User reviews

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.

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...

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.

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/

While the first volume of 'Nymphomaniac' served the purpose to build up the character of Joe, this second part is the descent into complete darkness of this woman, who loses any kind of control. Here we see all the negative consequences that her addiction brings into her life. This chapter is tougher to watch, because the images used are very graphic and explicit. The plot is showing Joe slowly but inevitably spiraling down into a very dangerous path and the more we go on, the worse things get. The protagonist is completely detached from reality and the director managed very well to create this sensation of alienation on screen. Some shootings are surreal and I felt a constant feeling of loneliness for a person that basically cannot find any kind of satisfaction anymore. This film hits pretty hard, and it is not for everyone. I watched the director's cut of both chapters, which were rawer and longer compared to the normal cinematic release. I cannot really make a comparison between the two versions, but I feel that despite their length, by the end of the two movies we have a full picture of Joe's story, which is rich with compelling details. So, my recommendation would definitely be to retrieve the extended version.

The cast is composed of many great actors. I loved to see Willem Defoe, even though he had just a small part that granted just a few minutes of screentime. I loved Mia Goth in 'X: A Sexy Horror Story' and 'Pearl', so I was very happy to see her in this film as well. She is good, but unfortunately she appears only in the latest 40 minutes of the film. I liked the interpretation of K by Jamie Bell. Despite being aggressive, he was an interesting character that enabled a part of Joe that was hidden. The photography is amazing, however in terms of creative editing choices, I preferred the first film. This one at times looked a bit flat and boring. I think that some images are just too cruel. In this case, they really do not serve any purpose to the story. I get that Lars Von Trier wanted to create a shock effect, but in my perspective it was unnecessary. Overall my rate for this last chapter is slightly lower than the first one: 7.2. However this is an incredible movie that exposed several controversial topics such as abortion, sex addiction and it questioned many aspects of human relationship back in 2013, where these kinds of topics were taboo for the most part. 'Nymphomaniac' is in my perspective a pioneering film that you should absolutely watch.

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.

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.

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")

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

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.

Discomforting, perturbing, obnoxiously gross, I do not know how else to summarise my experience. It is way more blunt, unapologetic than Volume I, there is not a single major path pertaining to sexuality left behind to tread.

Previously it put emphasis on 'sensationalism', whereas this time around the focus is more on the "visual" side of it or rather the degree of depravity & cynicism that lurk beneath the surface!

I almost got startled when it momentarily switched to a 'medical exhibition', that whole scene (you'll know what I am referring to, if you have seen the movie) made me uncomfortable, mind you, I'm generally desensitised to distasteful stuff owning to dozens of repulsive features I have borne witness to. But that one sequence tested my tolerance! There are not many films out there I can give the same compliment to!

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.

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.

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.

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.