Nymphomaniac Volume 2 [Hindi](in Dubbed Hollywood Movies) Nymphomaniac Volume 2 [Hindi] (2013) - Download Movie for mobile in best quality 3gp and mp4 format. Also stream Nymphomaniac Volume 2 [Hindi] on your mobile, tablets and ipads
Plot: Joe continues to tell to Seligman the story of her life. Joe lives with Jerôme and their son Marcel and out of the blue, she loses sexual sensation in intercourse. Joe seeks kinky sex, perversions and sadomasochism expecting to retrieve her sex drive. Jerôme leaves home with Marcel and gives his… Runtime: 124 min Release Date: 25 Dec 2013
Portrait of a failed psychoanalysis (by FrostyChud)
NYMPHOMANIAC is the most exciting, intelligent film I have seen in a long time. The moment I saw Seligmann shuffle out of his apartment to Rammstein, I knew I was in the hands of a filmmaker I could trust. This scene was the first of many at which I found myself exulting inside. GO, LARS, GO! NYMPHOMANIAC is von Trier's F-14 and he takes it on bombing run after bombing run, destroying a different pious hypocrisy each time. The film is full of all sorts of audacious touches that no other filmmakers working today have the guts or brains to include in their boring, sentimental, ideological <more>
films. NYMPHOMANIAC is also very funny. What I liked best about NYMPHOMANIAC was its total refusal of the consolations of ideology. Sexuality is presented truthfully, which is to say, as something which simply cannot be integrated into the smooth social order without one or the other being damaged. No one in the movie has a "healthy" sexuality. In a certain sense, the nymphomaniac herself is the closest thing to a healthy person in that she refuses to adhere to any of the hypocritical moral orders represented by the other characters, from conformism to abstinence to impotent cognitive-behavioral therapy to S&M to crime and so on. She is a stain no matter where she goes and in this sense she incarnates the truth, which also has the status of a permanent stain. At the same time that von Trier does everything right, he gets everything wrong, but in the best possible way. NYMPHOMANIAC reminded me of the book that OJ Simpson wrote in which he describes how he would have killed Nicole and Ron "if he had done it". What OJ wrote is a confession in scare quotes, one in which every detail is present except the most important one, namely, the actual acknowledgment of guilt. NYMPHOMANIAC has the same structure, although instead of being the story of a murder, it is the story of a psychoanalysis. A troubled person on a bed is encouraged to speak to a learned, wise, benevolently neutral man who is sitting next to the bed. She is encouraged to tell her whole story. He will refuse judgment and simply listen. Over the course of a psychoanalysis, patterns and unlikely coincidences slowly take shape and are spotted by the analysand, who eventually comes to recognize them at their true value, namely as the traces of an emergent repressed discourse. Lars von Trier has brilliantly condensed and rendered this process by making Joe's story full of improbable coincidences. How much of this really happened and how much of it is a delusion? Could she really have run into Jerome so many times? Could she really have had a vision of the Whore of Babylon as a pubescent girl? Etc. The sex life of Joe starts and ends with the exact same scenario: 3+5 8. This circularity is also characteristic of the psychoanalytic process. An analysis reaches its conclusion when the analysand recognizes that she has done nothing but repeat, again and again, her own contingent, sexualized unconscious interpretation of a traumatic encounter. By superimposing this sum on the screen, von Trier condenses and renders visible the fundamentally signifying, even meaningless kernel of the compulsion to repeat trauma that Freud called the death drive. Joe's analysis comes to an end when she is able to witness how insubstantial and senseless her compulsion is. All tied up, right? And then Seligmann tries to have sex with Joe! At this moment everything crumbles. The moment he whips it out, Seligmann invalidates the nascent story that has begun to emerge from between the lines of her official story. The fragile consistency