall experience is even worse. Avant-garde of filmmaking, my ass.

Full review at: cinemaclown.wordpress.com

A Disturbing, Sexual Tour-De-Force!

[namashi_1 · 7/10 · 2 May 2014]

The continuation of Nymphomaniac: Vol. I, 'Nymphomaniac: Vol. II' is A Disturbing, Sexual Tour-De-Force! Writer-Director Lars von Trier succeeds enormously by creating a world of continuous repulsion & guilt, while the performances range from extra-ordinary to good.

'Nymphomaniac: Vol. II' is The continuation of Joe's sexually dictated life delves into the darker aspects of her adulthood, obsessions and what led to her being in Seligman's care.

'Nymphomaniac: Vol. II' culminates its troubled protagonist's long-drawn journey with a sense of paranoia & unpredictability. Lars von Trier's Screenplay, divided in two volumes respectively, delivers a story of complete bleakness, repulsion & lust. He successfully transports you into this world of wildness & greed. His Direction, on the other-hand, is extremely well-handled. Cinematography & Editing are mention-worthy.

Performance-Wise: Charlotte Gainsbourg as Joe, is astonishing. The actress nails the part & delivers a subtly devastated performance. Stellan Skarsgård is another topper. He's excellent. Jamie Bell, in a very menacing part, is despicable. Willem Dafoe does his bit well, as always. Mia Goth is first-rate. Shia LaBeouf & Stacy Martin, who lead volume 1, appear in cameos this time.

On the whole, 'Nymphomaniac: Vol. II' is suitably uncomfortable & sickening.

Forget about love.

[TheDonKi · 7/10 · 4 May 2014]

This isn't a movie about love, this is a movie about sex. And as a movie with such a natural theme, personally I think that anyone who sees it, should be very open minded for what the director wants to express.

If this is your first time enjoying a Von Trier film, you should be very aware, that he puts anything he wants in his movies, so be prepared to see and hear things that probably won't match the standards that you are used to. He uses very specific screen editions to catch the viewers attention and later totally forgets about them, making it very disappointing of you are expecting other things. I'm very sorry to hear that many people has reviewed this as a bad movie or, what's even worst, a sexist movie. I strongly recommend that if you are one of this group of people, you give Nymphomanic another try, but this time, try to see through the directors mind, focusing on the change of ratios, the screen signs and the colors that he uses depending on the mood of the scene.

I'm not saying this is a movie for everyone, but if you start seeing it with prejudice just because of the thematic, you are going to hate it for sure.

Faboulous movie which requires adult audience in order to appreciate

[simon_vandyck · 10/10 · 6 February 2014]

The movie is great and Lars Von Trier is able to draw your attention to underlying psychological mechanisms of the human mind using explicit imagery. If you fully understand the movie, the explicit images won't even bother or excite you at all. If your conclusion of this movie is that it is a dirty pornographic documentary, i recommend you to watch a Disney movie instead. Indeed it takes some intelligence to understand that Lars Von Trier is talking about life and the daily struggles that we face. It can be seen that first of all sexuality is the strongest force in the human body, and nobody can deny this. Second of all everybody has some degree of 'perversion' inside them. It is then the 'art' of suppressing these 'perversions' in order to function in society. The movie is a very deep psychoanalysis of the most basic and strongest feeling in the human nature. If you want to understand your sexuality I would highly recommend watching Nymphomaniac. Superficially, if you get shocked by explicit images i recommend you go watch a well-behaved Disney movie with a happy end and morale, so your brain does not have to dig too deep.

Sensitive, realistic, but...

[nair-linh · 7/10 · 21 March 2014]

First of all, it's not porn. I would like to say there's a huge difference between porn and this movie. What I thought is that this movie was in fact very sentimental and realistic. It's clear that you will feel empathy with Joe's story, and after all you'll see that the movie was nothing but a true statement of the life of woman who's actions is guided by sexuality, in this case I would like to point that she's like Samantha( from sexy and the city), a woman who sex experiences and pleasure it's above love, but in Joe's case she feels bad in order of society rules that break her. Have cleared that this movie is not porn. I must say I found part I very poetic, I liked the way that Lars Von Trier actually related Joe's experiences with music, fishing, literature and religion and created metaphors with it. Though, a lot of people preferred the second part, I liked the first one the best, the delicacy of Joe's feelings in the screenplay at this part really got me. The second part is more realistic, after all you can't aspect to live a fairytale for ever. It shows the despair of a woman used to her strong sexuality feeling the first sines of her vitality fail. And as addicted to a drug, she's begun a road the leads her to destruction. At this plot the plot became extremely logical, and some of the sentimentalism was lost to me, in several scenes of Joe's suffering. Now, the ending. I have to say it was disappointing, yet people say it was likely, I didn't like it at all. It's completely predictable. When I saw Selligman leave the room and comeback it became clear what he were to do and it broke my heart. A strong character as him, be stereotyped at the way was totally unfair to him. Anyway it wasn't at all a disaster, as I liked Joe's decision about her life, and the fact she killed Selligman, after all if there is a gun in the story it must be used. My score for this movie is 7. Oh, and you must see it, if you got at least gotten a bit interested about the plot. I can tell it worth seeing.

