Class is back in session! After the first half of Nymphomaniac ended on one of Joe’s (Charlotte Gainsbourg) biggest emotional pivot points, the break between the two volumes is almost welcome. That’s only because Vol. 1 is so inundated with cinematic beauty, it almost doesn’t let you breathe for a full two hours. The fact that the first volume is such a stylistically bold and lovely achievement puts me in a bit of a precarious situation; how do you objectively assess a second half of a film and treat it as a whole? It’s easier with the first half because the film starts at the beginning and you’re watching it with fresh eyes. Here, the start is the middle and the mind scuttles to recall events instead of investing in the present. There’s no way around it—it’s impossible to treat Vol. 2 as a whole, so if you haven’t seen Vol.1 yet it’s best you stop reading and get on that first. That said, there’s no major spoilers ahead.

As soon as Vol. 2 begins, there’s a sense of major discord from the first half. Whereas the visually delectable Vol. 1 starts off on the sardonic notes of a Rammstein song playing over seemingly mundane events, the subdued intimacy in Vol. 2‘s beginning puts us in an immediate state of unease. In order to truly be in the moment with the characters, the viewer has to recall that Vol. 1 ends with the devastating line “I can’t feel anything”, uttered by Young Joe (Stacy Martin) while she’s having sex with Jerome (Shia LaBeouf). We have to remember how her roller-coaster feelings for Jerome finally blossomed from pity into undeniable love, and how her decision to funnel her nymphomania into one sexual partner started to foreshadow dire consequences. One of the opening moments of Vol. 2 illustrates: after vigorously trying to masturbate with no climactic success, Young Joe goes into the bathroom, takes a wet towel and proceeds to beat her vagina with it in frantic desperation.

Moments like these lose their emotional impact due to the disjointed release schedule of Nymphomaniac in North America, but they cannot be taken lightly within the whole context. No doubt, when the film is released in its entirety—hopefully uncut, and with Von Trier’s blessings—the film will be re-watched by its fans from start to intended finish, in order to get the full effect in one sitting.

Remember how my first review said that Nymphomaniac is Von Trier’s most accessible movie to date? Yeah, about that. Vol. 2 treads the all-too-familiar Von Trier ground of disturbance, reminding us that it comes from the same mind that created Antichrist (in one particular scene, Von Trier quite literally makes sure we remember.) The darkness of Vol. 2 eclipses the jocular style of Vol. 1 within minutes, and right up until its final, brilliant conclusion (one of the biggest mixed bags of emotion I’ve felt for an ending in years), makes Vol. 1 look like a pleasant stroll on a lazy Sunday. That, in and of itself, is one of the phenomenal traits built into the film’s fiber, and reason enough to make Nymphomaniac a scintillating cinematic event. The story grows as organically as its characters do.

As Joe grows from an innocent young girl who expresses herself through sex without giving it much thought, into a woman who has to cope with motherhood and battle her condition both internally and externally, the progression from light to darkness is only natural. Even the relationship between Joe and Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) plunges into darkened depths; secrets are unearthed and Seligman’s tangents–having provided much amusement in Vol. 1–become more perceptible to Joe’s criticism and adorn a more somber vibe. When her relationship with Jerome begins its inevitable decline, the theme of sadomasochism is introduced and we see the boy who was once Billy Elliot (Jamie Bell, as the Kafkaesque ‘K’) playing one of Lars Von Trier‘s darkest characters ever. An improbable casting story if there ever was one. Heavily veiled in religious lexicon, this theme contains some of the hardest scenes to watch, but every painful moment and every disturbing feeling is intrinsic to Joe’s transformation.

After being silenced with Vol. 1‘s inviting approach, the general murmur amongst the skeptics is back to “There’s the Lars we know!” with Vol 2. But while those critics focus on highlighting all of Von Trier’s taboos for all the wrong reasons, they’re missing out on a truly transgressive piece of cinema. Nymphomaniac holds a deep wisdom within its clutches, and uses a woman’s sexuality as a scalpel to rip open the very fabric of humanity. In more ways than one, Von Trier has shown how big of a feminist he really is, and–as sad as it sounds—that’s still pretty unique in today’s world. There’s no doubt that fans of Lars Von Trier will fall madly in love with the complete Nymphomaniac because they’ll understand why Vol. 2 has to swap humor for gloom, and balance out its style for further substance. As the harder to watch, much more affective half, Vol. 2 compliments the first volume (as if it needed more complimenting) and re-affirms that Von Trier has made a masterpiece.

