I am a college student who has some free time, and an insatiable, ravenous obsession with film. I have a wide variety of tastes and I try for quality films, but I almost never say Not Interested. I love mind bending films, screwball comedies from the 30's and 40's, romantic comedies, classic and low budget horror, coming of age films, silent slapstick, feel good, and generally 70's cinema.
I rate films with a mixture of "What the film is" versus how much I enjoyed it. Below is my rating system.
4: It was enjoyable.
3-3.5: Had flaws, but still slightly enjoyable.
2-2.5: Severly lacking.
0-1.5: Worse than a bowel movement made of starving piranhas.
I say yes to friend requests if you have your profile filled out. If you really love cinema and are here for that purpose, you should have reviews, ratings, etc. As a young woman I hold the right to not be randomly sent dick pictures and messages detailing your urges. Keep it in your pants; this is the internet, not the couch in your cousin Rick's basement.
I keep my reviews pretty short,except on a couple films where I just couldn't help myself.
See you around whippersnapper.
While I equally enjoyed the second part in the foray into the life of Joe (Gainsbourg) I did not feel the same intensity and true form as von Trier's previous section. While I love Gainsbourg's performance and her beautifully off-putting narration, I found the plot wandering, lost to its own inhibitions. Joe's exploits are very focused on her own self-destruction but don't always show the emotional toll on her relationship with Jerome, and instead lets her wander into sexual situations with strangers without accord. Her struggle to be a good mother is completely eclipsed by her sexual prowess, as we keep cutting away to threesomes, BDSM, and unnecessary nudity. Her character's development is completely hindered by her exploits. We don't get to see her true desperation because she seems almost untouched by the aim of her actions. When she finally goes off on her own the plot becomes stale. She works in the crime syndicate which makes no sense, and though she does help manipulate a young person, there's still little insight into her own neurosis. Even with narration it's very unclear where the plot is going most of the time. The film ends on a very strange note, though it was definitely the perfect ending for this macabre tale. Overall, I would say this is the meandering second half to a very intense and forthcoming two-part film.
If you can only see one half of the Lars von Trier two part film "Nymphomaniac" than please let it be this one. The film is narrated by Charlotte Gainsbourg as an older version of our lead character, Joe, who is a self-described nymphomaniac. While I believe some of the story is very eye opening into the qualms of sex addiction, I do not recommend this as an educational tool. The story follows a woman who is possessed by her urges, but also wants to define herself by them, which makes her adventures misanthropic and dangerous to an outside observer. The beginning half examines Joe's childhood and her young life. She feels the disappointment of young adulthood, the ecstasy of her sexual awakening, the throes of love, and all its machinations. She tells all of these dirty provocations to an empathetic observer played by Stellan Skargaard, who heals her after finding her bloodied body in an alleyway. There's something very endearing about this relationship, but also you wonder about his motivations. The story follows Joe's life all the way into her early thirties, with an excellent performance from Stacy Martin. There are very real depictions of sex, all done by porn doubles and prosthetics, but it isn't shown to be erotic, and more so to be truthful to the protagonist. There is some glamorization of the act, but also an implicit juxtaposition between pleasure as a construct and showing it as an emotional need. Joe also sees sex as an expression of love, but when confronted with her feelings they're often numbed by her own self-hatred. Shia LaBeouf also appears as her girlhood crush and love interest, Jerome. LaBeouf is as wooden and unfeeling as I have ever seen him, and his casting in this film is all but baffling. That and his atrocious and very fake English accent all but seal his fate as the worst actor with the worst performance in this entire film. His character is definitely off-putting, as is he, so perhaps casting such an arrogant sod to play an arrogant sod wasn't the worst choice. Gainsbourg's articulate narration provides an upsetting tone for the rest of the film, as her quiet and nuanced performance clashes with the errant eroticism seen onscreen. This film proves to be more eye opening and upsetting than the one that precedes it, possibly because the first is more focused on its story and tries to show entwined relationships. This is a powerful and frustratingly real first section in this two part film.