A Wild Epic Journey Into Hell.

[peacecreep · 10/10 · 7 March 2014]

All the one star reviews on this website that are calling the film a "porn documentary" are obviously written by a group of religious nuts offended by intellectualism and sexuality. Ignore them.

Von Trier has crafted what may be his magnum opus. He goes further into his often explored themes of suffering, femininity and the breaking of social norms. Indeed, this may be one of the most intense inquisitions into the female mind ever put to film. And it has a refreshingly feminist, sex positive tonal undercurrent. The drama really gets going in the second volume which I enjoyed much more than the first. Incredible acting from all involved but Jamie Bell, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Uma Thurman especially. For anyone cultured there is nothing outrageous or controversial here, just a solid thought provoking film from a master of the art form.

He just couldn't resist, could he?

[demetrio-pereira · 6/10 · 17 March 2014]

Lars Von Trier indeed would be pretentious, ridiculously desperate to 'épater la bourgeoisie', IF he was a realist. But he directs fables, he's like Jose Saramago with a camera - the symbolism always justifies what you'll see in, say, 'Antichrist'.

In 'Nymphomaniac vol. 2', Von Trier disqualifies this kind of reviewer's relief. The message is antiintelectualist, and in yet another seesaw of Nature vs. Culture the reason is left, with no hope or consolation, with the animal that recognizes itself as 'bad person' and paints humanity with one single predicate - hypocrisy. It's like Von Trier committing suicide and leaving a letter saying that, in the end, despite all those eloquent minutes, it was all just porn delivered to people hypocritically faking to want anything more or less than that.

I could say the first one is really good. Hell, vol.2 was alright up until the end. But Von Trier just couldn't resist himself. He makes Joe murder the semiotics and silence the hermeneuticists, the exegetes, the false Candids and Christs - there's no hope, only sick rapists with nice speeches. And then Joe runs away, and with her goes Von Trier, mocking those who stay, singing hate to say I told you so, now deal with it, look how unpredictable I am, don't you try to decipher me, I'm a genius, nobody catches me etc.

OK, then. Good job, Von Trier, now everyone knows you're completely in charge of your own movies. Until the very last seconds. Congrats.

The movie rails off into an unwanted territory

[maripere95 · 2/10 · 10 August 2015]

The characters all end up committing heinous acts that throughout the runtime of two films would lead you to think is completely unlike them at all. Not only is the final act a giant figurative middle finger to the audience, but it also decides to give all the characters completely new personalities just to be able to create a shocking ending. What is so infuriating about the ending, is that there was no built-up or anything suggesting that the characters were capable of doing these acts. It is not as if only one character were to do something that is "outside of their character," but it is pretty much everyone in the movie decides to do something completely unlike themselves all at the same time, just to be able to have an unsatisfying climactic conclusion. Other than the final act, the other scenes also seem to delve more into fetishism instead of focusing on the central "problem," which is her sex addiction (or nymphomania). The movie rails off into an unwanted territory and brings all 4+ hours of these two volumes to not only a disappointing ending, but also an ending that is insulting to its audience.

A magnificent film which takes its subject matter very seriously

[thao · 9/10 · 30 January 2014]

This review is for both parts.

One gets the feeling that Trier is out to make the definitive sex drama, and maybe even his own magnum opus. In it he touches on almost every form of sexual desires and deviations, and does so in an honest and explicit way. A lot of these themes are investigated in the light of religion and psychology with refreshing and provocative ideas thrown into the mix. This is a huge film. Not only because it is long but also because it tackles a huge subject and takes its time to investigate each one of them.

I saw the 4 hour short version of the films (it is actually two films, each with end credits and separate names) and even though 4 hours is more than enough time for most films it never felt too long. If anything I felt that the 2nd film could have used more time to develop relationships. It felt a little rushed. So I'm quite sure that the film needs the extra 1 and 1/2 hour we get with the directors cut. The films open with a text saying that this is a "censored" and shortened version of Trier's film, made with his consent but not with his involvement. I believe Trier has not even seen these versions. You can tell that they have been censored. Even though you see genitals in close up they usually cut to faces during intercourse. There are some explicit oral sex scenes (for both men and women) and men are shown getting aroused. So the film does push the envelope but not as much as some had expected. It has been hard getting the film shown in some countries so maybe censoring was the right move. Otherwise it might have gone straight to DVD and Blu Ray.

So is it porn? It has scenes that could have been lifted from a porn film but the focus is never on sexual scenes to get the audience aroused, but rather on the story, so I don't agree with those who call this film porn. The sex scenes serve the story perfectly unlike in porn films where the story serves the sex scenes.

