Nymphomaniac: Vol. I

I thought this movie was absolutely superb.

I am quite surprised by the number of very, very negative comments written about this movie when I came on here directly after having seen the two-parter at the cinema. I think perhaps that these people should not have seen this movie. I do think that people should be acutely aware of their own taste, standards and limits when watching movies and those who saw this as 'pornography' were mistaken. Their judgment appears to stem from a prudish incapability to see past the graphical sexual scenes. The film has a very solid plot, by which I mean, it is a film that begins with its end and details the pathways in which the protagonist ended up in that situation and the path of her normatively perverse sexuality.

I agree that there are definitely scenes in the movie which were hard to stomach - but come on, this is Lars Von Trier - what the hell were you expecting? But the scenes all had a point and purpose.

If you are of a delicate nature then this film is not for you. If you are a prude then this film is not for you. If you are uncomfortable with dark subject matter then this film is not for you. But for everyone else (provided that you are of the legally required age of eighteen), this movie is a witty, funny, imaginative, clever and unique exploration in the the proclivities of the human psyche and in years to come, I will look back on this movie fondly and reflect on its progressiveness in exploring subject matter that we are often to bashful to face and yet perhaps should. From me, it comes highly recommended.

This is the best movie I've seen from Lars Von Trier. Brilliantly constructed, well directed, with lot of imagination and using many techniques (although I'm not a specialist). I include in my review the volume II as well. After watching the first one, yesterday, didn't have patience for see the second part. The idea of a Sheherezada tail, nowadays, makes the background. I loved the way the chapters telling Joe's life are separated by the intermezzos: her dialogs with Seligman, his erudition, her intelligence shadowed only by the all pervasive guilt feeling... I found the explicit key of the movie in the second part... in one of their dialogs. I try to remember it, it might not be 100% accurate: "Do you know what is characterizing our age? - Hypocrisy! People who tell beautiful lies are acclaimed and accepted, they form the majority; the few ones who tell the truth, often uncomfortable, are rejected!" Von Trier plays with two opposite characters: a nymphomaniac (probably more a being desperate to understand life meaning and get out of the beaten track than anything else), who never finds happiness in her search, so she goes further and further, and a 60 years old virgin who lives alone and finds his happiness in books. He plays as well with religion, with the concepts of purity and sin, with plenty of symbols amassed cleverly together. He shows us, in fact, our obsession with sex, with human bodies, with chair, making fun of the ones who will refuse his movie, scandalized. In our world which sells mainly with the help of sex, rejecting this movie is a huge hypocrisy. The only disappointment for me was the end of the second part... I don't see why he chose it, but probably will find later on the answer.

Lets be clear, I am not especially a fan of Von Trier's work, either I am an artistic cinephile. But lately I am looking a bit further then the mainstream movies, which can be as well very good. That's why I was interested in seeing Nymphomaniac, in the same way that I saw Shame with Fassbender. These movies are not comparable due to the different objective, but treat the same problem experienced by a man or a woman. It is difficult to review the first part of a movie, which exists of 2 parts making 4 hours together. Even then, it is the censored version, NOT due to the sex scenes, but rather for the length of 5:30 hours, which is not THAT standard in theaters. I am sure I will go for the second part and I am as well sure that it will of the same level or better. Therefor the rate of 8/10. It is for sure not porno, even not erotic. Not be mistaken in that. There is no excitement possible. All sex scenes are more or less mechanical, short duration and treated as if it was a documentary. In fact, the movie is like a documentary, where a father type figure Seligman ( Skarsgard ) is the interviewer of the nymphomaniac Joe ( Gainsbourg ) in a way that she can tell her history from when she was 8 years old and onwards. The discussions between Joe and Seligman are metaphors between her sexual behavior and for example fly-fishing, music, etc … and they are sometimes quiet comic. So a laugh is possible. But don't be mistaken, this is a drama. We see how Joe's sexual life conditions her from child onwards, as well as all involved "partners". She is someone who does not feel anything and will do everything to satisfy herself independent of the pain that she will cause around her. A good example is the Miss H chapter, where an astonishing Thurman enters the screen. The situation caused could be like a Veaudeville one, but here it develops as a dramatic absurd situation. Different moods are created, sometimes you feel pity for Joe, then unbelief like with the train adventure, very dramatical situations like Miss H or the with her father causes sadness and anger, even a tip of the love issue … a different movie to see. If I have to mention a negative topic, then it is the cold atmosphere in the movie with only the Seligman metaphors and the sex life of Joe, not more. But don't misunderstand this, it is quiet a lot to handle. And even more, if you have 15 partners a day I suppose there is not that much time for other things to do then having a walk in the park like she does. Stacy Martin is the star of this part, as well as the discussions by Starsgard. Finally, I am certainly going for the second part of this movie. It is a very tricky subject to bring it on the big screen and Von Trier has had the guts to do it. The result is fine, a drama, a documentary about an illness ( as far it is an illness and when it is considered as one ), not a porno or sex movie like we understand it, showing us how it conditions a complete life and sometimes with a comic hint. Of course there is nudity and sex scenes in the movie, a warning for those who have problems with that ...

this film has only one flaw - its not long enough... its funny and brilliant, its dark and thrilling and its poetic at the same time. Whoever have watched any film by Trier won't be disappointed. Of course don't read previous reviews - this film is not about sex. Its about loneliness between sensations, about being alone among people who suffer from lack of attachment. Its about life that struggles with death by facing death , to the ultimate boundary of pleasure. Just watch it, listen to BACH music and observe the feast for eye and ear and a challenge for heart... Maybe my words seem exaggerated but i have finished watching this film just an hour ago and my impressions are strong. But i believe it will endure and i will take my feelings from this movie with me and carry them through my daydreams...

''Nymphomaniac'' is a film made with huge technical, intellectual and artistic precision and that's the element that differentiates it from Porn films: is not an exercise of pleasure but a vehicle to analyze the role and influence of obsession in human relationships. To watch this film spectators must have knowledge of Von Trier's work and go to the cinema without prejudices about what cinema is and what is not. By the way, I find very interesting sociologically that those IMDb users from the United States who have wrote up a review on the film all of them have been so negative. This is the main difference between European and the American (US) public: Hollywood has always been obvious. It gives to the public all the answers. To have a good time when they come back from work. Are films as a leisure, not films to think about.