Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013) User Reviews

Psychology, Not Sex

[loveandthunderstorms · 7/10 · 8 March 2014]

I rarely write IMDb movie reviews but I felt compelled to do so with Lars Von Trier's Nymphomaniac Part I after seeing the countless reviews and message board posts proclaiming this film to be "porn". This film is graphic but it is not porn. I would say that anyone who has ever suffered emotionally, struggled with apathy and/or resigned themselves to risky behaviors as a result of their emotional struggles will find a deeper understanding of this film, elevating it far beyond pornography. This is a review examining the story and psychology of the film, rather than a focal point on graphic sex. To focus only on its graphic nature would be to miss the point of the film entirely.

Nymphomaniac Parts I and II comprise the third act of Von Trier's "Depression Trilogy". The other two films being Melancholia and Antichrist. This "trilogy" came about as a result of his own experience with a major depressive episode and the psychological insights he gained of the depressed psyche. Nymphomania (or excessive sexual drive) is a legitimate psychological disorder that is recognized by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) of the World Health Organization. Sufferers are often apathetic, their behaviors reckless and impetuous with little regard for consequences. The film begins with the protagonist Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg), beaten and abandoned in a rainy alley where she is found and subsequently taken in by Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) after refusing medical help. Seligman is a kind man who offers her food, clean clothes and a place to rest. They begin a conversation and Joe begins to tell Seligman her story, beginning with her childhood. Their dialogue is interspersed with flashback scenes of a young Joe (Stacy Martin), following her from childhood to young adulthood.

I'll cut to the chase. Much has been made of the nudity and graphic sex in this film. Is it necessary? Yes, I believe it to be. Joe's mix of self hatred and indifference are conveyed in her many emotionless encounters with various men. The encounters are straightforward and at times, mechanical. One can easily deduce that these are not encounters of passion but rather, compulsiveness. This is not a film that aims to portray Joe as a victim, nor the men as predators (and vice versa). That would be far below Von Trier's abilities as a writer/director and too simple of a concept for a character as tumultuous as Joe. Rather, I feel he aims to bring us into the life and psyche of Joe, illustrate the desperation, compulsivity and dispassionate nature that began dominating Joe's life from a very early age. Compulsive hypersexual behaviors actually have very little to do with the sex itself, so some of the usual dynamics of sexual relations between two people (joy, jealousy, euphoria, power struggles, etc.) do not come into play here. At least, not for Joe anyway.

Despite such a bleak interpretation of sex in this woman's life, the material is handled with care. Some scenes are extremely graphic and shocking in its content and intent but the way in which it's handled contains a certain level of sensitivity. Joe is reckless and callous but Von Trier doesn't shame her in his interpretation. That's not to say that things do not get intense later on in Part II.

I found the film to be beautifully shot, the dialogue well written, almost poetic at times. Gainsbourg and Skarsgard are mesmerizing in their scenes together and Stacy Martin gives a solid and subtle performance as the young Joe. I was not pleased with the casting of Shia LaBeouf as Joe's first sexual encounter and Christian Slater as Joe's father. Neither of them were very good at affecting a British accent, nor did they transform at all in their prospective roles. I merely saw them both doing what they normally do, just dialed down a little bit so as not to disrupt the flow of the film. Unfortunately, any scene involving either one of them completely took me out of the film. Despite this, I still found myself very affected by the film overall. By the time I had neared the end, the final scene that held so much promise of hope and emotional connection for Joe was rendered heartbreaking with her exclamation that she couldn't "feel anything". I found this moment to be especially wrenching. After watching Joe naively explore her compulsions, one could feel a slight amount of tension building and more than once, I wondered, "the other shoe has to fall at some point". With Joe's pain filled cries of "I can't feel anything" (her first display of intense emotion), one senses that this is the point at which things take a sad and dark turn and a perfect point to end Part I before embarking on the consequences and even darker and more disturbing elements contained in Part II.

There are those that will continue to tout this film as "pornography". I suppose the best analogy I have for those who just can't see past the graphic sex would be to compare Joe's sexual compulsions with the compulsions of a drug addict, one difference being that drug addiction is a widely seen, accepted, understood, discussed and examined issue. Hypersexual disorders and behaviors are not, unfortunately. However, being able to identify with certain behaviors at the exclusion of others would be a rather narrow minded approach. How many of you have had a bad day, been fired, been broken up with and decided to go out and get rip roaring drunk, incredibly high or rebound with a stranger in order to deal with the disappointment? You know better, you know it isn't the best idea, you know there will be consequences but you do it anyway. Now imagine the same scenario except there's no inner monologue, no weighing of options. You do it because you seemingly have no choice.

More than just sex

[rubenm · 8/10 · 4 January 2014]

To be honest, I had my doubts when I went to see this film. After all the buzz, I more or less expected a provocative, pretentious, incomprehensible film. I thought 'Nyphomaniac' would be a shallow artistic excuse to show lots of explicit sex in an attempt to shock the audience and create controversy.

Well, I was wrong.

Is it provocative? In some ways, yes. I think choosing nymphomania as a subject for a film is already some sort of provocation. And there are some scenes that might be considered tasteless or mildly shocking. But if I would have to describe the film in one word, I wouldn't use 'provocative'. Instead, I would use 'imaginative'.

Because that is what this film is: imaginative. It's so full of ideas, full of creativity and full of cinematographic exuberance that it's hard not be impressed. The nice thing is that Lars Von Trier never takes himself too seriously. In a way, it's a pity that the film is about sex. So much attention is being given to the number of penises shown (many, in a very funny way) and the number of vagina close-ups (none, in fact, at least in part 1) that it overshadows everything else, including the creative way the film is made.

