MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Mathilde the Guild Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

BA_Harrison Nymph()maniac Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) continues to tell her soporific tale of sex addiction and S&M to asexual stranger Seligman (Stellan Skarsgård).I surely deserve some kind of medal for watching Nymph()maniac Volumes 1 and 2 back-to-back; either that or I need my head examining. Like the first film, this second volume is wall-to-wall pseudo-intellectual tripe with a little hardcore sex and some S&M to spice things up. Actually, scrap that… it's more like a hardcore sex and S&M movie with some pseudo-intellectual claptrap in an effort to validate it as a work of art and not just extremely bad porn.It's hard to say who or what I hated most about this film, since virtually every frame irked me, but if I had to choose it would be both Skarsgård and Gainsbourg, whose lifeless performances threaten to put the viewer into a coma, Jamie Bell's irritating turn as professional masochist K (I have hated almost everything I have seen him in) and Shia La Beouf as Jerome (I've hated almost everything I have seen him in too).Having now sat through three Lars Von Trier movies, the other being the barely watchable Antichrist, I can now say that I am officially done with this director.

dilemmamuptelasi I have given a 4 but only for the sake of some acting that I could stumble upon in the movie. Apart from me being very nice and generous it was a terrible movie, in fact. 1. Not only does he try to inject some "intellectual" lines within the script but he also mentions a few problems of philosophy of mathematics which are not taken seriously any more (e.g. Zeno's Paradox)2. Philosophical references are pretty naive and fail to draw attention from those who at least have read one or two pages from philosophy, logic or mathematics.3. Although its cinematography is very weak and restricted Lars von Trier did not hesitate to make such a long movie, apparently. 4. Relatively weak script and absolutely weak cinematography, obviously, is not the best combination to make a long movie; it is just making it dull, boring and almost pointless. 5. What is the premise anyway? ---spoiler--- Why did she kill him though he was merely jerking off and why on earth would a man say something like "oh you f*cked thousands of men, so what?" when a gun is pointed towards his freaking face? ---spoiler---6. Frankly, I would like to see more butts, tits and pussies in a movie named "Nymphomaniac". But no. All we see are damn ugly cocks.

Stephen Conway 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. This is not a film you can watch without having seen Volume one.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. Compared to volume one, the sex is much darker and delves into extreme BDSM. There are some very violent sex scenes, which nearly everyone would find deeply disturbing. However, more disturbing is the subject matter, much of which is not really explained, and pushes the story into strange unlit depths.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). Compared to Volume one, this is definitely the better film. More condensed pace and covers the material with less "pauses". Does the film challenge and make you think? Definitely, but it is not an easy experience, even more so than the first film. Plot wise the film does reach a rounded conclusion, but I am not sure the ending will be to everyone's taste either.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 violent 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.

mac-33983 Both films touch on a subject that most people will never likely encounter. It is a psychological/philosophical/sociological drama that requires and open mind and an understanding that goes beyond typical social expectations.The sex scenes are crude, but they are complementary to the subject matter. This is not a film about porn or sex, it is about a condition that most people will fail to understand.The film(s) are refreshing in the sense that they are not mainstream or Hollywood, they attempt to put into perspective many subjects which society prefers to ignore..Not for the faint of heart but definitely worth watching.