Check
- Mark movie as favorite
- Dislike this movie
- Add movie to watchlist
- Mark movie as owned
- Check movie
- View the official lists that include Nymphomaniac: Vol. I
- Visit IMDb page
Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)'s comments
Order by:
- Info
- In lists (294)
- Comments (10)
- Friends
- Activity
- Checks (7322)
- Favorites (474)
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 10 of 10
Ressa
Just to clarify - this movie is not any kind of porn at all.Well you're not bored through any of the two parts. But then again, Trier is always man for a good show, whether you like him or not. Audience better ready themselves for one hell of a trip around the darkest and brightest corners of human sexuality. It is somehow spellbinding with its many references and provocations which at the same time praise and ridicule art, religion, politics, great men and women of history, human intellect, as well as you and me as audience. There's even time to make fun of "The Cannes Incident"
The story is told to us through the conversation between the characters of Gainsbourg and Skarsgaard. There is no doubt that Skarsgaard represent the audience. We see it through his eyes, he ask our questions, and everything is explained to us, so it feels like the movie is mocking us, and expecting that we can't think for ourselves. It is clearly on purpose, because Trier wants to provoke, and wants us to think "what the hell!" But Skarsgaard is also the complete opposite of Gainsbourg and that is why he ask the questions for us. Like him, we want to know more, and to understand this divided nymphomaniac because it is simply different, unknown and fascinating.
The movie has several good scenes, especially the one with Uma Thurman, which is fantastic, extremely grotesque and actually hilarious. That counts for several of the other too as well as the Skarsgaard/Gainsbourg conversation. Nyphomaniac is actually a very funny film - not "haha funny" but witty and furtively funny. Probably the funniest Trier has made since The Kingdom.
But there is no doubt that a lot could be cut out without loosing any of the plot, but the length of the movie is also a big part of the mood and film-experience. You just have to wonder, if any parts of the 90 minutes which was cut out of Triers original version (yes, his version is five and a half hours long) could have made the theatrical experience better.
No matter what Triers films are definitely always and experience, and this on is too. I think I like it, but I am still digesting. It not a masterpiece but a great example of a classic auteur, where the director do whatever he wants to do and I was greatly entertained. Crazy as it may sounds, I actually look forward to watching Triers five and a half hour "Directors Cut" after its premiere at The Berlin Festival.
lachyas
The budget for penis doubles must have been through the roof.Agrimorfee
This is bound to be LvT's "Kill Bill". Earlier post analyzes Skarsgaard as representative of the audience. I am not so sure of that. I feel as though Joe & Seligmann are two halves of LvT's conscience, grappling with the morality of sex and debating about whatever the hell else is in LvT's closet.piratediscoking
How apropos that this movie can't stop fellating itselfBarbieLover
LARS FOREVERbuteberry
Lars Von Trier is unique. He is so close to how "weirdo"s perceive life.And I laughed a lot at Nymphomaniac. I agree that the movie is intellectually, comprehensively, strangely funny.
Nuked
I would argue that one cannot rightfully 'check' this film unless you watched the "director's cut" aka the real and only version.palefire
Nymphomaniac plays like an aberrant homage to Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise or a pornographic version of Malle's My Dinner With Andre. Two strangers find themselves drawn together in the most unusual of circumstances, where even more unusually the female graphically recounts her life of sexual misadventure to the male, who, in turn, weaves it into metaphor as part of a lengthy discourse. Together the strangers connect at a seemingly deep level as the sun eventually rises. A lot of private parts were shot in the making of this film. The result is a surprisingly captivating viewing.ynrozturk
I hate to say it, but this movie on a whole is pretty terrible.The two actresses that portray the same person (one young version, one older version) look nothing like each other. The math references don't make any sense or lead anywhere. Cinematography is boring and predictable. The movie has it's fair share of cliche lines, and besides Uma Thurman, the acting is questionable.
Still can't believe this is a Lars Von Trier film. Very disappointing.
Barsoin
Worst film ever. As stupid as ugly, and philosophicly as subtle as the Rammstein's song of the beginning. Poor poor Shostakovich.