'Nyphomaniac' is a classic frame story. A sex-obsessed woman named Joe tells her life to a man called Seligman who found her bleeding in a back alley. Seligman in turn tells her about things in his own life, like fly fishing, Fibonacci numbers or organ music. Their conversation is the backbone of the film - the side stories about Joe's sex adventures and Seligman's hobbies are divided into chapters. Von Trier uses lots of different film styles: he throws in animations, split screens, cross cutting, black & white, and at one point even a fast succession of snapshots. This makes for a very quirky film, that keeps on surprising.

One wonderful example of this creative approach is the final chapter, where Joe sees a similarity between her complicated love life and Seligman's favourite piece of polyphonic organ music. She compares her lovers to the three different melodic tunes in the music. The way Von Triers visualizes this, with the screen split in three to show cross cuttings of the organ and the lovers, is original and funny at the same time.

So, in spite of all the indications to the contrary, this film is about as far removed from porn as Woody Allen is from Mickey Mouse. 'Nymphomaniac' deserves to be remembered for more than just sex.

A documentary about a risky subject and made by Von Trier

[kriddirk · 7/10 · 31 December 2013]

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 ...

If all you saw in this movie was sex, I pity you.

[locasuscelli · 10/10 · 10 April 2017]

So many people wrote how "disturbed" they were by "this shitty sex movie". I divide them into two groups:

1. First group decided to watch the film because they love sex, porn, and the title "Nymphomaniac" sure sounds like their kind of thing. Then they went to cinema (or Internet), watched it, and were disappointed because "they had to listen to a lot of boring dialogues before there was a sex scene" (to which they could masturbate to if they were alone). Then when a sex scene would finally come, it wasn't as exciting as it "should have been". So they were disturbed at how much this movie didn't fulfill their expectations.

And they are right, it didn't. Because it's not a shitty, cheap movie, meant to get them turned on. As unbelievable as it sounds to them, the purpose of both the film and the sex scenes go much deeper. And if only they had bothered to pay a little more attention to the "boring dialogue", perhaps they would have noticed that the meaning of the movie - and the real story - goes on in that conversation. And the sex scenes were not as sexy as they "should have been", according to them, because it's not about turning people on. It's a film for you brain, not your genitals. And that is precisely why people from the group one were disappointed. Good.

2. The second group are the people who were "disturbed" because there were too many explicit sex scenes. I have nothing to say about this except: Are you serious??? Have you looked up the definition of the word "nymphomaniac" before you decided to watch it? And again, they missed the purpose because for some reason unknown to me, they were too focused on the "filthy" sex scenes in the film named ~Nymphomaniac~ that they missed to actually watch it.

The point is: If you focus on the ~sex~, you won't like this movie, nor get it. Therefore, if you want a cheap turn on, just go watch porn, and let artists like Lars take sex to a different level, a little above the primitive urge.

Because the reason Joe was "a horny bitch" is a little different than yours.

Nyphomanic Vols I & II

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 22 April 2022]

One story, apparently divided into 2 as the whole thing is just shy of 4 hours long. Seligman, played by Stellan Skarsgard, finds a badly beaten woman - Joe, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, and takes her home where she recounts in 8 segments across the 2 parts how sex has completely taken over upon every aspect of her life.

Whilst there is a lot of explicit sex / images covering different aspects of sex and how they have have featured in and shaped Joe's life, this is not remotely an art house porn movie. Instead it is never less than engrossing, beautifully filmed and a generally quite sad insight into an addiction. Certainly there are some quite shocking scenes, some of which are perhaps rather hard to fully understand, but the controversial, often brilliant and sometimes crass Von Trier does a great job here and the drama and the set pieces are all convincingly played out - the scene where the young boy leaves his cot is terrific. My only minor concern is with the characters generally - the actors, especially Gainsbough give their all here to be sure, but they're all the same and frankly all seem stoned.

An extended edition featuring even more explicit material running at 5 and a half hours exists - not sure I could take that. I was impressed by the film(s) but it's not a lot of laughs.

A Wild Epic Journey Into Hell.

[peacecreep · 10/10 · 7 March 2014]

All the one star reviews on this website that are calling the film a "porn documentary" are obviously written by a group of religious nuts offended by intellectualism and sexuality. Ignore them.

Von Trier has crafted what may be his magnum opus. He goes further into his often explored themes of suffering, femininity and the breaking of social norms. Indeed, this may be one of the most intense inquisitions into the female mind ever put to film. And it has a refreshingly feminist, sex positive tonal undercurrent. The drama really gets going in the second volume which I enjoyed much more than the first. Incredible acting from all involved but Jamie Bell, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Uma Thurman especially. For anyone cultured there is nothing outrageous or controversial here, just a solid thought provoking film from a master of the art form.

Avant-Garde of Filmmaking, My Ass.

[CinemaClown · 13 May 2014]

Nymph()maniac, if I've to describe in a single sentence, is director Lars von Trier trying to sell his bland & banal softcore as a work of art. Divided into 2 volumes, Nymph()maniac is the final chapter in what is now being labeled as Depression Trilogy (preceded by Antichrist & Melancholia) and tells the story of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac named Joe recounting her life's sexual experiences to Seligman; the man who found her badly-beaten up in some deserted alley plus who later tries to connect & analyse her stories with whatever he has read about.

Volume 1 is further divided into 5 chapters, each picking its name from the things present in Seligman's room and tells the sexual escapades Joe has been on since infancy to her present age. Lars von Trier loves shocking his audience & here he relies on one after another repeated sexual encounters of Joe that are explicit, as expected, for shock value but are also hollow & devoid of feelings completely. And thanks to its lethargic pace, the movie feels far more longer than what its runtime suggests as the story is boring despite being full of strong sexual contents.

