Ironic about the rating...
The rating is 7.0 out of 10. I guarantee most who don't like this move are Americans who think sex is an evil thing.
Makes me laugh, and yeah I am American.
The rating should be 1.0 out of 10.I hate this movie because it's cheap porn masqueraded as art.
And no,I'm not American and I don't think that sex is an evil thing.
Porn is supposed to be sexy and arousing. What the hell in any of Lars von Trier's films has EVER been construed as sexy?
shareSigh.
Porn is defined by content, not by intent. If it was defined by intent, then a plethora of ads would be porn due to their intent to sexually arouse. Porn, on the other hand, is defined by its content which primarily includes explicit sexual content; having said that, this movie is porn because it contains explicit oral, vaginal and anal sex.
That is such a load of crap.
Wikipedia defines pornography as
the portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal.
So I pose the question again: what in all five and a half hours of this was supposed to be arousing for the audience?
For that matter, what was supposed to be sexy in "The Idiots" or "Antichrist"? Unlike "Fifty Shades of Grey", "Nymph()maniac" and all of von Trier's earlier films that portray sexuality in a rather direct way aren't pornographic. People only label them pornographic as a way to oversimplify what he's trying to say in those specific films. Or do you get off on watching Charlotte Gainsbourg getting the Lupita N'yongo treatment for her enjoyment? share
So I pose the question again: what in all five and a half hours of this was supposed to be arousing for the audience?
So, explicit scenes of oral, vaginal and anal sex aren't arousing nor do they belong to the realm of pornograhy!? Jesus Christ, what a moron.
And I'm not talking about The Idiots and Antichrist, I'm talking about this particular film, Nymphomaniac; no matter how delicately explicit sexuality is being portrayed, it's still pornography. Only avant-garde idiots who think that they can create art by deviating and distorting think otherwise.
share
Get the hell off your high horse.
In this movie, hell no, they're not arousing. In fact, I challenge you to find someone who found this movie arousing in any way, shape or form when it came to the sexuality in the film because it is HIDEOUS, just as it was in the previously aforementioned movies, where it was just as explicit.
Also, do not call me a moron just because we don't see eye to eye on a movie because you can only look at the surface of what is being said in terms of sexuality and not the subtext. It is all about context. Porn is meant to arouse. So, again, unless you find Charlotte Gainsbourg shoving a wire hanger up her twat to fish for fetus arousing, take your uninformed opinions and peddle them to someone who gives a s * * t.
Snuff movies are also HIDEOUS, yet there are people who JERK OFF to that stuff, dunce.
And if you don't wanna be called a moron, then stop acting like a moron.
I agree with you Patrick_Bateman.
shareYou say the movie should be rated 1 out of 10 and your only justification is that its porn. Have you considered the film on the merits of the acting, the directing, or the story? Did you simply dismiss it because of the sex? I will grant you that the sex and nudity were a bit overdone, but we are talking about a Von Trier film about a nymphomaniac. Your complaint is akin to watching a Tarantino film and complaining about how violent it is. I guess that makes it violent porn. How could you have not expected it to be gratuitous? Sounds to me like all you saw was the sex. You missed some mighty fine acting performances and a story that is both compelling and raw.
I gave it a 6 mostly because I think there was some lost opportunities in the film to develop the story of Joe and her parents. We become adults because of the adults in our lives. I never quite got the correlation between Joe's childhood and her later sexual development. Her mom was standoffish and aloof, but why? The acting was first rate with Uma Thurman and Stacy Martin standing out for me. Thurman's scene confronting her husband is still haunting me a day later. It was epic. I think Connie Nielsen and Stellan Skarsgard were wasted and that is another reason I didn't rate it higher. They are fine actors and their roles were very limited.
I respect your opinion and understand completely why you think its porn. I just think if you could have gotten past the overt nature of the sex and focused more on the story, you would have enjoyed it more. You should consider watching the R version and see if your opinion changes.
My memory foam pillow says it can't remember my face. I can tell its lying.
Oh, come on, dude! Even porn movies have some sort of plot/story/dialogue, yet that doesn't conceal the fact that they're porn. Plain and simple. Don't fall for the crap that those untalented, wannabe directors of Trier's ilk try to sugar-coat as art.
share.....untalented, wannabe directors of Trier's ilk? sugar-coat as art? Have we seen the same movie (did you actually see the movie ?).........
If we talk about sugar-coating (life as art) i expect something like Mary Poppins and Sound of Music (both movies i like quite a lot)......but yes those are sugar......
If Lars von Trier wanted to make a porn movie......he would have....hold it, wait, he's already produced some ......but Nymphomaniac is not (the) one......
Anyway what i would advice you though is to stop watching things you apparently have no taste for and condemning them on that ground. Other people do appreciate this movie (and Lars' other movies) and quite enjoy them. Criticism is so much better if it's done in a positive way. You don't like to see (other people's ) genitalia? Watch some other movies, but don't go bad mouthing something that is not to your taste only because of your taste........(i'd suggest skipping the Louvre and all big art museums too....)
Tastes differ, and yours is certainly not the only (self -righteous) one.
Apart from that, having tried my hands at making some movies......i can safely say that it takes a lot of talent to make one, talent from a big group of people. Lars von Trier has certainly earned his place in cinema history, multiple times over. (and that is not (only) MY opinion, but one that is shared by a lot of movie lovers.
I agree. If you have such an obvious problem with sex maybe a movie named 'Nymphomanic' is NOT the movie to watch. Unless...you just want to bitch about the sexual content. I hear people get off on that.
This movie had so much to offer in terms of the psychology of sex and relationships. It also had some very good performances. I look forward to watching volume 2.
Do not seek pleasure everywhere but be always ready to find it. - John Ruskin
I agree. One of the WORST movies I have ever seen. I love movies, I love sex, I love movies with sex. This movie was AWFUL. No plot. It was just weird. Does she actually have sex with her Dad in this movie too? Or am I confused.
share