of this new liberating interpretation of Joe's story is entirely dependent on Joe's confidence in Seligmann's ability to see clearly where she can only dimly intuit. His actions prove to her retroactively that he heard nothing but her symptomatic demand to be used, and in so doing he symbolically annuls her true desire.Such an ending is a logical necessity in that Seligmann's "asexuality" is completely hypocritical, as is Joe's decision to renounce her sexuality. Here we see why a psychoanalyst must go through analysis himself: if he does not, he can only validate the patient's resistances. Since Seligmann has not integrated his own sexual drives, he is incapable of leading Joe to such an integration. All he can do is lead Joe to his own failed neurotic solution: a refusal of sexuality. But Joe incarnates the intractable stain of truth, which is also the stain of sexuality, and as such she necessarily explodes Seligmann's hypocrisy.It all holds together. Where von Trier gets it all wrong is in his implicit condemnation of psychoanalysis. Here von Trier is properly perverse. His entire movie is a truthful "confession" and then, like OJ, he winks and tells us that it was all hypothetical. This last act of resistance invalidates everything that came before it, conveniently rendering the exercise sterile and allowing Joe/von Trier to continue ignoring the truth and enjoying their symptoms. In Joe's case, the symptom is nymphomania. In von Trier's case, the symptom is his gratuitous melancholia, his nihilism. Were he to take the quotation marks off of his confession, he would risk facing the consequences of his act, namely freedom with all of its attendant complications and miseries. Lars walks us right up to the edge and then fails to take the last decisive step. I do not think that this failure takes anything away from the film. On the contrary, this final gesture transforms the film from a poignant depiction of psychological suffering into a meta-depiction of the attachment to this suffering. This is even a necessity, inasmuch as psychological suffering itself always has, by its very nature, such a double structure.
Faboulous movie which requires adult audience in order to appreciate (by simon_vandyck)
The movie is great and Lars Von Trier is able to draw your attention to underlying psychological mechanisms of the human mind using explicit imagery. If you fully understand the movie, the explicit images won't even bother or excite you at all. If your conclusion of this movie is that it is a dirty pornographic documentary, i recommend you to watch a Disney movie instead. Indeed it takes some intelligence to understand that Lars Von Trier is talking about life and the daily struggles that we face. It can be seen that first of all sexuality is the strongest force in the human body, and <more>
nobody can deny this. Second of all everybody has some degree of 'perversion' inside them. It is then the 'art' of suppressing these 'perversions' in order to function in society. The movie is a very deep psychoanalysis of the most basic and strongest feeling in the human nature. If you want to understand your sexuality I would highly recommend watching Nymphomaniac. Superficially, if you get shocked by explicit images i recommend you go watch a well-behaved Disney movie with a happy end and morale, so your brain does not have to dig too deep.
All the one star reviews on this website that are calling the film a "porn documentary" are obviously written by a group of religious nuts offended by intellectualism and sexuality. Ignore them.Von Trier has crafted what may be his magnum opus. He goes further into his often explored themes of suffering, femininity and the breaking of social norms. Indeed, this may be one of the most intense inquisitions into the female mind ever put to film. And it has a refreshingly feminist, sex positive tonal undercurrent. The drama really gets going in the second volume which I enjoyed much <more>
more than the first. Incredible acting from all involved but Jamie Bell, Charlotte Gainsbourg and Uma Thurman especially. For anyone cultured there is nothing outrageous or controversial here, just a solid thought provoking film from a master of the art form.