Still, not everything about it sucks though. The performances by its ensemble cast might just be the reason why I was able to sit through this story from start to finish. Stacy Martin is a real discovery here who delivers a seductive, enticing & sensational debut performance as young version of Joe. But the one who impressed me most is Uma Thurman who truly stole the show in her short appearance. Also, amongst the 5 chapters, the 4th chapter 'Delirium' is the only one where an effort to connect with the audience is actually felt.

On an overall scale, the 1st volume of Nymph()maniac boasts few moments that manages to work in its favour but for the most part, it's an insipid journey that leaves you more frustrated than satisfied, thanks to its lazy direction, lifeless script, sluggish pace, dull photography, monotonous sex scenes, terrible editing, fragmented use of music & unnecessary stuffing of pretentious philosophical bullshit. And I've a strong feeling that Volume 2 will be no different.

Full review at: cinemaclown.wordpress.com

lOOsen up peOple!!!

[jirish35 · 7/10 · 17 March 2014]

OK-OK, you got me. The movie is a tid bit trashy; sleazy; disgusting some may even say. It certainly isn't anything somebody is going to find showing on 'TBN' or DAYSTAR' some afternoon. Those would be 'Christian Networks for those playing at home. Because this is not meant to be a Saturday afternoon family friendly film that ya watch with the kids. I love the people who complain about all the sex scenes, a la 'blow job' & fingers inserted somewhere etc...All these people complain about all the sex when they sat down to watch a movie called 'Nymphomaniac.' Well, I will tell you what; that is why the majority of the people out there would watch the movie. The sex!! And if the sex was omitted, then most people would not want to see the movie. How can you make a movie Nymphomaniac' without sex?! And why would you want to watch it if sex is going to turn you off? I don't care how hardcore it is? And this is so far from actual porn in today's sense of the term!!

"When we are, death has not come. When death has come, we are not."

[Bored_Dragon · 10/10 · 23 January 2019]

Nymphomaniac (2013) [Director's Cut]

"Nymphomaniac" is the final part of Lars von Trier's "Trilogy of Depression", after the "Antichrist" (2009), which was to me inexplicably dull and unjustified morbid, and "Melancholy" (2011), which I have not yet come to see. Originally, "Nymphomaniac" was conceived as a single film but, due to its inhumane length, in the theatrical release, it was divided into two two-hour films. I am watching the director's cut, which lasts five and a half hours.

The first film begins with a scene in which an older man encounters a beaten woman lying on the street. After she refuses an ambulance and the police, he takes her to his apartment and places her in bed. Then he sits down next to her and she tells him her whole life, the life of a nymphomaniac. Occasionally he interrupts her with interesting comments on various topics, such as philosophy, nature, music, literature, mathematics and even fishing, but all these digressions are directly or metaphorically related to the main subject of the film and represent life philosophies that will lead you to thinking and self-analysis, especially if in some of them you recognize yourself.

The film is full of explicit pornography, but this time it is not there just to shock and cause controversy, but it greatly enhances the artistic power of film and contributes to the credibility and the dramatic nature of the story. The sex scenes are not simulated, they are genuine pornography, but they were shot by porn actors and subsequently edited together with the bodies of the main actors. The film is fantastically shot and directed, and drama and pornographic scenes alternate in perfect harmony. The atmosphere is hypnotically dark and depressing, additionally empowered with an interesting selection of music, which ranges from industrial metal band Rammstein, through rock classics, to Bach's organ compositions. Although the movie is very slow and long, my attention has not been weakened for a moment.

In all three films of the "Trilogy of Depression", Charlotte Gainsbourg plays the main role, but as the first part of the "Nymphomaniac" takes us through her childhood and girlhood, in the main role we see Stacy Martin, who, although not particularly beautiful, is extremely cute and sexual, and in every way a sight for sore eyes in comparison with Charlotte. Charlotte's rescuer is played by Stellan Skarsgård, who appears in a total of seven von Trier's films. There is also Christian Slater in the role of Nymphomaniac's father, as well as Uma Thurman, who gave perhaps the best performance in her career. Stacy, Charlotte, and Stellan topped their roles, but in her relatively short scene, Uma Thurman completely overshadowed them. Her scene is totally over the top, but still somehow realistic and believable. This somewhat relates to the film in its entirety, but Uma's scene is one of the most powerful I've ever seen. Ruthlessly awkward, strongly emotional and definitely unforgettable. Uma deserved an Oscar big as the Statue of Liberty.

There's still three hours of the second movie left for me to make a final judgment, but for now, this is a pure ten.

Seligman: "Well, I divide humanity into two groups: the people who cut the nails on the left hand first, and the people who cut the nails of the right hand first. My theory is that the people who cut the nails of the left hand first they're more light-hearted. They have a tendency to enjoy life more, because they go straight for the easiest task, and save the difficulties for later. So, what do you do?" Joe: "Always the left hand first. I don't think there's a choice. Go for the pleasure first, always. And then when you've done the left hand, only the right hand remains. That's the easiest one left." Seligman: "I never thought of it like that. Well, you're never too old. Never too old to learn."

10/10

Part One

[temrok9 · 6/10 · 12 February 2014]

The most important thing about Nymphomaniac(part one) is that it introduces a totally fresh way of looking at things in cinema in a time when most artists suffer from the disease of repetition;extremely funny and at the same time poetic, it also comes as something out of the blue that catches us unprepared and that's the beauty of it.For example, when people try to praise the meanings of the movie, it feels banal because the film introduces new ways of seeing and feeling, so it's really great art, and I wouldn't say the same for many other movies of Trier.Genuine as very few things we've met the last years, Nymphomaniac is enjoyable in many ways.That's all for the time.You true believers wait patiently;here comes part two!

