Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
156 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
avzwam27 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
164 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Feces on a wall calling itself art is still just feces.
lubchka65 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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.
102 out of 153 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The movie rails off into an unwanted territory
maripere9510 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
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.
66 out of 100 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lars von Trier lost a plot a little
ibania8821 September 2015
As much as the first part held a plot of the history and background of a sex addiction to some extent,Vol 6 just hurt my eyes and ears and bored me to sleep. The drastic images of self-abortion and self- inflicted pain, as well as the vulgar sex scenes; I am not a qualified psychologist/psychiatrist, but it all seems a little vague and improbable to me. It is sort of upsetting that a film spiked with such great cast (from Charlotte Gainsbourg, Shia LaBeouf, Uma Thurman, Stellan Skarsgaard and Willem Dafoe) brought such poor outcome. Changes between the young/old characters for Joe and Jerome did not work for me either - the plot lost out on even more of its scarce credibility. The film looks like a clueless mix of shocking images and cliché philosophical statement, and the poor, predictable and almost annoying finale made me want to score it a 1/10 initially.

Lars, we want more Melancholia and less of this.....
39 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Just when I thought it couldn't get worse after Vol 1...
wmennisny-617-2542769 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I'm going to keep it straight to the point. Just when I thought, after vol. 1 that it couldn't get worse, along comes the nadir of blackness and utter hopelessness. I know Von Triers from "Dancer In The Dark", a film that I liked but found nearly unbearable to watch and only saw once and never want to see again. I recognize the talent, however, and braced myself for another helping. Little did I know what I was really in for. The bottom line is that these films depict a world inhabited by people that are desperately and hopelessly doomed. I've never seen such nihilistic portrayals in my life. I'm all for "realism" in films but I don't want to be thrown into the "real lives" of these people....no, no a thousand times no! Their world is so bleak and hopeless and devoid of any affection or warmth or light that it simply looses any sense to it. The lives of these people have not an iota of the elements that make living worthwhile so once that's realized, after about a minute, it becomes pure torture. I pride myself on my level of tolerance for the fetishes and idiosyncrasies that people have but sheer brutality is something that I know exists but care not to be thrown into in brutal graphic detail. These are the most bleak and depressing films ever made to my knowledge.
27 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Despite the controversy, quite dull and pointless.
grantss30 December 2014
Despite the controversy, quite dull and pointless.

A movie that relies largely on the shock value of its subject matter and of some of its scenes. Take these away and it is largely empty.

There are some interesting themes that appear - fidelity (and infidelity), addiction, control - but these are just touched upon. In the end it is the usual Lars von Trier exercise in pretentious navel-gazing. Even the erotic scenes are hardly erotic, seeming just ho-hum and a chore.

Performances are like the characters: dull. Charlotte Gainsburg only does pretentious roles (which explains why she tends to appear in von Trier movies) and this is no exception. Stellan Sarsgaard is particularly boring. Shia Lebeouf seems out of his depth in a serious movie. His accent is particularly appalling and laughable, ending up somewhere between English, South African and Australian.

About the only performance that I found riveting was that of Uma Thurman, but unfortunately her screen time is very limited.
68 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nymphomaniac: Vol. II
Gordon-1127 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.
56 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Long and Rambling
jjturley30 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.
88 out of 149 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It was hard to not laugh at the end...
RevRonster14 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Overall, I thought the first one was okay. Even though a majority of the time I was bored with the story, I did think it was somewhat interesting and I felt the acting was very good in it. I also felt the real sex element of the film was nothing more than a gimmick to create buzz but it wasn't so bad that it tossed me out of the film. However, I didn't really feel the same in the second installment.

While the acting is still good in this film (seriously, Charlotte Gainsbourg is very good in the movie) and the film actually starts to build quite well from where the first one left off, the story hits its Third Act on such a silly note that I couldn't take the movie seriously and it felt like it validated my thoughts that the real sex part was just a gimmick. While the movie doesn't go overboard to the point of something like Joe uses her nymphomania to win the presidency, the development of her career becoming a debt collector and using her knowledge of sex in this career path was just too out-there for me when compared to the beginning of the two volumes. It didn't help either that Joe decides to take on an apprentice who decides to go all Darth Vader on her Emperor Palpatine. Till this point, the film was progressing and developing nicely but this evolution was something that I just couldn't get into—which is a big problem because, despite how good the acting was, the characters were just people I couldn't fully invest in.

With this element of the story rubbing me the wrong way and immediately taking out even the smallest amount of investment I made into Joe's story, it ended up making me feel like I was right that the real sex part was just a gimmick to get talk about the film going because it feels like that was the priority and the drama and story were the afterthought. Yes, all films have their own particular gimmick they are sold on but sometimes those gimmicks made the film feel lazy because that was where all the attention went. Granted, "Nymphomaniac Vol. II" isn't as bad as a "found footage" gimmick but it did make me feel like Lars von Trier was more worried about getting people excited about a movie that contains real sex than he was about telling a naturally developing story.