Everything is explicit, even the meaning if you pay attention (by anaclaudia-7)
I'm thinking about buying a new dictionary so I can express myself correctly because I left the movies basically without expression on my face. Still can't find the exact word to describe it but I'll do my best.In 'Nymphomaniac Vol. I' we enter in Joe's life to discover how is really to be a sex addicted and living with that - since the very beginning: her childhood problems, her lack of motherly love, her infinite connection with her purist father, her first perverse tendencies and believe me this movie is so rich of great images and performances that I used to think <more>
impossible to reach . After 5 chapters of explanation I wondered what could happen in volume II...The answer is, basically, everything.'Nymphomaniac Volume II' is priceless, superb, in its own way so madly profound that you can't get one single word to describe it perfectly.The again reference to the '3+5' already seen in the first volume is like a code to understand all of the movie's essence! Those numbers will always be an association to the first time Joe got intercourses, with Jerôme, to her deep pain and unbelievable disappointment to the succeed. She tries to avoid that sequence of numbers but she has no option but living it once again, this time just watching it happen in front of her eyes, by Jerôme, after being beaten by him.'8' can't be considered just the sum of 3 with 5. '8' is the key. The key to the meaning and purpose of this all Lars Von Trier's story and the key to the beauty itself. '8' is an infinite symbol, turned 90 degrees something that makes perfect sense when Seligman refers that everything we know - thanks to our daily routine - fastly becomes common and hides its truly meaning - to reveal it, we need to see it from another perspective - that's why when you rotate that '8' you can see a reference to Joe's infinite desire to be accomplished and satisfied sexually.Despite my long explanation I feel I cannot find enough words/expressions to describe 'Nymphomaniac' as it needs. Such beauty should be just seen and absorbed.Charlotte Gainsbourg is a real woman. Her performance is stunning! I really enjoyed all the nasty moves of Stacy Martin but let's be honest: is easier for a young girl to accept and do a roll based on sex than for a woman who probably has kids in real life to do scenes like the one she is shared by two black-guys at some cheap motel room, just to experiment a new sexual sensation. All of it requires a lot of matureness and dedication but specially an open-mind that the majority of the adult actresses doesn't have.Willem Dafoe shows himself to the world for a few minutes as a badass guy - you see... this one is one of those rare actors that every time he appears on the big screen everyone around you notice it.With a great pity, Uma Thurman doesn't appear in this volume to fulfill my most depressive desires on a roll.'Nymphomaniac' is probably one of the most complete masterpieces I've seen lately - has passion, has pain, has emotion, has fierce, has no shame talking about sex.The violence showned will probably move the most sensitive ones. It really bothers me that people feel more uncomfortable facing a movie about sex than a movie about explicit domestic-violence. For all the haters.... this one has BOTH ;
A magnificent film which takes its subject matter very seriously (by thao)
This review is for both parts.One gets the feeling that Trier is out to make the definitive sex drama, and maybe even his own magnum opus. In it he touches on almost every form of sexual desires and deviations, and does so in an honest and explicit way. A lot of these themes are investigated in the light of religion and psychology with refreshing and provocative ideas thrown into the mix. This is a huge film. Not only because it is long but also because it tackles a huge subject and takes its time to investigate each one of them.I saw the 4 hour short version of the films it is actually two <more>