A rather pretentious, boring, long and vaguely insightful film.

[kaymages · 1/10 · 28 April 2014]

CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH VOLUME I AND II: I give a 1 to this film to balance if possible the high rating it got in this site. The film was rather pretentious and was at a certain degree a classic example of emptiness trying to present itself as "high art". The parallels of nymphomania with fishing in the first half of the film and with Christianity later where pointless and just to make impressions in my opinion, even insulting or blasphemous in some points i could say. Another thing i found strange was the extreme use of "deep" and "wise" references to mathematical, scientific and philosophical concepts. But it all seemed rather forced, messy, and meaningless. It also failed in my opinion to get deep in the human psyche and explore effectively or at least expose the spherical/ holistic nature of the phenomenon of nymphomania. It was quite single sided and narrow minded as i see it. As for the people that claim it was a deep psychological journey, sorry von Trier fans, but the impression this film gave me is that he is a person with poor and shallow insight on the human being not to say prejudiced. In the end i didn't feel being left with some serious food for thought, intriguing questions or spiritually benefited and more self-aware or with self doubt and criticism. I also had the impression that the film was quite naive in some psychological aspects and delivered a rather childish, unrealistic or idealistic view of the human psyche and reality (yes despite all the cruelty and misery depicted it still gave me that impression). Especially at the depiction of the first years of her life and her maturity to adulthood. The showing of nudity as some said and the sex scenes, where not that extreme and had a reason to be there in some moments, but in others i agree that they where there just for the shake of being, no help to the plot or anything. The exploration of the human perversions and fetishes was rather forced too, like the bdsm chapter, gave me the impression that it was there so that the director could state "look! we have put bdsm too in it" and didn't necessarily deliver the desperate odyssey and degeneration of a tortured soul in a realistically climaxing way. It is also important to mention that this was a humourless movie whatsoever. Every attempt of "humour" was rather too dark, trolling, unintelligent, immature or just provoking. Even the born to be wild song in the train scene. Or the casting of Shia Labeouf, if this had a humorous intention in the first place of course. So no mature and original humour. The acting was a bit sloppy too i think, i especially didn't like much the acting of the old Joe (who is the protagonist for god's shake)at a major part of the film but wasn't impressed by young Joe's either. Another weak point was the excessive use of tiring narration, exposition, a sign of weak writing that cannot deliver it's messages subtly and with ease but rather immoderately throws them at the viewer's face. One of the few things i liked in the film was how we got little secret messages and warnings from the beginning about the final scene, where the old man would try to take advantage of her. Honestly i expected that from the beginning. Some will say that it was another drawback of the film cause it was predictable, linear, unintelligent etc bit i think it was delivered in a nice and well thought way. One of the few well thought things of the film. The answers he gave to her shocking stories, how he always tried to justify her actions but came a bit needy, his body language and acting, even some verbal slip-ups. All came to draw the picture of a perverted, repressed old geezer that was ready to explode any moment now. Even he stated he read everything literature has to give on sex, showing his obsession but impotence to make his urges real. If it was just an asexual philosopher he would have read some things just to have an opinion on love but wouldn't have obsessively and explicitly exhaust all the relevant literature. I liked the depiction of the oppressed man, it was more effective than the nymphomaniac's unfortunately. I liked the antithesis of the two main protagonists. The insatiable one that fully gave in in her passion and the "ascetic monk type" that fully repressed it for a life. The one ended up repenting and the other dying for letting his passion feed inside him for all these years. They weren't so different in that sense that's why they came to all these distorted conclusions about love and life, each one by his perspective. Even that "catchy" phrase on love was talking about sinful destructive passion of egoism than love, but they never lived true love so they couldn't have a valid opinion on it. There where also practical mistakes in the film like plot holes, logical inconsistencies, unnatural time loops etc. but i don't want to waste time on these, let other commenters exploit these. For example she went to medical school and did a gyno exam in the beginning? how? was she on her medical specialty? no. she was just a sophomore where they just open corpses and such, they don't do gyno exams. (except if things are different in england and i'm mistaken). The p girl chapter near the end i found it rather bizarre, unrealistic, not making much sense and just being there to make more shocking impressions or hopelessly try to save something that seemed doomed already. So in conclusion four hours are far too much for a film that has no much to offer you (i include volume 2 too). But if you are so curious arm yourselves with patience and watch it.

Superb exploration into the proclivities of the sexual human psyche. Not for prudes.

[tomoshdavies · 10/10 · 2 March 2014]

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.

If I'm the only one who kinda liked this movie, my opinion may matter

[shagrog · 7/10 · 9 April 2014]

I see that many people criticize this movie and label it as pornographic and plain boring, so I thought I'd share my two cents.

First of all, it's not a comedy nor an action movie. It's not fast-paced and doesn't have lots of explosions and cool CGI. I guess that doesn't fit the profile of a good movie for the majority of the population.

Now let's talk about what it is. It's a drama. The previously described movies are so much easier to watch whether they're good or bad. Drama doesn't work like that. Good drama makes you think and feel. Bad drama is a pain.

