Another hit from Lars von Trier that may be one of the most tedious and disgusting films that I've ever seen, but is on of von Trier's most masterful works. With some of his best writing, von Trier also properly expands on the characters, making Seligman and Joe some of the most layered and interesting characters I've seen in quite the while. And he properly closes the story with a deeply satisfying and frankly genius ending. Though I never exactly needed to see a 5 and 1/2 hour epic of a sex addict telling her entire life story, I'm glad I did.

While it lacks the near "rock n' roll" anarchism of the first part, Volume II makes up for it by pushing the heavy nihilism we know, love, and expect from Lars von Trier to new heights (or depths really).

Like a lot of lesser Triers, has moments—and moments that will likely stick with me for decades—but gets too undisciplined and silly to come together in a full way. The very last note here especially, feels like a rushed cop-out.

filme legal pra cacete, o roteiro é legal, esse filme é quase igual ao 1 filme é continua mostrando uma mulher que é ninfomaníaca, ela conta para um velho, todas as suas experiências do sexo na sua adolescência com caras e mais caras, agora já na parte adulta, como na adolescência, e vida adulta, e agora mulher ela está querendo novas experiências, novos fetiches, novas transas, e tenta um tipo de masoquismo, e outras experiências, no final quando a mulher estava dormindo, o velho aproveitou a oportunidade e comeu ela, quando ela percebeu depois de 30 segundos, ela pegou a arma e matou o velho e acabou o filme, algumas cenas do filme teve cenas reais de sexo no filme, mostrando tudo, com tudo isso, eu recomendo esse filme.

It's not a picture I would enthusiastically recommend to anyone I suppose but I couldn't turn away from it due to the brazen deep-dive into these taboo kind of subjects.

Vol. I was a good part and I expected this one to be a good continuation but it was nothing I expected. it was unnecessarily too long and the ending didn't have any sense. They could have streched Vol. I to 1 hour more, there was no need of 3 hours more. Overall, it was a big disappointment for me.

Even though the end is alittle bizarre or somehow unnecessary, the trip is worth it. This film is extremely subversive, in the good way. It puts the viewer in moral and social dilemmas, there's nothing normative, Charlotte is on fire. This movie is not funny, atually is pretty sad, strangely it never bring desire, is a very well-done story not for everybody. Lars von Trier on his sharpest, most challenging and riskiest version.

More verbose and esoteric than the first part, Nymphomaniac: Volume 2 dabbles in mysticism, theology, history, and a myriad of other subjects. Unfortunately, these meanderings cause it to lose a bit of the narrative drive that propelled Volume 1, but it remains an intriguing, if not disturbing, glimpse into the world of sexual addiction. In one interesting scene, director Lars von Trier recreates a portion of the opening scene from his own film, Antichrist, where a young boy faces imminent danger due to the inattention of his parents. Like Volume 1, this is clearly not for all tastes.

See my review of Nymphomania 1. I see this as the same film, just split in half. As others have said, this is perhaps more gratifying and less mysterious that the first one

Best movie in western classic

Although it's not as provocative and shocking as its predecessor, it's a raw and bizarre viewing experience that shines thanks to Lars von Trier's visual style and its solid ensemble cast.

I personally like the first one more but it's still dope

"Nymphomaniac: Vol II" is not as good as the first, but it leaves something to be desired

Strange movie...but the story wasn't that bad. The ending could've been slightly better though.

I prefer the first part but I consider this two movies as a single very long (too much) picture. The ending is too much nihilistic, I wold have preferred a something else.

Not quite as good as volume one, but still very worth the watch.

This movie is nothing. No content. No story. No acting. Just a waste of time.

I thought the first one was pretty stupid, but I got hooked on the conversations and the pace of it and yes, some parts were darkly funny. This installment was severely disappointing. To go through all that and end so cheaply was supremely unsatisfying. Maybe that was the intent, leave the audience as frustrated and unfulfilled as this nasty woman.

