Best movie of this year hands down!

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

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 basically continues from where the first one left off plus it's basically way more hardcore than the first especially the scene with Joe and the 2 black men. Nymphomaniac I & II are no classics but their really good films about characters and about our fantasies plus the ending of the film basically showcased that everything that the man heard? Kind of changed him. (8/10)

Contrary, perhaps, to the majority of the public, I decided to see this film because of the name of its director, Lars von Trier. If I liked "Antichrist" and I considered this film particularly artistic, I do not know yet very well what to think about this film, which is the second half of a movie that, in fact, has already started quite badly, with a Vol. I weaker than I expected. The script continues the conversation between Joe and his good Samaritan, the innocent and asexual Seligman. The story gradually becomes more dense, with the protagonist descending deeper into her own perversion: sadomasochism, beatings, the destruction of her own family with dramatic consequences for her only child, the way of crime... all seems to reveal the worst consequences of sex addiction. However, as it all grows darker, the film loses verisimilitude and becomes an unbelievable sexual tale.The film is absolutely loaded with explicit sex scenes, with close shots of the genitals and penetration. Von Trier remains faithful to the rule of showing everything that is spoken, whether it be beautiful or ugly. So this movie requires you to be, at least, able not to be scandalized by the sex scenes. If you cannot, the best thing to do is watch another movie. On the other hand, sex scenes are so cruel and insensitive that you probably will not take any pleasure in watching it. Emotionally violent, the film raises constant moral and ethical issues.About the actors, I mentioned in my review of Vol. 1 that I did not like the performance of Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stellan Skarsgård. I like the way the characters seem to complete themselves, for they are totally the opposite of each other: the sinner and the saint. But I don't like their cold way, and the ultra-intellectual and insipid dialogues annoy me a bit, almost as much as obscenities. Jamie Bell was well but his character seems incomprehensible. I'll never realize why he did that to women. Willem Dafoe seems too nice to be a real criminal and Mia Goth has received a ridiculous character. In fact, the whole final part of the movie is ridiculous and it was what I most hated here.This movie is a bad ending to a story that has never had great merits from the beginning, but that is sinking in the mud as it walks towards the end. As for the sex scenes, they are absolutely pointless, as happens throughout the entire movie. The story could have been perfectly told the same way without having to see all the details. And there's still that famous abortion scene! Absolutely horrible to watch, but very educational for anyone who says they agree with this practice for some obtuse reason.

Wow. This is a powerful drama. I group this with Volume 1 and say that most of the acting is pretty freaking amazing. Christian Slater's portrayal of Joe's father in the Hospital? It was chilling because it seemed so realistic. I've been bed side to that event...I know what it looks like. The calm at times...and uncontrolled panic the next.I had a feeling the ending may have been what it was. I have to not say too much but; it did wrap it up with a tragic irony.The movie draws upon advanced concepts within music, religion and art to converse at a brilliant level about metaphor transferable between each and how it relates to the story being told. Genius.There is some very graphic sexuality though I wouldn't consider it pornographic but more there for dramatic impact. As much as I loved this movie, if I had been even 10 years younger, I might not have been able to appreciate it as much as I did.

I have given a 4 but only for the sake of some acting that I could stumble upon in the movie. Apart from me being very nice and generous it was a terrible movie, in fact. 1. Not only does he try to inject some "intellectual" lines within the script but he also mentions a few problems of philosophy of mathematics which are not taken seriously any more (e.g. Zeno's Paradox)2. Philosophical references are pretty naive and fail to draw attention from those who at least have read one or two pages from philosophy, logic or mathematics.3. Although its cinematography is very weak and restricted Lars von Trier did not hesitate to make such a long movie, apparently. 4. Relatively weak script and absolutely weak cinematography, obviously, is not the best combination to make a long movie; it is just making it dull, boring and almost pointless. 5. What is the premise anyway? ---spoiler--- Why did she kill him though he was merely jerking off and why on earth would a man say something like "oh you f*cked thousands of men, so what?" when a gun is pointed towards his freaking face? ---spoiler---6. Frankly, I would like to see more butts, tits and pussies in a movie named "Nymphomaniac". But no. All we see are damn ugly cocks.