So, the problem we're reduced to is whether this is good or bad drama. For me, i.e., in my opinion, a good drama must be intelligent. It's not a matter of pace, twists or suspense, otherwise it would be another genre (thriller, western, police, crime, etc). An intelligent drama is written/designed to control our feelings and shape our thoughts. Of course, much like everything else, it depends a lot on the receiving end. Some people don't like chocolate. Does that make chocolate bad? No, it makes it bad for those people. It's still great for those who appreciate it. The quality of a drama depends on how much you're willing to let it change you. If you just hold on to your preconceived notions, then it's not going to work.

So, what makes this an intelligent drama? Well, the story starts with a curious situation that brings together two characters from very different worlds: One whose life revolves around sex and one who completely ignores it. The first one tells the story of her life and we get to see it from the perspectives of both characters. Why is this important? Because it makes you think in different ways, which is something our society lacks. People are so driven by their own views and opinions that can't put themselves on each other's shoes. On top of that, they divide the world into two. There's only right or wrong, heroes or abominations and it's not that simple.

The pace of this film is very slow, but that's needed. You need the time to think. Whenever one of the so labeled "pornographic" scenes comes up, you can think about the implications. "Is it that wrong what she's doing? Why does she do it?". Whoever sais "Who cares? It's just a movie. That's sex. It's porn." is simply lazy. The end will seem really disappointing until you really think about it. You mind find it great if you just turn from your fixed point of view. Besides, I think being slow and dull is exactly what this movie is supposed to be. Life is slow. Her life was slow and she had trouble feeling. She did something about it. She searched for a way to feel and found it in sex.

Now, I'll grant you that the story isn't that compelling and not many people can relate. But it's not complete garbage. It was a nice ride (pun intended). It teaches a lot if you're willing to listen. If you're looking for excitement too, this is not where you'll find it.

To sum it up, this is a smarter movie than people give credit for, but you need to open your mind.

Wondering if you should watch this film?

[Anon_A_Mouse · 1/10 · 18 March 2014]

Don't. Your time is far too valuable.

This film features unsimulated sex of pornographic actors digitally edited onto the parts of the real actors. So if you're looking for smut, you should instead watch a production from the "Silicone Valley" (or wherever it is the porn industry heads out of now). At least you won't have to labor through pretentious dialogue just to see some real action. It gets painful--the dialogue. There's a part in the movie where Skarsgard's character tries to rationalize the protagonist's nymphomania via the Fibonacci sequence. It really doesn't add anything meaningful to the plot, it's just von Trier trying to convince you that he went to college. No, I'm only half kidding. Read the spoiler.

*SPOILER* Assuming you don't heed my warning, and still decide to waste your time watching this film, then I won't won't give away too much, but Skarsgard's dialogue is supposed to build you up so you can be shocked by the, like, totally ironic ending of Vol. II...As if you couldn't see that coming, or as if you'll even care at that point. Just be glad it's over so you can go back to watching real porn ;) *END OF SPOILER*

And if you're looking for a film that debases contemporaries and challenges social taboos, well...I guess you can say this film does that, or at least attempts to. It's all pretty shallow, though, and really comes off as an excuse to feature unsimulated sex in a movie full of renowned actors. I would not feel so strongly about this if the actors' performances weren't so laughable. I might have even forgiven von Trier if the characters were redeeming or at least believable. For start, LaBeouf's character speaks with an accent not of this world. And Slater's performance as the aged father is comparable to a parody straight out of SNL. Without giving away spoilers, I'll just say I couldn't find one character I could sympathize/empathize with, because they were either too dull, too deplorable, or too comical.

Want to see a real art film? Un Chien Andalou, because this isn't art. And from a contemporary film's standpoint, there's really nothing to justify the extremes it has to reach in order to tell its story.

Don't do it. Or do it, I don't care. I did my good deed for the day.

An extraordinary film

[fivos_athens · 10/10 · 1 February 2014]

''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.

Sex and Hobbies

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 22 March 2014]

A man named Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) finds a fainted wounded woman in an alley and he brings her home. She tells that her name is Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and that she is nymphomaniac.

Joe tells her life and sexual experiences with hundreds of men since she was a young teenager (Stacy Martin) while Seligman tells about his hobbies, such as fly fishing, reading about especially about Fibonacci numbers or listening to organ music.

"Nymphomaniac: Vol. I" is an erotic drama by Lars von Trier with the dirty story of a woman obsessed by sex and her lovers. The storyline is the same of "Anita" (1973) and the detailed plot also discloses the relationship with her father and her mother. Based on the hype in this movie, I was expecting a boring art movie with explicit sex to shock the audiences. Actually, it is a dramatic story divided into chapters with touches of humor. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Ninfomaníaca: Volume 1" ("Nymphomaniac: Volume I")

subtle and poetic

[jerzykunce32 · 9/10 · 18 January 2014]

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...

In Familiar Lars Von Trier Territory.

[sohansurag · 7/10 · 19 April 2014]

Lars Von Trier's Depression trilogy started off with Antichrist, then Melancholia and now it comes full circle with this 4 hour, 2 part sex epic Nymphomaniac. Greeted with a whiff of silence and expatiated sounds and then blasting it off with Rammstein's Fuhre Mich Lar's Von Trier's Nymphomaniac is exactly how it goes. Unlike Antichrist, Nymphomaniac is an ode to sex addiction, a poetry in motion that explores the verges of sensuality, vulgarity and intense libido of a woman from her early days to her prime. An anthology of sexually graphic stories that also does the job of mesmerizing you in its characters and its narrative.