Still, through it all, the acting is still really good. I just didn't really care for this one because, along with the problems I had in the story, I just couldn't invest myself fully into the characters. In the end, the film is just not my cup of tea…and, honestly, tea isn't really my cup of tea.

Howdy! My name is Rev. Ron and if you feel like reading more of my rants, ramblings, bad jokes, geek references, and other movie reviews (like a more in-depth look at "Nymphomaniac Vol. II" and other films that were clearly just faking it the entire time in order to boost your ego) you can visit my blog at revronmovies.blogspot.com. If you don't want to do that because you assume that my dislike of the film has little to do with the story and characters and more to do with the idea that I "didn't get it," you don't need to visit my blog.
66 out of 110 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
rossstrong19 March 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Nymphomaniac 2 Now I liked the 1st film but this one? I couldn't get away with I think this one makes you realize that the character has no emotion or remorse for what she does and then the writer tries to shock us by comparing Paedophiles to Nymphomaniacs and in my eyes trying to justify the 1st of the two is unthinkable stating that 95% of them will live with it without anyone ever knowing and not acting out their fantasies! (No these people are monsters) I think he has gone on for full on controversy by trying to defend it, but apart form that the film is not as strong as the 1st part with a pretty poor ending which lets it down.
121 out of 212 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Portrait of a failed psychoanalysis
FrostyChud30 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
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.
206 out of 379 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This movie has porno and sex,but is so boring!.
tommy-158-70816314 November 2014
Nymphomaniac Volume II failed to satisfy my taste despite the fact that it has sex and porn.

What I really hated about this movie is the reality that it is filled with boredom and absence of analysis.

Most people who saw it were completely disappointed and unhappy with the unjustifiable ending.

The conversation and dialog in Nymphomaniac Volume II is really boring and useless.

The actors who performed in Nymphomania should do porn because they don't know how to act!.
171 out of 315 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lars chose the worst ending
ohthatgigi3 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Now we come to the second half, the light and brisk tone turned into darkness and intense.The volume II completed itself to a whole encyclopedia of sex, basically it encompass some most hitted genre of pornography, the heartrending yet anticipatory breakup with Shia and her son, the grotesquely sadistic sexual experience(Jamie Bell is a seductive rising star I think he looks extremely authoritative even in a gray sweatshirt), the lesbian trans-generational sex…but I have to say the second half chose the WORST ending. I almost felt Lars's ineptitude of finishing this overly ambitious and kaleidoscopic of nymphomania.

IMO the second half succumb to the exotic provocation and contrived completion, and thus lost the integrated genuinity and spontaneity in the film. The group therapy tirade is simply hard for the audience to buy, and to make things even worse, the objective outsider---the asexual erudite first expressly exalted Joe's curious tale to a feminist level, that's like obliterating the whole soul in the film and later tried to break his cherry . It simply does not end well, the second volume substantiates all the criticism, being pretentious and far-stretched. The beauty of loneliness and individual choice and more political-oriented feminism falters at the last 20 mins of the film. It could have stroked audience with Joe's poetic simplicity in her life, every change and decision has something to do with sex and if Lars let the audience themselves to retrospect the feminism.

From a non-essentialist perspective, Joe's life choice shouldn't be analyzed in a gender context, although the social convention and stereotypes makes the assumption that woman leading a licentious life would be recognized as schizophrenia and sinful yet male womanizer would be shouldering much less pressure. I think it doesn't matter if the lead role happened to be a woman or man, it's all their own tragic but willful choice. Eccentuating the historical differences between genders is no longer the task of feminism, especially not in an old schooled preaching way. Joe's sexual adventure shouldn't be comparing to men's to make it justified, the very categorization itself in an unnecessary context would be fallen into the scope of social stereotype, thought nothing condemnable, there's more I expected from the proclaimed-to-be-feminist movie.
69 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I've never like Lars Von Trier's films, but this one looked promising.
immortallowlife20 April 2014
But, this is a two part movie, each of which were around 1:50 minutes each. I could barely sit through the first half, I had to stop 2 minutes into Volume II. I love the way his films are shot, they look amazing. But watching 2 hours of a movie, with a plot that basically doesn't exist in my eyes. Just a lot of sex scenes and talking. If you want to watch this to see the nudity and/or sex scenes, it's really not worth it. I have no idea why people think Lars is such a good filmmaker. This movie was a complete waste of time. The only redeeming factor is that he pushes the envelope by putting scenes of sex scenes that are not simulated. You're better off watching some free porn on the internet. Don't waste your time with this garbage.
130 out of 237 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Couldn't see the last minuets
d-mordekhay12 April 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Must say, even in the first part I did anticipate this ending, but wanted to believe he will not be as predictable and quit frankly bad tasted. SPOILER!!!