films, each with end credits and separate names and even though 4 hours is more than enough time for most films it never felt too long. If anything I felt that the 2nd film could have used more time to develop relationships. It felt a little rushed. So I'm quite sure that the film needs the extra 1 and 1/2 hour we get with the directors cut. The films open with a text saying that this is a "censored" and shortened version of Trier's film, made with his consent but not with his involvement. I believe Trier has not even seen these versions. You can tell that they have been censored. Even though you see genitals in close up they usually cut to faces during intercourse. There are some explicit oral sex scenes for both men and women and men are shown getting aroused. So the film does push the envelope but not as much as some had expected. It has been hard getting the film shown in some countries so maybe censoring was the right move. Otherwise it might have gone straight to DVD and Blu Ray. So is it porn? It has scenes that could have been lifted from a porn film but the focus is never on sexual scenes to get the audience aroused, but rather on the story, so I don't agree with those who call this film porn. The sex scenes serve the story perfectly unlike in porn films where the story serves the sex scenes.There are a lot of references to Antichrist here. It has the two main actors in the film. Joe Charlotte Gainsbourg believes she is evil and refers to many religious ideas and imagery to support it the dangerous evil woman and there is even a scene from Antichrist with the same music. These films are also an homage to Tarkovsky like Antichrist was . The first film opens with a borrowed shot from Solaris maybe because this is going to be the same kind of inner journey . The 2nd part opens with a levitation scene, not unlike the one we see in The Mirror and one of the chapters in the film is even called The Mirror.I loved the use of music in the film. We get everything from heavy metal to Talking Heads to Bach, with often detailed information about these music masterpieces. It kind of reminded me of the way Lynch uses music in Lost Highway. One can even say that the opening is a homage to that film where the camera goes into darkness and comes out again .It goes without saying that the main theme of the film is sex but it is far from being the only theme. There is a lot of religious and psychological themes throughout the film, and the film takes its time to explain art, fly fishing and what not.I know I have not said anything about the story. I think it is best to go in not knowing. Let's just say that this is an odyssey of a Nympomaniac and she goes to a lot of places on her journey from a 7 year old to a grown up woman there are 3 actresses that play her throughout these stages of her life .As always in a Trier film, the film is extremely well acted. It is often self conscious, both in its style and acting. Trier even writes on the film, both numbers and words, and one of the characters in the film explains historical facts to Charlotte Gainsbourg but Trier never hides the fact that these explanations are really there for the audience and maybe even more so for himself as a narrative way into the story.SPOILERS! Regarding the end of the film. Some might take it as a silly, almost Twilight Zone way of ending the film. I think it fits well with the previous Freud themes discussed. Freud said that suppressing sexual desires the ID was unhealthy, and would lead to psychological problems in the end. So the end could be tied into that. But it could also be seen as a confirmation of what Charlotte Gainsbourg's character said all along. She was evil ala Antichrist , but the man did not takes her warnings seriously and payed the price for that. Maybe I'm just trying to explain away the strangeness of the ending, because it does feel strange. END OF SPOILERS.I think this is a magnificent film which takes its subject matter very seriously. It is among Trier's best films and it might even be his magnum opus in the uncut version. It is beautiful to look at and definitely a film you want to see at the cinema, even in its shorter version.