The story starts with a beaten and injured Joe, found by Seligman, who takes her to his apartment and Joe starts narrating her life and her sexcapades to him through till end. While its obviously provocative and titillating, sex is not the core of the story, you are left to think throughout the duration of the movie. Its natural if you get titillated but Seligman as evidently doesn't and helps you find the a meaning as well as a justification for what happens. While Joe goes onto narrate her explicitly detailed adventures, Seligman, from time to time, gives you tidbits of info. From nymph and fishing to polyphony and Bach. Its relevance you ask? That's how the narration progresses and its rather fascinating how it unravels through out the movies 4+ hours. Obviously these characters are not set in a contemporary reality and might not always work if you question its plausibility. These are characters straight from a writer's head and as Lars plays the roles of both writer and director, nobody could have done it better.

Volume 1 follows a young Joe through her peaks of insatiable craving for sex and ends with the Cantus Firmus depicting her 3 lovers (which makes the polyphony). Volume 2 pursues a much older Joe and goes a bit deep into her addiction and how she tries to reclaim back her life. It paints her with a wide brush. Lars even pays some homages along the way. If you've seen Antichrist you'll spot the conspicuous scene within seconds. Its unmistakable explicitness aside, Nymphomaniac packs a lot of memorable sequences as well, a scene in particular which comes to mind Joe's father's hospital scene as pictured in the chapter Delirium and another one would be Joe's speech during a sex addict support group. The words she utters would be cringe worthy but nonetheless brilliant. Humor is also sprinkled generously, from Seligman and Joe's conversation to a chapter called Mrs H.

Playing Joe and Seligman are Charlotte Gainsbourg and Stellan Skarsgård and they kinda, silently through their performances, try to outmatch each other. You have to give in to Skarsgard for keeping a straight face up until the climax (no puns intended). And Gainsbourg's is just as amazing, her voice, spellbinding, making you listen to every word she says. Apart from these two the stand out cast member would be undoubtedly Stacy Martin, that sexy petite girl who almost flawlessly pulled a 'young Joe'. I wouldn't be surprised if she ends up in roles, more demanding. Shia LaBeouf plays Jerome, Joe's love interest and he does a decent job. A slew of AAA actors garnish the 4 hour long movie, from Uma Thurman, Christian Slater to Willem Dafoe and Jamie Bell. As its known Lars' movies are known to be a visual extravaganza and here its not different. there is a specific goldish brown hue that's predominant but there are also deviations when you go from chapter to chapter. Also known is his taste in music and brilliant sound design.

Touching everything from bondage to pedophilia, Nymphomaniac is undoubtedly sexually explicit and a perverts paradise and not at all an easy watch showing full frontal nudity and actual penetration which they claim to be done with body doubles. It literally goes to commercial cinema's extremes but at the same time encompassing themes like love, abuse and addiction. As opposed to Blue is The Warmest Color I would never call this sensual and it can get shocking at times. What I loved is Trier's exploration into taboo territory. Few directors would have the balls to sign in AAA stars to act in a semi-pornographic movie. If you think writing this off as porn would be a good idea, then you are direly wrong. It has extensive sexual content but its far from actual pornography and I believe that if those content is put to use for a good narrative then it makes for a profound sexual drama and is thus justified. And if you want anything hardcore you are better off with porn.

This is Lars Von Trier and he never shies away from what he wants to show. Initially even I felt it a bit shocking because I was not used to see this much sexual content in mainstream cinema but by the end of it all it wasn't the shocking imagery that got stuck in my mind but instead, the four hour journey that felt anything but shocking. Being the finale of his Depression trilogy, I'd say Nymphomaniac delivered.

The Masterpiece

[adix00 · 10/10 · 19 January 2014]

I was amazed to see that there was not a clear 10 rating for this movie . This will be the first . From my point of view, after watching many movies directed by Lars Von Trier, this might be the best one . It is several levels above other movies which will take dozens of prizes and acclamation . The first layer which attracts people is sex , but this is only the fly (see first chapter in the movie) which will try to catch u to see the rest. Sex is only a means to open the box full with human feelings like solitude, emptiness, self hatred, egoism all seasoned with a lot of irony and links to music , poets and manners like eating pastry with a fork . I like to believe all this details are close to Lars Von Trier and like Tarkovky's library they represent a part of his life and feelings

In the end, I consider a piece of work (book , music , movie) a masterpiece when the author puts his feeling inside , when he "writes it with blood". I think here LVT gives us his soul and that makes the difference between a good movie and a 1 in a thousand movies .

An underwhelming first part

[andre-matarazzo · 7/10 · 1 January 2014]

::::::::::::::: CONTAINS MINOR SPOILERS :::::::::::::::::::::

Lars Von Trier: I'm a huge fan and will always be. That, unfortunately, causes hugely enhanced expectations when a new film comes out.

Contrary to all other Von Trier films, I just couldn't get into the storyline as I wished.

Without giving too much away, most of the situations felt oddly artificial, and the smart manicured dialog felts contrived and at the same time too theatrical - almost as if it were too aware of its lustrous shine as the main star of the show.

The scene with Uma Thurman is painful to watch - what a lame interpretation, what out-of- place demure. What was meant to portrait the absurdity of the situation instead felt like an Opera Buffa, unfolding through painful takes. Made me look around to see if someone had quickly changed the film roll during one of the cuts.

Some typical Von Trier traces are immediately recognizable (and welcome) for the fan: mixed media to accentuate inner feelings and capitulation, powerful music, and the sprinkle of the odd galactic scenes.

On a positive note, the films smartly leaves you hanging at a cliff and flashes a few upcoming scenes from part 2, which seem extremely seductive and worth going in for another go.

I wish I could have just sat through the full 5h and take my appetizer (part 1) immediately followed by the main course (part 2).

The Work of a Genius !

