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 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...

After having enjoyed the superb first part of 'Nymphomaniac', I felt a little bit disappointed by the second part of this film. It is less imaginative, less playful and less exuberant.

What's missing most is the interaction between the two lead characters: sex addict Joe and her asexual rescuer Seligman. In the first part, their conversation was like ping pong: they exchanged stories and experiences - hers of a sexual nature, his about all kinds of things. The links and similarities between their seemingly different lives made the film so original and attractive.

In the second part however, it's mostly Joe who tells the stories. Seligman is reduced to a minor part, that of the patient listener. Only at a few occasions he really contributes something to the conversation, but after one of his stories, Joe remarks: 'I think this is one of your weakest digressions'. After that, he lets her do the talking.

Even more than in the first part, Von Trier explores all kinds of (sexual) taboos. There's paedophilia (on which Joe has rather original but very wise views), interracial sex, sado-masochism, and all kinds of humiliation. In between, Von Trier also gives us his unorthodox thoughts on motherhood and feminism.

At several occasions, it's clear how we hear Von Trier speak through the words of his protagonist. There's a nice exchange of arguments about political correctness between Joe and Seligman. He thinks the word Negro shouldn't be used, out of respect for a part of society. She thinks that not allowing the use of certain words, is equal to forbidding certain thoughts. Political correctness is hypocrisy, she thinks. Coming from a man like Von Trier, who has committed his life to the combat against political correctness, this is a clear statement. The same goes for the scene where Joe, after having decided to attend a self help group for sex addicts, accuses the group leader of being a member of some sort of obscenity police. This is a clear message to all narrow-minded people who described 'Nymphomaniac' as porn, before having seen one second of it.

Because Von Trier so clearly has no respect for what society considers decent or proper, I was amazed by Seligmans feminist speech at the end of the film. He comforts Joe by pointing out that her behaviour as a nymphomaniac would probably be applauded if she had been a man. That a woman cannot dedicate her life to limitless sex, is proof of society's double standards. Of course this is true, but it sounds strange after so much scenes in which women are being degraded.

After having seen Nymphomaniac part 1 and part 2, I am really curious about the director's cut. Is it just more explicit sex? I hope not, because showing genitals is clearly not what makes this film great. It's everything else that should make you want to go and see it.

Well, definitely something that would warrant conversation vs what was shown and the questions and themes that it brought up.

Von Trier creates many interesting scenarios but he's given free reign, which I don't think at times services the audience or even his "vision" very well.

Didn't need to be as graphic as it was. Came off as cheap and pandering. For instance, Antichrist was graphic and it served the movie well.

The sequence with the black brothers was kind of racist.

As a character, Gainsbourg wasn't very interesting, especially the young version. SUDDENLY she's a master of male behavior for the final long act. None of that was clear, early on. By and large, I saw an empty addict for most of it.

Dafoe recruiting her for her "skills" was a stretch. But after that, it was interesting. Then the long game of having a "heir" was intriguing but was also a stretch at the same time.

Gainsbourg's character going into the sex business was never considered, which I found highly unlikely.

The abortion scene was horrid, along with what she did to herself in the long run.

I was expecting her father (Slater) to be a molester, which didn't happen. At least it would've made sense vs her behavior. But yes, it would also have been cliché.

Thoughout, Skarsgård being a surprise bad guy was in my head based on the surroundings of that dreary apartment. But his mannerisms didn't foreshadow that. So when that turned out to be the case, I was disappointed, as nothing else said such. Which made me think that the character was Von Trier's likely perversions and him condemning himself for it. Her shooting him was a big jump, too.

Von Trier is a smart guy and creative, too. But he's not equipped to manage that into effective filmmaking, at times.