kriddirk

Didn't see the Theater performance, but in any way I prefer not to compare between film, book or theater play. Let us be clear about the cast, it had some promises, isn't it ?! And yes, Julia and Meryl are more then superb. There performance is better in any way I could expect. For Meryl you think it is normal, she is always that good, but that said : She is a superb actress with several Oscar nominations and she is a phenomena. Also now she plays that cynic drug slaved family "monster" spitting out all the true about her 3 daughter family, hurting and driving to the limit each of them. The family dinner is the max of the movie in which each actor can show what he is worth and they do so. Julia Roberts does her role as bitter woman as a super performance. She is that hard as her mother Violet ( Meryl ) and gives reply to her. 2 Oscar performances, nothing more to say about that. It has been a long time that Julia proves to be that actress we know from Brockovich or Closer. The movie is a straight family drama with some turns you don't expect and which makes all even more hard. Typical American ? I don't think so. A family from which father and mother have problems and from which the children move out to other states or countries in Europe. It sounds familiar. May be the typical is the American wide and lonely landscapes and sites, like Oklahoma or the West. I would like to mention Chris Cooper for his so sensitive performance in a hard shell, very good actor. No action, blood and action movie, but a real cast performance movie .. wasn't that the purpose of movies ?!! A must see and lets hope the Oscars will go where they have to go ...

I am lucky I didn't read the book. In fact, the book and film of any story is always very different from each other and should be rated separately without comparing them. It is a 2:30 hours movie and it isn't boring at any moment. From the beginning till the end you are entertained by the story and the action. It is a big production, one of those you have to see in the theater due to the imagine, the landscapes, the special effects. And talking about the special effect; there are enough, but for once this movie is not an "ONLY and overloaded action" movie. Lately, most of the films are possible to see on the screen at home, because the imagine is not of that type a cine-screen is needed. This production is made like the classical big productions, like Lawrence of Arabia or The English Patient. So, enough action, not boring, entertaining and you can leave the theater in a relax status and not tired of all the car chases.

Tom Payne, Mr Kingsley and Skarsgard make a very good act.

Negative parts ?! Missing some link in the voyage between England and the Orient. Some unexplainable jumps in the story, which for sure are treated well in the book. But, it is not disturbing and quiet normal in a big story as this one.

Lets be clear, I am not especially a fan of Von Trier's work, either I am an artistic cinephile. But lately I am looking a bit further then the mainstream movies, which can be as well very good. That's why I was interested in seeing Nymphomaniac, in the same way that I saw Shame with Fassbender. These movies are not comparable due to the different objective, but treat the same problem experienced by a man or a woman. It is difficult to review the first part of a movie, which exists of 2 parts making 4 hours together. Even then, it is the censored version, NOT due to the sex scenes, but rather for the length of 5:30 hours, which is not THAT standard in theaters. I am sure I will go for the second part and I am as well sure that it will of the same level or better. Therefor the rate of 8/10. It is for sure not porno, even not erotic. Not be mistaken in that. There is no excitement possible. All sex scenes are more or less mechanical, short duration and treated as if it was a documentary. In fact, the movie is like a documentary, where a father type figure Seligman ( Skarsgard ) is the interviewer of the nymphomaniac Joe ( Gainsbourg ) in a way that she can tell her history from when she was 8 years old and onwards. The discussions between Joe and Seligman are metaphors between her sexual behavior and for example fly-fishing, music, etc … and they are sometimes quiet comic. So a laugh is possible. But don't be mistaken, this is a drama. We see how Joe's sexual life conditions her from child onwards, as well as all involved "partners". She is someone who does not feel anything and will do everything to satisfy herself independent of the pain that she will cause around her. A good example is the Miss H chapter, where an astonishing Thurman enters the screen. The situation caused could be like a Veaudeville one, but here it develops as a dramatic absurd situation. Different moods are created, sometimes you feel pity for Joe, then unbelief like with the train adventure, very dramatical situations like Miss H or the with her father causes sadness and anger, even a tip of the love issue … a different movie to see. If I have to mention a negative topic, then it is the cold atmosphere in the movie with only the Seligman metaphors and the sex life of Joe, not more. But don't misunderstand this, it is quiet a lot to handle. And even more, if you have 15 partners a day I suppose there is not that much time for other things to do then having a walk in the park like she does. Stacy Martin is the star of this part, as well as the discussions by Starsgard. Finally, I am certainly going for the second part of this movie. It is a very tricky subject to bring it on the big screen and Von Trier has had the guts to do it. The result is fine, a drama, a documentary about an illness ( as far it is an illness and when it is considered as one ), not a porno or sex movie like we understand it, showing us how it conditions a complete life and sometimes with a comic hint. Of course there is nudity and sex scenes in the movie, a warning for those who have problems with that ...