When he opened the door I just didn't, and couldn't continue watching. On a personal level, I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden an a-sexual, will become interested in sex, never the less with someone like Jo, especially in her state of hopelessness and new goal of life without sexuality.

Overall the story is not very believable, as the character states too much coincidences... It is very graphic, and in my opinion not in a sexy way, but a disturbing way.

I am giving this movie a low rate because the storyline does not hold the movie, or justifies two whole movies, and especially because of the poor poor choice of ending...
64 out of 111 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hard to consider this a drama
kikamon199020 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I'm torn. I think I got maybe some deep thoughts and themes out of this movie, but on the other hand I'm disturbed and disgusted. If I have to rate it as a drama then maybe a 3 or 4. As porn.... I don't know. Don't watch porn so don't know if it was a good one or not. Yes, it can be arousing at some moments, but then something happens that changes the direction of the story. I guess it's hard for people like Joe. If I would be a nymphomaniac I would be a bad one because of my shy personality. I would die just because I couldn't get sex and that would drive me mad, probably. In the ending she could have just hit the old man to knock him out and run away, don 't think that there was a need to shoot him. But maybe he deserved it.
66 out of 116 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
As bad as Volume I With Porn .
bella-159-55545614 November 2014
This movie is not better than Volume II.

Hard Black Penises,masturbation,oral sex,anal sex and can not find any drama but a complete waste of time.

Why in this movie a nymphomania is a sex slave woman who is like a beast who always have sex and more sex without any purpose?.

No drama just porno, and explicit sex and much nudity!.

Black Men Are Slaves In This Film Why?.

The end of the movie is too bad and uninteresting exactly like Nymphomaniac Movies: Volume I & II.

Again If You Like To See A Porno Movie, go and rent a DVD or buy a porno movie and save your time and money!.
166 out of 314 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you like films, hate this.
m-arney28 April 2014
If you like shocking films, then you will love the rating of this film, as the only truly shocking thing here is how on earth it has achieved a score of over 7/10. This is the sort of rating that makes you think that the human race is genuinely a lost cause. That devolution is no longer a theory, but a reality. What would be useful is to see an 'average age of user review' alongside this score. If it is above 14, then I wish to play no further part in this world.
169 out of 322 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pornographic Sex Did Not Help The Movie From Inevitable Failure.
adamfromaustralia21 November 2014
In Nymphomaniac Volume II, Lars Von Trier offers us a lot of explicit porn,erect black penises, gratuitous nudity,bizarre flashbacks and repetition.

Despite the fact that Lars Von Trier deplores numerous explicit sexual scenes,this sequel is a failure.

The failure of this film is in boredom and bizarre images of animals and sex as well as the total absence of tackling the issue of nymphomania.

The end of the movie will disappoint you just like the whole film.

It is so scarce to find any drama in this movie.

It is a very clear fact that Nymphomaniac Volume I and Volume II were originally made as Porno Movies.

So now you know the real truth!.
149 out of 285 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Lars von Trier up to his usual tricks again.
troyputland2 July 2015
Lars von Trier. If you know the name then you're aware of the avant-garde, ambiguous style he produces in every feature film he's made. Nymphomaniac, with its two parts and 240 minute running time, has its cast practicing real sex acts. It's the sole reason why this film has garnered so much attention. Overlooked is everything else in between. Joe (Gainsbourg) tells her tale of emotional and physical highs and lows to Seligman (Skarsgard), a dutiful, friendly fellow that helps her after an assault. Her life's story is split up into metaphorical chapters, from the moment she finds her sexuality as a young girl, up to present day. Gainsbourg is a fine example of ideal casting, looking the part before baring any skin. Her story telling is clunky and disjointed. Lars von Trier's scriptwriting is dry, elusive and as ambiguous as a white canvas. The C word's blurted out more times by Gainsbourg than seen, grating like nails on a chalkboard. The acting's authentic, by all accounts (most notable is Stacy Martin playing young Joe), but only when dialogue is absent (Shia LaBeouf's accent is diabolical). The scenes that contain nudity represent nymphomania. Porn's toes are not being trod on. Nymphomaniac's easier to digest than other LvT films. Some viewers may feel short changed and a little underwhelmed, both physically and emotionally, by the end.
24 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It gets worse
KineticSeoul24 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Lars is one of those directors that is emphasis the freedom of speech and tries to be controversial. However sometimes, there is a limit to that. And I am not one of the viewers that nitpick or makes a big deal out of this in movies. But this one really pushes the limit with it's messages about how pedophiles deserve a medal for not giving into the desires with action. Seriously what the crap man? I feel the second part was just not really necessary and really could have combined it into a 3 or so hour movie. This is the spiraling downward story of Joe and it really drags a lot. I am not sure if the main goal for Lars was to bore and make the audiences depressed a great deal through this volume, but if so it does the trick. The dialogue this time around is also really boring and lost it's somewhat interesting flare that the first volume has. The message seems to be that there is no hope, people are all selfish hypocrites even the ones trying to do the right things, there is not point in caring for others because people are crap. And that is what this movie seems to come down to. I am cool with people being entitled to their own opinions although I may disagree. But this Vol is all about shock factor, but it just got boring and annoying really quickly and just wanted it all to end. Even if it has a crappy ending. Now when it comes to the ending of this movie, some critics seem to feel that it's a betrayal and a middle finger to the audiences. I actually re-watched certain scenes to see if there is any symbol or messages that I might have missed that leads to the ending. And not really, the ending really is a cop out. It's like Lars was inspired by movies like "Irreversible" or "Man Bites Dog" and was like Lars was thinking "I can't let this movie have a somewhat happy ending, it needs to end with a tragedy. Even if that tragedy is just smacked on there because I am all about melancholia". Maybe he just wanted to shock the audiences one last time, like you know it's coming but giving hope to the audiences and then crushing it. Some say Seligman was trying to sacrifice himself others say it's to show the unavoidable power of sexual desire and hypocrisy as the human condition. Knowing a bit about Lars, it would have to be the latter.

