Nymphomaniac : Volume 2

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.

Lars von Trier's second film about the life story of a female nymphomaniac goes down increasingly dark alleyways compared to VOL. I, but at the same time I found it the lesser movie. This film just doesn't have the drive or vitality that made the first film so interesting, and there are some odd plot decisions - especially towards the climax - that don't ring true.

There are still some oddly gripping moments here, but they're more disturbing than ever. Jamie Bell is a real surprise, playing a completely different character to that than you'd expect and doing very well with it too. I'm surprised that I found Charlotte Gainsbourg less sympathetic than the actress playing the younger version of her character. By the time Willem Dafoe enters the frame, the movie seems to have lost its way and become a bizarre, slow-paced thriller instead. And don't get me started on the Mia Goth stuff.

As before, this is a beautifully shot movie with a lot of fragility and artiness contained within its shots. But Lars von Trier can only keep the audience's interest for so long, and by now his tale is beginning to drag, leaving a film that is only so-so rather than profound. And that 'twist' ending is ludicrous more than anything else.

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/

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.