A Potpourri of Vestiges Review: Danish filmmaker Lars von Trier's daring treatise on lust, jealousy and solitude (by murtaza_mma)
Nymphomaniac Vol. 2 is a 2013 Danish drama film written and directed by Lars von Trier. Before going any further it's imperative to demystify the movie's title. According to the dictionary definition, "Nymphomania is the uncontrollable or excessive sexual desire in a woman." So, basically, a nymphomaniac is a woman who has abnormally excessive and uncontrollable sexual desire, in other words, a female sex addict. Nymphomaniac got released internationally in form of two separate volumes of roughly two hours each. However, Lars von Trier also premiered an extended cut of the <more>
first half of the film, Nymphomaniac: Vol. 1, with 30 minutes of extra footage at the 64th Berlin Film Festival, which garnered rave reviews. This film critique doesn't analyze the two volumes separately but as a whole.Lars von Trier's Nymphomaniac—a bold and daring cinematic treatise on lust, jealousy and solitude—proves to be a devastating life-changing experience that makes us question the nothingness of our existence. As a work of art, it refines ours senses and haunts our imagination with its ribald motifs and breathtaking imagery. In Nymphomaniac, Lars von Trier essentially presents, in form of eight sprawling chapters 5 in Vol. 1 and 3 in Vol. 2 , the bizarre tale of a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac, named Joe, recounting her erotic experiences during the different phases of her life. Lars von Trier borrows random ideas from varied disciplines and blends them seamlessly, not only demonstrating his remarkable range as an artist but also reasserting his credentials as a filmmaker par excellence.Lars von Trier, in his characteristic style, handpicks a rather controversial subject and then gives it the most unconventional treatment. The result is an end product that's dark, diabolical, and deviously clever. The movie despite its serious outlook has an undercurrent of dark humour that harks back to von Trier's earlier works. Nymphomaniac: Vol. I, which presents Joe's younger years, unfolds at a whirlwind pace and seems to underline the unrestrained joys of female libertinism. It's a sheer delight to watch a newcomer Stacy Martin portray Joe's youthful years so passionately and with an air of effortless ease. Nymphomaniac: Vol. II, which has a rather somber feel thanks to a drastic tonal shift with respect to Vol. I, shows the middle-aged Joe played by Charlotte Gainsbourg finally come to term with the limitations, hardships and hypocrisies of a mortal's life as she ends up paying the price for her frenzied modus vivendi.Nymphomaniac is easily Lars von Trier's most accessible work till date. But, make no mistake! It's not your run-of-the-mill cinematic product. Is it pornography? According to Wikipedia, "Pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purpose of sexual arousal." Now, there's no denying that von Trier's film is quite explicit in its propagation of sexual content. But, does it serve the purpose of sexual arousal? The film evokes pathos, horror and revulsion but not an iota of sexual gratification unless you are a pervert . Credit must go to Lars von Trier for concocting a film that in less accomplished hands could have slumped into the realm of artsy porn.In Nymphomaniac. for some uncanny reasons, Lars von Trier chooses to make his male characters either dumb or effeminate and the female characters smart and transgressing. Lars von Trier questions the elevated status of love vis-à-vis other human emotions. Lars von Trier creates a very interesting character in Seligman Stellan Skarsgård —an intellectual who chooses to stay a virgin all his life. According to Seligman, humanity is divided into two groups: the people who cut the fingernails of the left hand first the light-hearted people who have a tendency to enjoy life more because they go straight for the easiest task and save the difficulties for later , and the people who cut the fingernails of the right hand first. Seligman himself belongs to second category as oppose to Joe who being a true pleasure-seeker falls in the first category. While Seligman and Joe come across as exact antithesis of each other, there's much in common between the two of them. The two are tied together by some strange bond. Is it pity or envy? In the end, Nymphomaniac poses the all-important question: Whether to express oneself or to keep oneself restrained?Overall, Nymphomaniac proves to be an endlessly fascinating work of cinema that brilliantly balances style with substance. At the same time, it's not an easy film to watch by any stretch of imagination and can pose serious impediments to the uninitiated viewer. Nymphomaniac features a lot many memorable sequences. The one featuring Uma Thurman in the role of a distressed wife is definitely a cut above the rest. Then there's the movie's shocking finale that's bound to leave the viewer cold. Amidst a plethora of disturbing scenes the movie does offer few moments of respite thanks to the occasional bursts of humor. Joe's messed-up erotic encounter with two black men inside a hotel room is by far the most hilarious. The movie also features a levitation sequence that's highly reminiscent of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1975 film, The Mirror aka Zerkalo the seventh chapter of Nymphomaniac is also named as "The Mirror" . Lars von Trier also pays tribute to Bond films. Joe's morbid sexual behavior and the underlying sexual fetishism remind one of Bunuel's remarkable 1967 film, Belle de Jour. In one of the scenes, Lars von Trier cheekily pays homage to the opening sequence of Antichrist. Nymphomaniac, in so many ways, is Lars von Trier's tribute to cinema, a solemn expression of his love and appreciation for the medium. In Nymphomaniac, Lars von Trier seems to have blatantly depicted almost all forms of human sexuality which makes Nymphomaniac a very challenging film to watch for an average viewer. But, courage and patience have their own rewards, and in this case, plenty.Rating Vol. 1 & 2 : 8.5/10A more in-depth review of the film can be read at:http://www.apotpourriofvestiges.com/
A powerful take on traditional sexual (by funkkysoul2002)
Nymphomaniac is a film not easily stomached by most individuals as are most of Lars von Trier's films but once one has digested the visual hedonism of its being, then comes the actual dialogue that was unique to this film which added the distinct and flavorful aftertaste... and boy does it linger.The attributes that the general population will view as 'pornography' is the actual gritty realism of the Joe's life - nymphomania. If one has any sympathy for a type of disease or an insatiable need an addiction , they will come to understand that this movie seems to explore <more>
addiction from the perspective of each character. The addictions that shape life as well as the absence of these needs entirely as one character seems to demonstrate - the question that remains in the end is that how far can one woman allowed to take her needs in a male dominated society? Each character has their own value in the nymphomaniac's life and changes and shapes her personality to what it becomes in the end. I urge you all before writing distasteful reviews that fuel only some type of parental guidance this is not a movie for kids obviously or claiming that this film is porn, to actually take the time to see a deeper meaning within the characters and their dialogue even though it is overshadowed with quite a bit of sex...
