Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Nonureva Really Surprised!

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

aelena_16 I found it more authentic then all the BS dramas the big H serves. For all the critics saying this is just porn, you clearly didn't understand the message, maybe you're not familiar with the struggle or plain ignorance. !Spoiler alert! It talks about the people who are daily rejected by society, the ones that do not fit in the narrow box of normality that we are given. It's not Hollywood drama, it's real life drama, but you are so brain washed you don't get the difference. Maybe watch it again, this time without checking your iPhone every other minute. Watch it everyday, until you realize why it's not a porn, and then write hateful reviews if you still think it's bad.

eagandersongil Part 2 of nymphomaniac loses its genius, but not its quality, we have a script that surrenders to more utopian plots and loses its criticism, but, it remains a movie well above the average, we have a whole discourse around fetishes, of Abortion and gives odious social nature. We continue to follow the story of Joe's life, this time his story brings more social critiques than the philosophical discourse of the first, technically the film is perfect, photography, editing, soundtrack, sound mixing, etc. Great acting and the good old tripodless camera from Lars. If you followed the full version of the movie (which has three hours), you will see many scenes that in most parts of the movies are unnecessary, but here it is very, very necessary, worth a highlight to the abortion scene, explicitly, it shocks, leaves The agonized viewer, makes you squeeze the couch and look down, Lars Von Trier is a genius in building this kind of scene, after the abortion itself we have another 7 minutes of speech about the event, that discourse is not taken , All kinds of arguments are presented and the conclusion is for the viewer, who is always remembered in the plot, Lars Von Trier makes us remember that we are watching a movie about sex, and from there we extract the philosophy, the whole Lars does not develop it, it disturbs him, he does not like it, he does not like it, he does not like it, When you think that this story will be developed, Lars puts another story for us, but towards the end of the film we have banal motivations, even so, its ending is great.  SPOILER :::: Lars could end the movie with Joe sleeping and ended, but he makes his (asexual) listener want to have sex with Joe, and instead of just accepting, Joe kills her. Joe passes the whole movie thinking that she is a bad person, at a certain moment she blames the elite on her not framing, even so, for Joe, all that bad happens to the people around her is his fault, but in that last one Moment she realizes that society is bad and corrupt, and can be expressed in just one word, as Joe himself says, "Hypocrite." Joe and may even surface the worst in people, but she's not bad on her own. The first film begins with a few minutes of black screen and the last one ends with a few minutes of black screen, a symbol to the mourning, not only the death of its sexuality or the death of its hearing, but the death of the society as a whole.

Leofwine_draca 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.

loumiles-25568 i watched the theatrical version with both movies together, i am a huge lars von trier fan, have seen antichrist and his other harder films, i have read that this is the last film in his depression trilogy which is antichrist melancholia nyphomaniac. this film was so powerful, i found the experience menacing. the meanings i have got from the films is that we are all inherently evil. but in these films (it really is women are all inherently evil). nyphomaniac is so massive in scope it blows the other films away. the film is repellent. but still a genuine work of art. i hated it and loved it at the same time. for a man to make a film about female sexuality is a bold thing to do, lars nearly always has the lead as a female, but with this subject matter the man has got guts that's for sure, i saw the film with a female friend, she had a similar experience to me. i have not said this about any other film, and i loved antichrist, this film was hurting me, yet i could not stop watching. anyone who says its a black comedy or has comedic elements don't listen, this is his most serious film to date, unlike antichrist where the evil is quite obvious, in this movie the evil is insidious, it creeps around and gets right under your skin. i feel he has triumphed in his trilogy, and has committed a very dark entity to celluloid. not for the faint hearted. and please do not watch this movie, before you have seen some of his other work. as you need to build up to this one. (lars you are my favorite catholic, but you scare me)See less▲