[rondo898 · 1/10 · 28 March 2014]

You will, I sincerely hope, not be offended if I were to speculate that you were enticed into inquiring into this movie and, for that matter, even reading this very review, because of the movie's title, yes? And the title obviously reflects on the movie's content which is focused on the reproductive arts. And, I shall further speculate that were the movie instead titled, say, "Existentialism" or such, and the story concerned a group of nuns who begin to question their faith, you wouldn't be reading this at all, would you?

Of course you know that von Trier is a celebrated director, but you didn't quite get around to seeing his masterpiece Dogville, did you? Nor, I suspect, have you seen his quirky 2007 cinema, The Boss of It All. In fact, the only reason you are even remotely interested in "Nymphomaniac" is that it depicts venery in an explicit manner. Confess! It's all true, isn't it?

Wait! Keep reading! Don't go away! It's OK! I know you're not like that, because you have standards. You would never watch or read porn. That's so . . . so . . . so >degrading< and low-class. But since you're a mature adult, very open minded and not bound by the strictures of organized religion, you have no objection to serious cinema with erotic content, do you? I mean, as long as it's tastefully done?

I'm here to assure you that "Nymphomaniac" is >not< pornography, because none of the actresses (or actors, mustn't be sexist here) have had any breast augmentation, nor do they wear cosmetics in the manner of slatternly women. For that matter, rest secure in the knowledge that absolutely nothing arousing occurs during any of the movie. No pleasure whatsoever, so it's safe. Your dog could watch it and not begin to look at you funny.

That's why von Trier is, without question, an absolute genius. Sex is one of the few natural pleasures we enjoy here in this vale of tears, and just as the finest minds of industry have ruined the joys of victualry and turned the simple act of eating into a problem, the brilliance of of von Trier is that he has ruined sex. "Joe," the protagonist of the movie, has sex frequently, but she doesn't enjoy it at all, and von Trier does his best to make certain that you don't either.

If you think about it, that's not such an easy feat. Suppose that you were given a camera, a crew and a group of attractive actors who don't mind nudity and simulating sex acts and were told to make a movie depicting venery, it would be difficult for you to make something completely unpleasant to watch. But von Trier has accomplished something you could never do: in this movie, no one has any pleasure. ex is presented as something perverse and unpleasant. "Joe" only engages in it because she's emotionally disturbed, or because her domineering girlfriend made her do it, or because of some Freudian mumbo- jumbo, and she obviously dislikes each experience, starting with the first brief penetration that hurts her.

>SPOILER ALERT!< Don't fall for the brief scenes near the end, of her actually enjoying her three lovers. Those are fantasies she tells in response to having Bach played for her. The music of J. S. Bach is the sublime representation of empyreal purity, and Bach fathered twenty children, so it's good, clean, church-sanctioned, procreative sex, not the naughty fun kind. (Ooo, look! He's bathing her! How lovely! How clean! How innocuous! What movie is this?) But as soon as the music stops, she announces, while in union, "I feel nothing."

The hypothetical sex movie you would write and direct would be unlikely to have acting that is as bland, tedious and affectless as the acting in "Nymphomaniac," but that's the way Lars von Trier wants it, because viewing good acting would be a pleasure to watch, and he wants to drain anything enjoyable out. I can imagine him shouting direction, "No! No! Make it even more lifeless! More monotonous!"

An obvious exception to this is the salient performance by Uma Thurman, but in that scene, the fine actress is introduced for the sole purpose of making a deliberately unpleasant situation even more disturbing. It goes on for an excruciatingly long time, because von Trier wants to rub your nose in the message: sex ruins lives and makes people miserable. The scene is comedic, but only in the way slapstick is.

Von Trier is not the first director to make a movie depicting sex as repulsive. The late Ken Russell also wrote and directed movies with that effect. Like this movie, Russell's movies were also promoted by ads and posters featuring an enticing shot of a woman in ecstasy, but that was just to lure you in. The movie itself taught you a lesson of rue. It is, after all, the glorious puritanical heritage of those of us of Northern European descent. We're not like those filthy people down there in the tropical climes, going at it like they was rabbits. Shame, shame, double shame on their gratification and pleasure! No wonder God punishes them!

All the enthusiastic reviews here are written under the pretense that there is some profound message embedded in this movie (especially the bedpan scene). The profound message is that sex must be presented strictly in terms of social isolation and as a manifestation of emotional disturbance. "Joe," represents all the repressed feelings of guilt and shame metastasizing deep within you. After all, if sex were depicted in a uniformly joyous light, you'd have to go to some sleazy site where they'd rip-off your credit card information.

A brilliant movie about society's hypocrisy

[dtane10 · 10/10 · 16 February 2014]

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.

Forget about pleasure

[kleiner_fuchs · 7/10 · 21 February 2014]

Note: this review is about the 4-hour-cut (two parts with 2 hours each) of NYMPHOMANIAC, that is shown in German cinemas.

"Forget about pleasure" – that could have been the tag line of NYMPHOMANIAC instead of "Forget about love", as we are never allowed to see, or feel, real pleasure on the actor's faces while they are having (simulated) sex; ironically, the only scene where something like pleasure can be felt is a shot of two little girls playing in the bathroom early on in the picture. Could this be called a "failure" on the part of the director or the actors considering that this is supposed to be the story of a sex addict on a never-ending quest for ecstasy? Or did Von Trier want it to be that way?

Regardless of this "failure", NYMPHOMANIAC is not a bad film, on the contrary: It is often very funny, often very beautiful, sometimes moving, sometimes provocative, and always entertaining, but it is also an uneven film. Take, for example, the opening sequence: Great production design and delicate sound design work together to create a mesmerizing atmosphere for several minutes, then suddenly a deafening Rammstein song starts playing. Is this a stroke of genius or is it simply the worst possible choice of music in this place, brutally destroying the carefully built atmosphere?