Seeing as there are two parts to one story, I will be reviewing both here. I see no point in writing them separately. I'm not the biggest fan of Lars Von Trier, usually the cinematography really keeps me interested, but then in retrospect especially after revisiting his movies on the small screen I tend to care less for them.I have to say this is the best movie s I've seen of him so far.The creativity and quirkiness of the first movie, along with the great imagery, was for me the best part. My biggest problem was with the protagonist, she really irked me to no end. Both the <more>
rudeness of current-day Joe as the apathy and the incapability to communicate of teenage/twenties Joe really bothered me to no end. The saving factor for me in the first movie was in the last scene, where she loses her capability of achieving orgasm. It made up for the entire movie as far as I'm concerned. Her life events weren't really that interesting, and her motivation wasn't all too clear. I thought the connection with her father was convincing and well done, but not much more has stuck with me from the first film. Seligman, meanwhile, tells allegorical anecdotes that connect to her life events. I thought this was really nice. Much as the last scene saves the first film, the last scene in the second film wrecked it, for me. This doesn't imply that I thought that the film was bad, however.The second film shows more of the monogamous relationship of Joe, and how this fails to satisfy her. Her man Shia Leboeuf, who, incidentally, also deflowered her when they were teens realizes she is unhappy and tells her it's OK for her to go out and seek additional satisfaction outside of her sex life. She does so, and in the process gets on more and more experimental and masochistic territory. Push comes to shove and her man forces her to choose between her family and her obsession, and she chooses the latter. Time goes on and she becomes involved in the business of debt claiming, since she knows a lot about men's weaknesses. The transgression of the character into a criminal setting isn't really explained, and handled a bit clumsily. You could argue that it's of no importance, and you'd be right. It wasn't too bothersome. She is inspired by Willem Dafoe to manipulate a young girl into working for her by gaining her trust and filling a void her absent parents left. This works, and they have a sort of romance. A day comes when Joe has to collect debt from her ex, and she lets her protégée take care of it, pleading her not to damage anything nor hurt him. After his last payment takes place her protégée doesn't come back home, she goes to her ex's house and sees them making out. She is very hurt and decides to wait in an alley and tries to shoot him in the head. She subconsciously blocks herself from doing so as she didn't cock the gun before pulling the trigger. They beat her up and humiliate her, and this is the setting where Seligman finds Joe.During the course of this film I got a lot more feeling for the character, an understanding surges that she is merely a victim of her condition, just as anyone else. Finally ! I felt very sympathetic towards her. She says that telling the story has been very cathartic to her and she resolves to fight her obsession with every fiber in her being, so she can live free. I thoroughly enjoyed her revelation. She goes on to express her relief for being incapable of the act of murder, as this would've chained her for life. I agree.The last minute which puts everything Topsy-turvy is when she finally goes to sleep, hopeful for the future. Seligman wishing her good night and leaving. Except, he doesn't. He reappears without pants and tries to penetrate her. She is shocked and outraged and he is confused because "she's slept with thousands of men". She cocks the gun, shoots him, and leaves.This was somewhat nauseating for me. Seligman effectively undoes all of the progress made during the films, and seals both their fates. Mind you, it is an acceptable ending to me, it didn't feel forced or out of the character's personality. It's been determined during the entire film that he's capable of cool rationalization because he considers himself asexual; he's effectively a virgin. He plays very well, he's a pudgy man-child, resembling a Russian toddler, a figurehead of impotence. During the films it crossed my mind that he might want to take advantage of such an opportunity. And he does. And he does it clumsily, as his character would have. And he doesn't realize the destruction it brings with it, as his character wouldn't. It works, I really think it does. But it just made me sad, I wish it hadn't happened. But to feel for the characters is just a sign that the movie is good.Further: It is a bit difficult to place this film within this reality as a lot of the events are a bit on the absurd side. For example: the man who beats up women who voluntarily come to him; or the two African men who want to double team the protagonist and aren't bothered when she suddenly leaves. Something that struck me as odd is the age progression of the protagonist and her romantic interest. First you get the progression of twenty something Joe into full blown Charlotte Gainsbourg Joe. This is fine, but her man is still Shia Leboeuf. When more time progresses, also Shia Leboeuf is replaced. It's a bit awkward, but not painful.
After watching Volume I, I decided to continue on to Volume II. One of the major differences is that Volume I is acted out by Young Joe Stacy Martin while Volume II is older Joe Charlotte Gainsbourgh . I found Charlottes performance to be more believable of someone who is a nymphomaniac, which propelled the story to much greater heights than in Volume I. Another comparison of the two is the tone and pacing. Volume I seemed much longer because there is much more symbolism to music, nature, and mathematics brought up by Seligman Stellan Skarsgaard when Joe is explaining her childhood and <more>
past affairs. Von Trier takes a lot of time in the first half to make random connections to Joe's experiences, some for comedic effect and others that try to connect sexual prowess with nature. For example when Joe loses her virginity the first time to Jerome Shia Labeouf . Seligman refers to it as the Fibinachi Sequence when Joe explains that Jerome penetrated her 3 times in the vagina and 5 times anally which equals 8. I know, I couldn't believe they tried to even make this connection the first time I saw it as well. A better example is how Seligman connects fly fishing to Joe and B's escapades on the train. The connection of reeling in the perfect catch men , and how its illustrated in the film by Joe and B scouring the different train compartments, going from men who are less reserved to men that are more choosy when it comes to who they sleep with. There are a few other instances like this in Volume I, which is why the pacing is much slower and the tone is bleak. Another reason the pacing is slower is because Volume I spends much more time on introducing the characters that shapes Joe's experiences such as Joes Father Christian Slater, M Uma Thurman, Jerome, B Sophia Kennedy Clark , and Seligman. The pacing and tone of Volume II is much different because it jumps right into the thick of Joe's darkest experiences being a Nymphomaniac. From the very start of Volume II, we the audience are shown that Joe can no longer feel pleasure from sex. Like a drug someone abuses, Joe's tolerance is so high that she has to resort to cheating, threesome, and fetishes in order to feel pleasure herself, this includes being whipped by a man who has no sympathy for how she feels on the inside. He full on punches her in the face and even calls her "Fido" . We are shown the gravity of Joe's decisions and who they affect, 1. Marcel, Joe and Jerome's baby almost falls off the balcony unattended because Joe is waiting for her fetish appointment. 2. Jerome ends up taking Marcel and leaves Joe. 3. Jerome can't raise Marcel on his own and ends up leaving him in foster care. The Pedophilia Scene definitely stuck in my head as the most disturbing of the film though. The reason i choose to discuss this scene is because it shows us the severity of Joe's addiction and you will know what I mean when you see it for yourself. Each character that Joe interacts with in Volume II whether its K the guy who whips and beats her for pleasure, L Willem Dafoe ~ the man who proposes that Joe run her own loan sharking business by using her own means of sexual persuasion, and P Mia Goth ~ the girl that Joe takes under her wing. all enable Joe in some way to go further down the rabbit hole. Basically all the scenes in Volume II are either disturbing or violent in someway compared to Volume I, which is why the tone and pacing is much different between the two. Violence- 3/5- the scenes were Joe is getting beaten and whipped by K for fetish, we see parts of her body bruised and bloody. When she is beaten to the curb, Joe has blood all over her face. And at the end although we don't see it, it is implied and heard that Joe kills Seligman after he tries to sleep with her. Unbelievable scene Language-3/5- A good amount of "F" Bombs, few instances of C***, Sh**, Bi***..etcSexuality- 5/5- Altogether I would say out of the 4 hour film there is an hour that have scenes or shots of fetish, penetration, fellatio, pedophilia, full frontal nudity. Some are shot far away/ Some are up close.Adult Situations- 5/5- This film deals with someone who is a Nymphomaniac, her experiences are disturbing and brutal because many times throughout the film she is chasing a high that becomes harder and harder to get as her tolerance for it increases. The film shows the destructive sides of being a Nymphomaniac especially as a woman such as abuse, womanizing, adultery, pedophilia, adoption, putting your addiction above your family and health. *Joe has a good relationship with her father, but not with her mother. Ex. When Joes Father Christian Slater is on his deathbed, only Joe comes to visit. Joe has resentment towards her mother for not coming to see her dying husband. *There is a scene depicting the consequences of Adultery where M Uma Thurman confronts Joe and her ex-husband by bringing the children to Joe's apartment. The situation is tense and heartbreaking, as M finds out that Joe doesn't even love M's husband who has just left her and the children. *The scene where Joe is punched in the face a few times by K may also be quite disturbing. *The scene where Joe's plan of trying to kill P's boyfriend fails as the gun is botched, ends up getting beaten to the ground. *The scene at the end of the film may disturb some viewers as well, when Seligman who is asexual,tries to force himself into Joe when she is sleeping. Overall a pretty interesting film, I give it an 8/10 for good acting, great storytelling, and imagery.