Please don't spend money on this.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

There's a more than satisfactory amount of boom-boom in the movie's trim running time.

Ho-hum!... Well - Here we go again!.... Nymphomaniac, like "Shame" and "Looking For Mister Goodbar", is yet another sordid, unsavoury and sneering look at the consequences that are apparently supposed to result from excessive promiscuity.When it comes to sheer heavy-handedness - This shamelessly preachy, little picture self-righteously tells the viewer that having lots of sex with many partners is a hateful thing (so don't you dare love it).This is the sort of movie that neither stimulates the mind nor arouses the libido. Nope. It absolutely numbs both. If you are expecting Nymphomaniac to live up to its title as being an intensely pleasant and wildly erotic experience, you are definitely in for a major disappointment.Incompetently directed by Lars Von Trier (who must be an utterly despicable prig) - Nymphomaniac amounted to being nothing but a dreary, little soap opera (with lots of graphic sex thrown in for good measure) that took 4 frickin' hours to get its shallow, sex-hating point across..... Sheesh! Like - Hey! Give me a break, already!

Nymphomaniac Parts I and II are collectively the final installments of Lars von Trier's "Depression Trilogy," preceded by Antichrist ( a film that frequently makes lists of the top 10 most disturbing films ever) and Melancholia (one of very few films that has shocked and saddened me to the core). Considering the artistic mastery of Antichrist and Melancholia, it shocks me that Nymphomaniac comes off as nothing more than a sloppy, messy attempt at turning nymphomania into some sort of deep philosophical head trip.The basic plot of the film revolves around Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourgh), who tells her life story to Stellan Skarsgard's character as it pertains to her unhealthy obsession with sex. The film attempts to draw some deep parallels and connections between Gainsbourgh's story and Skarsgard's love of fishing, but fails miserably. The metaphors are horrifically clunky, the dialogue is weak, the acting is average to mediocre (especially from this cast that made me cry in the previous two films), and the editing is hideous and nonsensical.Lars von Trier is one of my favorite directors ever, so it shocks me that this film is so poorly put together. It's awkward, boring, overly long porn with a story and performances only marginally better than the X-rated smut you might find on PornHub. 3/10, and I'm being generous.

It is too controversial that half of the viewers rate it significantly low and some significantly high, looks like a reviews war and I chose my side.. I guess part of this situation is that people that have not seen other Trier's films might not understand the style neither the notion of his attitude as a director.It is a really artistic representation of a psychological disorder. It fits well with the depression trilogy and it would be good for viewers to watch all the three of them in sequence. The trilogy handles depression through various situations. Antichrist is depression with evil notes, Melancholia is depression via loss and management of this, Nymphomaniac is depression via one's disorder, and might be even more.Totally artistic, Charlotte is bau excellent, Uma one of the same, that is brilliant, I enjoy watching it. True, the content can be very explicit, but let's not joke, it is a provocative film with a great message, and people that hide hypocritically beneath ethics should not watch films that handle the inner state of the soul.

First off I have given a high score as I don't think you can really rate a film like this; and many have given this a low score as they don't like the subject matter. It's a film about the extremes of sex, if you haven't an open mind on this subject then don't watch this film. There is a lot of graphic sex in this film, presumably to capture the authenticity of the material. But more disturbing is the subject matter, one of the themes being that men can act this way, but for women, society judges women who act in this way very differently. As a film it is slow, arty, and with considerable metaphors. Intellectual more than passionate. Nicely shot too it has to be said; along with considerable acting and direction. Personally, I find if you don't engage with the principal character, it is hard to really enjoy the film. Although it would be possible to claim that Siligman is the viewpoint character the viewer is meant to empathize with (which too a degree does work). Does the film challenge and make you think? Definitely, but it is not an easy experience, and certainly the film is overly drawn out. Also, one has to see volume two to get full understanding of the material.I liked that the film did not pull any punches and explored adult themes deeply, if not shockingly at times. However I would only recommend this for individuals that have a broad understanding of sexuality, prepared to be subjected to some pretty X rated scenes, and are fans of very arty, intellectual theater. As I said at the beginning, his is not the sort of film you can judge, you have to see it and make up your own mind.