There are a lot of references to Antichrist here. It has the two main actors in the film. Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) believes she is evil and refers to many religious ideas and imagery to support it (the dangerous evil woman) and there is even a scene from Antichrist with the same music. These films are also an homage to Tarkovsky (like Antichrist was). The first film opens with a borrowed shot from Solaris (maybe because this is going to be the same kind of inner journey). The 2nd part opens with a levitation scene, not unlike the one we see in The Mirror and one of the chapters in the film is even called The Mirror.

I loved the use of music in the film. We get everything from heavy metal to Talking Heads to Bach, with often detailed information about these music masterpieces. It kind of reminded me of the way Lynch uses music in Lost Highway. One can even say that the opening is a homage to that film (where the camera goes into darkness and comes out again).

It goes without saying that the main theme of the film is sex but it is far from being the only theme. There is a lot of religious and psychological themes throughout the film, and the film takes its time to explain art, fly fishing and what not.

I know I have not said anything about the story. I think it is best to go in not knowing. Let's just say that this is an odyssey of a Nympomaniac and she goes to a lot of places on her journey from a 7 year old to a grown up woman (there are 3 actresses that play her throughout these stages of her life).

As always in a Trier film, the film is extremely well acted. It is often self conscious, both in its style and acting. Trier even writes on the film, both numbers and words, and one of the characters in the film explains historical facts to Charlotte Gainsbourg but Trier never hides the fact that these explanations are really there for the audience and maybe even more so for himself as a narrative way into the story.

SPOILERS! Regarding the end of the film. Some might take it as a silly, almost Twilight Zone way of ending the film. I think it fits well with the previous Freud themes discussed. Freud said that suppressing sexual desires (the ID) was unhealthy, and would lead to psychological problems in the end. So the end could be tied into that. But it could also be seen as a confirmation of what Charlotte Gainsbourg's character said all along. She was evil (ala Antichrist), but the man did not takes her warnings seriously and payed the price for that. Maybe I'm just trying to explain away the strangeness of the ending, because it does feel strange. END OF SPOILERS.

I think this is a magnificent film which takes its subject matter very seriously. It is among Trier's best films and it might even be his magnum opus in the uncut version. It is beautiful to look at and definitely a film you want to see at the cinema, even in its shorter version.

Long and Rambling

[jjturley · 2/10 · 30 January 2015]

When Lars von Trier finished his rambling speech at the Cannes Film Festival in 2011 (in which he claimed to be a Nazi) I recall feeling bewildered and disgusted. Likewise with his two "Nymphomaniac" movies, I am left with the same feelings.

This review covers both movies: We are introduced to a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac named Joe (played by Charlotte Gainsbourg), who, based on her condition makes choices in her life and causes drama to follow. Everything is related in chronological chapters. She reveals all of this to a man named Seligman (played by Stellan Skarsgård).

The sexual scenes are not erotic at all. This must be intentional? Whether intended or not, some scenes just drag on for too long. There are number theory references, literary references, and a little Mozart and Franck thrown in as well. Talk about pretentious! The viewers are supposed to believe that they are watching something arty and intelligent, and thus might feel less turned off...

Lars von Trier could have made the same story but used a different medical condition. Why not have a person who suffers from Irritable Bowel Syndrome? Said person could then relate their life story around all the times that they suddenly needed to use a toilet and couldn't find one! I am sure there would be lots of drama there too; and it would be about as interesting to watch.

I am giving this movie a "2" since I liked looking at the trees. There were many shots of them throughout the movie, and they were nice to look at.

While vol 1 was mostly entertaining, vol 2 is just dirty and violent.

[TxMike · 12 August 2014]

So, after spending 2 hours seeing volume 1, on Netflix streaming movies, I watched volume 2 the next day. Overall it was a big disappointment.

Volume 1 set up the story, of a woman named Joe, telling her story to a man named Seligman. As she recounted finding her sexual spot when she was only two, and learning some self-erotic activities when she was a young girl growing up, she decided as a young adult that she was a nymphomaniac, and even rejecting the label of "sex addict."

But as volume 1 ended she is exclaiming that she no longer could feel anything, her erotic zone had become non-respondent. Her sex was empty. So in much of volume two she recounts how she went to various people to try to either revive the sensations, or to break her of her nymphomania.

It is all very dirty and violent, for no apparent good cinematic reason. I am mostly puzzled why most professional critics give the whole movie, volumes 1 and 2, favorable comments because I see it as just a self- indulgent exercise on the director's part, to test the boundaries, showing very graphic sex using porno industry body doubles, all to end up with a sad story with no redeeming qualities. It seems it was all set up to question if society is harder on a woman than on a man for being overtly promiscuous.

MAJOR SPOILER FOLLOWS: As volume 2 ends, after telling her story all night, she just asks if she can go to sleep in Seligman's apartment and get some rest. He assures her she won't be disturbed. But as she dozes off he enters the room with his pants off and his penis in his hand, he intends to rape her. The screen goes black and we hear a gunshot, even though she has had sex with hundreds or thousands of men, she kills Seligman.