This is about Volume I & II combined, since I watched them one after the other.
A man finds a woman passed out in the street, and takes her in. As she rests in his spare bed, she recounts tales from her life as a self-proclaimed nymphomaniac.
I’ll brace myself for emails calling me a philistine, but my tolerance for pretentious bullshit has been tested here. Perhaps I’m taking it all the wrong way and this is a 5 1/2 hour masterpiece about human sexuality, but I just can’t get on board. It’s a really long artsy softcore porn-fest with some naff philosophising spliced in.
The episodic structure initially provides a good way to get us hooked. Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) tells a story, then she sits with Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) and he relates it back to something he has seen in his life or read in literature. About three hours in you realise it’s not going anywhere but at that point you might as well stick it out.
There’s a lot of ‘shock’ material in Nymphomaniac but it’s so oddly clinical that it fails to provoke any sort of reaction, no matter how disturbing the content. The one thing I truly couldn’t watch was Shia LaBoeuf attempting a Dick Van Dyke level British accent.
Some interesting performances (notably Stacy Martin as young Joe) don’t save this from being a tedious gimmicky mess strictly for von Trier completionists.
http://benoliver999.com/film/2016/08/29/nymphomaniac/
The scene with M was the best part of this entire film. The rest was meh at best.
Childish erotic diary with often pretentious dialogue, and sometimes presented as art. Frankly most of the dialogue it bollocks. Nothing interesting or creative here. No not even the correlation between fishing and slags after penis. Not even the maths on screen. Maybe it's clever to a year one art student but to anyone else it's titillation. Pointless movie. And what a terrible main character. Couldn't she had just died of a disease ten minutes in?
Playing Dmitri Shostakovich- The Second Waltz, whilst pointing to Glasgow on a map whilst rubbing a vagina, is the level of art to be expected. In fact putting classical music over any weird visual makes it art right? Why not play that Dmitri song again, but this time over photos of dicks whilst the whore protagonist narrates about the plethora of picks she's had? Yeah that happens to. Picture of Bach and some maths? Why not.
Lars... Lars ... Lars.. I don't find this hard to watch as it is to watch the reflection from the mirror Lars places in front of us
I watched this after a frustrating stint with Melancholia, and I wanted to give Lars another shot before putting him on my “no fly” list. So color me surprised when I found myself engaged and captivated by this film.
Honestly, 2 hours of hetero sex and fly fishing sounded like my worst nightmare, but something about the way this story is told is just so compelling and oddly full of heart in the places you wouldn’t expect if you know the material you’re about to watch. I could listen to the two leads ping-pong “I’m horrible” with “no you’re fly fishing” all day - it was a shtick I just never got tired of.
It’s totally fair though if someone would avoid this movie due to its explicit nature, or have negative opinions on it due to the gratuitous unsimulated sex. It was definitely…a choice…by the director - but his choice to make nonetheless. I don’t think it adds anything to the movie other than a controversial hook, and the story would still be strong without actual porn - but with that said, I also don’t think anyone would watch this movie in full with the intent of being aroused due to the subject nature alone. It is venomously unsexy despite the actual sex taking place on screen.
Strip away the on screen flesh hole close-ups and you’re actually left with something that stands on its own in all its oddities. I feel like this movie could have easily fell into typical stereotypes, plot beats, and archetypes, but instead approaches a woman’s sex addiction with a refreshing awareness that morals and sensuality can be just as complex or simple as anything else in life. Jo’s actions aren’t necessarily good - but they aren’t necessarily bad either - and there is a great discussion on giving one’s self Grace when one may feel reprehensible. I also really want to mention how refreshing it was seeing the main character not have some kind of extensive tragedy of trauma driving her sex addiction. It really is just like…sometimes nymphos be nymphing. And I think that’s great. It gives room for higher discussion on the matter of one’s actions and not some arm chair diagnosis of why an adult turns out this kind of way.
Anyways, haven’t seen part 2 yet so results may vary - but as a stand alone volume - this had no right being as good as it was.
I almost didn't watch Vol 2 after watching this Vol 1, Vol 1 was so slow and boring and crude/lude just for the sake of it. But honestly just fast forward through (get the gist of it) then watch Vol 2, it's a much better film, with real in depth thought provoking ideas.
This movie definitely got me by surprise. It had much more deeper meaning and value to it, than what I was expecting going into it. Im curious where volume 2 leads us.
I inflicted myself the extended cut of this film, where Charlotte Gainsbourg, who already had to mutilate her clitoris in “Antichrist”, further wears off her bajingo as she confesses her past as a sex addict to the asexual character portrayed by Stellan Skarsgard. Obviously, the narrative is a mere excuse to play with moral taboos and continuously digress into intellectual talk, often accompanied by explanatory graphics and archive footage as the two protagonists draw the most absurd parallels. Some of the dialogue is genuinely compelling, while some others are clearly the director trolling his audience in an attempt of mocking the empty intellectualism of critics.
The standout episode, perhaps, is the Mrs. H storyline, which manages to amuse without relying on graphic sexual content.
The idea of filming an uncompromising porn movie is intriguing, especially considering that the experience is as arousing as watching the butcher lining up veal cuts on the counter. However, it’s a pity that they had to use body doubles and props for the sex scenes. The true challenge would have been to have porn actors act decently, or to convince Hollywood stars to fully commit to the material.
First hour is ok and has some mildly amusing moments but soon becomes a pretentious grind that nobody can relate to or care about. The hardcore scenes are really annoying to.
Best I can say is it’s not as bad as Dogville. But not much is.
4/10 - being generous
(This comment is for the combined volumes 1 & 2. I'll copy/paste this comment for both films)
Wow, what a great movie.
(...although, it is worth mentioning that I CANNOT recommend this movie for the 'average' movie watcher)
My favorite Lars von Trier movie (to-date), beating out Anti-Christ; my previous favorite. I won't say too much here, for fear of spoiling things (even with the spoiler filter on). Despite the length of the film(s), I found that it was still captivating and enthralling. I'm almost sad to see it end, to be honest. I have mixed feelings about the ending (which I'll refrain from commenting about). A great movie, that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Also worth noting/warning... there are scenes of full penetration, and gratuitous/graphic nudity. None of this is new for a Lars von Trier movie, and given that the title of the movie is "Nymphomaniac", you certainly shouldn't be surprised by it. Basically, Lars doesn't hold back (LoL).
Great and wired movie , makes me super uncomfortable
Lars... Lars ... Lars.. I don't find this hard to watch as it is to watch the reflection from the mirror Lars places in front of us
A MASTERPIECE! Thank you, Lars von Trier! This is a rollercoaster through the deepest depth and the highest highs. This is what cinema is made for. Unmatched!
Shout by DeletedBlockedParent2014-11-26T14:30:10Z
The director's cut is just holy fucking shit. 13/10 - IGN