59 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Avant-Garde of Filmmaking, My Ass.
CinemaClown13 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
37 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
And now Lars von Trier has destroyed the sex itself
the_wolf_imdb30 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I have written quite exhaustive review of this movie but Socialist State of IMDb kinda prohibits some words - but in a very Kafkaesque manner does not explain which ones. That's somewhat unfortunate as the movie Nymphomaniac can only be described by words that describe some mature content activities. I mean some really depraved mature content activities.

Even though there is a lot of mature activity going around in this four hour long movie it is also unbelievably dull and boring. It is really hard to describe four hours long intellectual exchange so to speak between utterly depraved female character that seems to ask for understanding and her supposed intellectual savior. Philosophy, music, arts, the topics you would expect to be discussed between an old loner and insane sex addict - at least if you are modern intellectual leftist. It is so excruciatingly boring, long and really painful to watch.

I kinda loved early Trier works like Kingdom Hospital but this is just beyond horrible. The main female character is supposed to be some sort of female suffering from masculine and capitalist oppression, but she only abuses others - males, females, her own son, everyone. Its sick character only getting sicker as movie progresses.

There is no resolution at the end, no salvation, no conclusion, no mercy, no atonement, not a single spark of light at the end of the tunnel. The main heroine is simply sick psychopath who should be treated at the closed psychiatric ward as she descends just from from perverted to simply dangerous and evil.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
wreckid7229 December 2014
this movie was utterly boring and, constantly tried to pat itself on the back with the generalized writing. that was supposed to be edgy and shocking. fell asleep half way in, went back watched it in full, because i wanted to see the crazy twist ending, everyone was on about. so disappointed. i thought it was going to have some redeeming quality. because it felt as though there was, supposed to be interesting characters but there isn't. just a lot of random disjointed scenes, that are supposed to create a deep, challenging, thought provoking characters. instead, you get a boring confusing mess of a lead. that has little to no character and, i felt the pace of the film was best described in the lines "wait i don't understand what just happened with the car?" "oh sorry i couldn't help not finishing the end of the chapter" or something like that.it purposely nods to what a mess of a film it is. not because of the subject matter but, the fact that the scenes could literally be thrown in any order and, you'd still have the same movie... the subject matter and supposed graphic nature of the film didn't bother me at all but i guess it would others. if you've had sex and watched porn then this film wont push any buttons at least in my opinion it doesn't. it such a blatant Hollywood piece of try hard....
54 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Less pointless sleaziness than the 1st but not much better
estreet-eva3 February 2015
Although shot as one film, the second half of Von Trier's pornographic decent into debauchery at least picks up some substance as the titular character Joe starts to suffer for her obsession. The purposeful shock value remains high with scenes pulled directly from interracial porn and from "50 Shades of Grey". Von Trier plays some of these as dark comedy but more of the snort rather than laugh out loud variety. At least we do get to see some real outcomes from the real condition of sex addiction (as opposed to the pretend kind that Tiger Woods had so he could go back to endorsing products after "rehab") including job loss and having to go to meetings. Joe's choice of abandoned her son to feed her compulsion makes her less of a charactacture. However, the overall sleaze of the enterprise still makes this one to avoid. In short, if you were hoping to redeem the time you spent watching the first one, it doesn't happen.
39 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed