I've only seen part one and there are one or two interesting scenes...neither of them have sex in them. This reminds me of those plainly slow "art" movies that came out of Scandanavia decades ago. And by "art" I mean a chance to see some ass while not feeling like you're watching porn. I lasted till Uma Therim scene then fell asleep.
If part two improves, let me know and I'll check it out.
That's supposed to be "the joke." The sex is presented as coldly as it was in "Shame", more so here because of who's directing. You see A LOT more in the Director's Cut but it's as cold.
Besides, the movie isn't explicitly meant to be about the sex but how Joe's life is built and unbuilt (not 100% sure if that's an actual word or not) around her decisions, which primarily happen to be sexual.
Yup.agree with above it is by no means an erotic film.
"Oh, Mama, can this really be the end, to be stuck inside of mobile
with the memphis blues again"
You missed the very obvious point of the movie - the sex is not supposed to be erotic. This woman is destroying her life and the lives of others with her actions. You are not supposed to be turned on by this.
shareNot supposed to be erotic. If you are looking for erotic you are in the wrong section. You need to be in the XXX section.
I thought everyone knew this?
My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings
Half of the critics accuse this movie of being "porn" and the other half complain that it's "un-erotic". So do you really think a filmmaker of Von Trier's talent (even if you consider him overrated) couldn't successfully make a porno IF that were what he was really trying to do? This is a film about sex, but that doesn't mean it has to be "erotic" (although I found the train scene and the sex montage with Staci Martin at the end pretty erotic). The sex is a somewhat destructive force, but this isn't a cautionary Lifetime "problem" movie about a "sex addict" either. It's ultimately not even about sex really. I think these two films are a lot more METAPHORIC than people think.
As for the Scandinavian "art" films, a lot of people have connected this to the 1970's Christine Lindberg film "Anita", which was one of Stellan Skarsgaard's first movies. I'm SURE Von Trier is absolutely aware of this connection. At the time that film was an alternative to hardcore porno, but even today it is a much more interesting film than a typical XXX porno, even if it is much less sophisticated than these Von Trier's films. It's a stereotype that people watch these "art films" because they're "ashamed" to watch an actual porno. Some of us just find XXX porno fricking boring and poorly made and can't handle more than 15 minutes of one. There is NOTHING more boring than porn in my opinion--"shame" has nothing to do with it.
And if you really do just want to "see some ass", Staci Martin has a very nice one. So does Mia Goth in Part 2. And though she's middle-age now and has her father's unusual (some would say ugly) face, Charlotte Gainsbourg has always had the nice body of her mother (Jane Birkin). But if this is too boring and you prefer a porno (or "Transformers 4"), you can always watch one instead.
i don't know about you but i did not find it boring. also, it should be obvious but the movie is NOT meant to turn you on.
The only movies of 2014 i gave a 7/10 or higher to are...
1.Men, Women & Children - 7.5-8/10
2.Nymphomaniac Vol 1 - 7/10
-.Nymphomaniac Vol 2
4.Locke
5.Edge of Tomorrow
6.The Rover
p.s. i have seen 79 2014 released movies. i have seen all of those movies twice so far so i know they hold up on a re-watch with nearly all of them being very recent re-watches.
----------
My Top 100-ish Movies of All-Time! = http://goo.gl/EYFYdz
----------