Nymphomaniac : Volume 2

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/

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.

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.

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!