Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2014)

Simply tedious, full of extraordinarily disgusting scenes. Such an ultra-long so-called movie about nonsense, without a particular target or message. Might be useful for perverts. Total waste of time; happy that I paid no money to watch it.

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!

So many people think that this movie just show sex, no more. And i admit maybe they were right, but,This movie really change my perspective, and so many thing. Yes you should give your spare time maybe 5-6 hours to watch it until the vol.2. The sexual thing that i first(in a whole my life) i think it was taboo thing, or topic that wasn't worth to talking about, but you know, we life with it. Desire of sexuality, to many other things, not only human to human. Human born with lust and desire, if you don't have that so what is difference with you and stone (sory for bit sharp because i just can't stand with people who give this movie rate only one star)Sometimers this movie haunts me, and i swore that maybe in this years 2017 I can't see this movie twice or more because it make my thought full and sick. Sometimes i feel guilty, but i swore everyone who boring with high rate movie and love the up normal movie should watch this.When i was kid, i am afraid of ghost, and up until now those feeling is disappear, and this is the really new indescribable feeling of awfulness

Reaching a comprehensive conclusion on the first part of Lars von Trier's "Nymphomaniac" is a grisly yet satisfying exercise. The film is generally refreshingly observationalist, in its taking a step back from what it depicts – from what I can garner, it neither glamorises nor demonises to any great extent the behaviour of the characters within. By the end, the characters have been neither punished nor rewarded for their actions. There is a very cold, empty tonality to von Trier's first Nymphomaniac volume, but this is not a criticism – the life of the film's lead, a middle aged woman who goes by the surely deliberately androgynous name of Joe (Jo), has almost entirely consisted of furrowing about trying to find that next lay with the opposite sex. She has done very little else and, despite living through the latter half of the twentieth century, not to mention possessing a gift for oration, we sense has very little else say on any other subject.The film consists almost entirely of flashback. It is Charlotte Gainsbourg playing present-tense Joe, a woman found beaten and bloodied on the concrete courtyard of an apartment block in an unspecific English locality on a rainy day. Stellan Skarsgård's Seligman, a grey suited monosyllabic neighbour from abroad, finds her en route coming home from the local shop - rather than call for help when she asks him not to, he brings her back to his dwelling so that she may recover and that is when she decides to recount her life hedonistic life-story which will lead us to this very moment.In the past, she is played by new-comer Stacy Martin, whose job it is to bring to life Joe's years of adolescence and young adulthood – one characterised by a radical outlook of anti-marriage; anti-bourgeois and anti-love on top of a demonstrating of just how much of a bohemian hedonist she really is. During this time, she will garner some menial office work; maintain a friendship with her father and have an on-off relationship with boyfriend Jerome (Shia LaBeouf). It is during these scenes that von Trier seems to combine props; attire and other mise-en-scene from the 1960's; 70's and 80's to create a very non-specific era –his shooting of it in Germany is further designed to disorientate us during the viewing.But why was she lying on the concrete, bloodied and bruised, in the first scene? Why is she deciding to tell Seligman her tale in the first place? What, precisely, is Skarsgård in relation to anything at all anyway? These are not questions von Trier answers in Volume One – indeed, they are in a sense irrelevant to the film's nucleus. But then, what of that? It seems to be that, no matter what you are talking about, be it fly-fishing; organ music or something else, you can incorporate philosophies or stances on sex into it – sex is life and life is sex and parallels can be found between the actions of a good fly-fisherman and a woman on the prowl; between the makeup of the specifics of a Johann Sebastian Bach sonata and the way a sex-addict balances their lovers. Correlations and equivalents are everywhere, if only people would just take the time out to look for them...But is this really the end of it? Perhaps one character is actually the figment of the other's imagination: a bored, single and lonely Seligman imagines he meets Joe coming home and concocts a story possessing everything he doesn't have. Moreover, perhaps a concussed Joe is still lying there in the street imagining aid from a stranger. Whatever the case, von Trier essentially allows his audience to fulfil the role of Seligman – someone who listens on in either silent awe or restrained disgust at how Joe had a sexual revelation as a young child with her friend Bea (Sophie Kennedy Clark) and decided to act on it in a way that saw her spend her teenage years as she did.Their dual-dynamic itself opens up several tins of numerous kinds of worms in its basis – the gender imbalance is a pseudo-feminist driven psychoanalytic nightmare: a clear distinction between orator and receiver, it is the woman propelling proceedings but her tale is one of often perpetual sexual humiliation as she lowers herself to playing the whore; the tart; the loser. She has nothing else in life and is one-dimensional – she recounts her experiences for the pleasure of the male, be it Seligman or the member of the audience.While they are Joe's experiences, the entire film seems to be made up of figments of Seligman's imagination: it is he who is picturing Joe in the bathroom; on the train and with on-off boyfriend Jerome – something alluded to when he tries to picture Joe studying geography although apologies for imagining it incorrectly before we carry on again. Then, there is the problem of the unreliable narrator – an issue Seligman himself even raises towards the end when he deliberately stops Joe mid-flow on account of not believing an aspect of the story she is telling. This is an odd and very disorientating moment, wherein Seligman wrestles power off the story-teller and is suddenly in command of what we play witness to.What are we left with when everything is said and done? We certainly come away feeling like we have experienced something – there is a centrepiece which I will not spoil that seems to get stuck in to whether Joe has lived a worthy life: it reaches the conclusion that she has not, for bohemianism and nymphomania is a fatuous, rotten thing which destroys your life and the lives of those around you – lives you did not even know existed. Indifference is a strange reaction to have to the film, but then loving it or hating it is very difficult. I would certainly recommend it, but with reservations.