CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Cathardincu Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Megamind To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

Mariam Mansuryan This film did definitely have an effect on me. You know, the thing with Lars is that he is so honest that I began relating to this nymphomaniac. That was absolutely beautiful and something I never imagined I could relate to. I mean a sex addict? Most directors would be afraid to make a film about this.Lars wasn't afraid, yet... it seems like he is not afraid a bit too much. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to taboo anything, all I'm saying is that it is not necessary to always have some "weirdness" in a film to make it watchable. Although I understand it is his style of visual storytelling (to make it REALLY visual), I think there was a bit of an overdo with Nymphomaniac. I think if not the narrative story, this could absolutely be taken as a pornographic movie. And I bet the 6 hours sooth by so quickly for some people precisely for this reason.Nevertheless, Von Trier always gives me the chance to expand my mind, and look at something from a different perspective which I love and am very thankful for.

Emilio Gelado Here the ball of gray wool (Metaphor of Von Trier on depression) has become completely unraveled and this leads to the absolute fall . It is the most direct and easy to digest film of the three, although the director tries to maintain the irreverence of the previous titles, he does not succeed. It is a story of guilt, by desires and human nature, without guilt. It is the final acceptance of the defect as something human. Once again, the protagonist is punished for her nature and for being a woman, constant in the previous titles. (Antichrist and Melancholia)

Lo Desain 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.

Catarina Albuquerque Seriously, not the best Trier's film, I agree with that. But it seems that everyone has missed the point of the story... I really think that it is supposed to be boring, it is supposed to be low level. It is supposed for us to feel that being a nymphomaniac isn't just fun and joy... it's dirty, painful, confusing and after some years it starts to downgrading you. You miss all you innocence, your eyes aren't blue anymore and suddenly your face isn't full of life and desire anymore. You became a walking corpse, degraded, like a zombie that needs sex to survive. Having an orgasm isn't as easy as it should be, it's like a war to get there. So, it's not about sex anymore, but, at the same time, it is. And then all the guilt, punishment... you realize you lost all the control of your life from the very beginning, so you finally try to get it back at the end (yes, the human being is predictable, as Seligman turned out to be).I do think that Joe and Seligman don't work together, it's just too forced and unnatural. The dialogues don't work either. All those curiosities between the main story could work, but they don't. But at the end, it is a better film than the most that passes by our TVs. It does have a message and it is supposed to make you think about it (as always is with Trier), it is "closely-knit" regarding to photography, light and shots. It is technically not a bad film.