There are more strange directorial choices: Throughout the film we get ugly, pointless inserts (nature shots, animals, choir boys etc.) that are derived from low-quality, low-resolution video material. Then there are some lines that seem to have no connection to the characters and are only there because Von Trier wanted to say something important, and instead of saying it in an interview, he decided to put it in his film. This is always a bad choice; when Joe and Seligman are discussing topics like political correctness and pedophilia, I hear Von Trier talking, where it should be the characters I hear talking.

The whole film, despite its length, to me felt like a puzzle with too many parts missing: so many things left unexplained (for example, how exactly did Joe find that "K" character?), so many scenes that I would have liked to see. The non-chronological structure of the film with its flashbacks, inserts and captions didn't help to tie the whole thing together either.

The ending (the "moral" and the closing "punch line") I found to be extremely stupid and it left me sorely disappointed, it felt like a bad joke. I'll refrain from discussing it here, see it for yourself and decide for yourself.

Von Triers previous films ANTICHRIST and MELANCHOLIA were masterpieces, securing him and his unique style of filmmaking a place in the pantheon. NYMPHOMANIAC is no such masterpiece. I will recommend it as it is very entertaining, but it is also quite shallow and it didn't tell me anything interesting about sexuality or society. The important matters that the film brings up would have deserved to be dealt with more seriously. And by that I don't mean to imply that the film should have been less funny; in the past there have been funny and charming sex comedies (for example, Sunday IN NEW YORK, 1963), that have dealt with sexuality and hypocrisy in a decidedly serious and thought-provoking way.

Worst Adult Movie Ever!.

[tommy-158-708163 · 1/10 · 14 November 2014]

Lars Von Trier has made a lot of publicity and excessive advertisement of an adult documentary movie called Nymphomaniac. His intention was to make a porno movie and a movie with pornographic sex shots. He shot a very long movie .First it was approximately 4 hours of porno,but then he cut the movie and changed it completely into Drama!!. That is funny and so strange,but this is true.

Nymphomaniac is an adult boring movie documentary which focuses on a horny girl who adores sex. The name of the girl is Joe. She explicitly tells her sexual fantasies and imaginations to an old man called Seligman and how she became addicted to sex and nymphomania. Honestly when I saw the movie I felt so bored and kept looking at my watch and could not wait to leave the cinema because of this bad if not worst movie!.

Bold, Thoughtful and Explicit

[freemantle_uk · 8/10 · 1 March 2014]

As you would expect from the controversial Lars von Trier and a film called Nymphomaniac, you know in advance that we are not getting a shy, conservative affair and von Trier does not disappoint. The infamous director manages to craft a two-part film which fans of art-house cinema will be salivating from the mouth over. In a ubiquitous British town, Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) finds Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) unconscious in an alley way. Seligman takes Joe back to his home where Joe tells him she is a bad person and tells him her story from her childhood, to young adulthood (Stacy Martin), to present day, reflecting on her sexual experiences and major relationships, while the intelligential Seligman and Older Joe philosophising and interpreting her actions. Von Trier does not hold back from showing various sexual activity and Joe's descent into sexual violence, as she looks for more extreme ways to get a thrill as her behaviour and needs take a physical, mental and social toll on Joe. Nymphomaniac is unflinching with its sex scenes, Joe getting hit hard during her sadomasochist sessions and showing of male and female genitalia of all shapes and sizes, including wince inducting moments when showing the harm on Joe's private parts go through. Throughout the film we see Joe's sexual journey, from her fascination as a child to her pleasure herself and seek fulfilment. There are many different aspects of Joe's sexuality during Nymphomaniac, using sex as an escape when her father (Christian Salter) and the indifferent on face when she competes with her friend to seduce as many men as possible during a train journey. Von Trier explores many of the destructive aspects of being a sex addict, destroying friendships, being unable to form any relationships with partners and family, struggle to have emotional attachments and the impact that Joe's actions has on others. Joe is a character who rejects the idea of love and romance and leads to the question, does Joe reject it because of her upbringing, her addiction makes her unable to love or because is it because of her inability to loves makes her a sex addict? The discussions between Older Joe and Seligman are a framing device and allow von Trier to explore the philosophical parts of the story. But this is when von Trier spells out his views and meanings of the film. Both Older Joe and Seligman are used discuss to complex mathematical theorems, religious iconography, the meaning of words and morality. But to be fair, some of the elements do require specific knowledge so some explanation was needed. Nymphomaniac's cast features von Trier regulars, established talent like Jamie Bell and Uma Thurman and new actors with Stacy Martin, Sophie Kennedy Clark and Mia Goth. The performances range from good to excellent and the new young actresses do show real talent, as they give fantastic performances. The let down in the cast is Shia LaBeouf. It is easy to mock LaBeouf because of his recent off screen antics, but his performance was hampered when you can play guess the accent. My own personal guesses were Scottish, Irish, New Zealander and South African and other people's guesses ranged from Cockney, Australian and Scandinavian. Von Trier and his cinematographer Manuel Alberto Claro were able to combine both a grim, kitchen sink realistic aesthetic, while also making sure von Trier adds artistic flourishes, as he uses graphics, text and cross cutting to various images. Despite some of the heavy themes and imagery, von Trier made sure moments dark humour and wit to help lighten the mood and prevent Nymphomaniac from being too depressing as an experience. Nymphomaniac is an interesting, thoughtful film that is more than about controversy and titillation. Filled with a mostly excellent cast, Nymphomaniac should please fans of von Trier and art-house cinema.