'I understand Hitler' The ironic/non moralistic phrase that made him get the "persona non grata" ban at the Cannes Festival in 2011. He answered to all this in a fragment of Nymph()maniac, through Joe's words, confirming his position........ against society's hypocrisy, that refuses and tries to avoid the evil side of people and history, hoping to annul it with such a declared and exemplary act like that. They banned him as an example, like a witch sent to the stake, without considering the profound meaning of it, just watching his works of art. Lars von Trier WANTED to be provocatour, maybe just to avoid all the carousel of hypocrisies and false moralism that Cannes represents. Nymph()maniac is all a great "Von Trieristic Discourse", about a lot of taboos and sensitive themes, big questions to our contemporary society. It makes me remember The Platonic Discourses. The scheme of every dialogue between Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) is very similar to them, because both of the characters represent a Lars von Trier's point of view. He speaks with two mouths. In this way the film is presented as a series of tales. Every kid should see it at school as a serious lesson about sex and love. Lars von Trier talks about every possible theme: children's sexuality, masturbation, sodomy, necrophilia, abortion, sadomasochism, pedophilia, politics and religion. Could we say that Nymph()maniac is a personal version of Pasolini's "120 days of Sodom" for Lars von Trier? I do not think that this is the best work of Lars von Trier, but it's important and, anyway, the worst Trier's movie is always a great movie and piece of Art.

On a snowy evening, middle-aged bachelor Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård) finds self-diagnosed nymphomaniac Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) beaten up and lying in the alleyway behind his apartment. He takes her back to his home and, over tea, listens intently as Joe recounts the story of her libidinous life. Seligman, a highly-educated but cloistered man, connects and analyzes Joe's stories with what he has read about. Seligman's favourite hobby to read about is fly fishing, which is why he has the fly fishing hook on the wall and this is how their conversation begins. Throughout the story he parallels much of what she has experienced with various methods of the sport... Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus about Volume I states: "Darkly funny, fearlessly bold, and thoroughly indulgent, Nymphomaniac finds Lars von Trier provoking viewers with customary abandon." The consensus about Volume II states: "It doesn't quite live up to the promise of the first installment, but Nymphomaniac: Volume II still benefits from Lars von Trier's singular craft and vision, as well as a bravura performance from Charlotte Gainsbourg." In the UK, Martin Solibakke of Mancunion praised Stacy Martin's performance, saying he had "never felt so sure about an actress's future success since I saw Jennifer Lawrence in Winter's Bone four years ago". He ended his review with hailing the film, saying "Lars von Trier ends up hitting the G-spot of avant-garde filmmaking with a movie only he could ever make, and gives the open-minded members of the audience one of the most powerful and sensational experiences ever seen in arts." Michelle Orange of The Village Voice called it a "jigsaw opus, an extended and generally exquisitely crafted riff." In The Australian, David Stratton said that he "detested" some of Trier's films, and states that Nymphomaniac "seems designed to be his magnum opus, the film in which he gets to rail against everything he loathes about contemporary life and contemporary cinema." The modified version is screening in Australia, officially referred to as the "international" version. Stratton further stated on the television review program At the Movies that he found the four hour runtime of the film to be "daunting", but praised some of the performances, particularly those of Stacy Martin and Jamie Bell. Stratton's co-host Margaret Pomeranz meanwhile, while also praising the boldness of the performances, felt the film's unsimulated depictions of sex didn't add to the narrative and as such had, "such an undercurrent of sadism that I was, not repelled, but distanced". ThoughtCatalog remarked on how the plot failed to be consistent or plausible. On the Melbourne community radio station, 3RRR, film criticism program "Plato's Cave" praised von Trier's work on Nymphomaniac and presenters, Thomas Caldwell and Josh Nelson, defended the director against accusations of misogyny. Both presenters agreed that actresses who von Trier has worked with, such as Nicole Kidman and Björk, have delivered excellent performances in his films, while Nelson referred to Antichrist and Melancholia, the first two installments of the Depression Trilogy, as "masterpieces". Caldwell concludes the review by stating, "... if you're coming new to him [Von Trier], I think this is a real crash course in all his preoccupations." "Nymphomaniac" is a slow paced pretentious arty farty 231 minutes film by Lars von Trier pushing for the liberation of the female sexuality via the life of a nymphomaniac played by Charlotte Gainsbourg who is no favourite of mine. It´s messy, the metaphors unbalanced, the use of "shock effects" is just so over the top, the dialogue is theatrical, the acting is pretty mediocre, the editing is so so and there´s not much to like in terms of characters. And the male gender is just seen as vile and dispicable. This is no masterpiece in my book compared to von Trier´s "Melancholia". I can´t really get the grip of this film, then again I simply didn´t like it.