Nymphomaniac Volume 2 trailer

You know a Lars Von Trier movie is good when it feels like you’ve just spent two educationally arousing hours in the university for the cinematically gifted. As soon as Von Trier announced that his next movie was going to be called Nymphomaniac, the general murmur from everyone was “there goes Lars again!” When he announced that it will be centred around one woman’s rampant sexual experiences with hundreds of partners and that it will be his longest movie ever, the general consensus was “that crazy Lars just doesn’t stop!” But what no one expected was that Von Trier was on his way to making his most accessible movie to date, while still managing to push envelopes, burn bridges, laugh in the face of etiquette and brandish his middle finger to the foppishness of society’s flimsy facade.

After a prolonged darkness during which nothing but the organic sound of water drops on metal is heard, a bloody woman (Charlotte Gainsbourg) is revealed to be lying on the cobblestones. In the first of many outbursts of ingenuity, sounds of Rammstein barge in on the soundtrack, as if uninvited, while Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard) quietly buys his milk and notices the unconscious woman in the alley. She prefers a cup of tea with milk over an ambulance and the police, so Seligman opens his door to her and agrees to nourish her back to health. An unmistakable kind of magnetism instantly develops between the two and, importantly, with zero hint of sexual tension. Seligman sits transfixed by the bedside to hear Joe’s story and what brought her to this point of apathy and self-loathing.

Joe tells her story in chapter form, and in Vol. 1 we are presented with the first five chapters. Between Seligman’s excitable interruptions, to Joe’s narrative with comments on how her experiences parallel the art of fly-fishing, and the sensational creativity that peppers the flashbacks with delightful visuals, it’s clear that these are some of the most inspired chapters from the Lars Von Trier library. Not only is Nymphomaniac Vol. 1 refreshingly funny in so many moments but thanks to the playful structure, the intellectual dialogue and the fascinating personalities from Joe’s past (not to mention Joe and Seligman themselves) the picture is also incredibly compelling. The performances from Gainsbourg and Skarsgard are the anchors of a ship full of talent; Stacy Martin who makes her feature film debut as the Young Joe, a pleasantly surprising Shia LeBouf and the greatest Uma Thurman outside of a Tarantino movie you’ll likely ever see. Those are just the standouts, but Nymphomaniac is such an accomplished film that the only truly sore thumb is Christian Slater, who doesn’t quite reach the believable levels all his other colleagues do.

Naturally, the question salivating on everyone’s tongue concerns sex, and Von Trier wouldn’t want it any other way. Nymphomaniac has a “hardcore” and a “softcore” version, with the obvious intention being that the hardcore cut is the definitive director’s version. Unfortunately, the society that Von Trier so dearly loves to poke and provoke simply cannot handle a five hour hardcore Von Trier movie called Nymphomaniac. As such, the film was split into two volumes and the Vol. 1 that’s currently available on VOD across North America is the softcore version running just under 2 hours. Those not lucky enough to live in Denmark (the only country that got the chance to see the full frontal five-hour version) will most likely have to wait until the inevitable DVD/Blu Ray release to see the film as it was intended. The good news is that the softcore version is still a brilliant piece of modern cinema that has zero tasteless sex scenes.

What makes Nymphomaniac Vol. 1 the best film of the year so far (and on its way to loads of year-end top ten lists if Vol. 2 is this good, mine included,) is that it’s a fusion of everything that’s makes us love cinema. It’s intellectual without being pretentious, for the themes, motifs and messages it stimulates don’t suffer from delusions of grandeur. They really are that grand. Its invigorating entertainment is like a rare aphrodisiac you’ve only had in your dreams, making it almost impossible to turn away from the screen at any moment. It employs the means of cinema to the sophisticated degrees which erect the medium to the wonderful art-form that it is. And it dares to enter places rarely visited by others in order to present a psychologically perturbing tale about the most taboo of human conditioning. In other words, if Vol. 2 is equally as impressive as Vol. 1, Lars Von Trier has surpassed himself and created a masterpiece.

It has been nearly 50 years since Thor was originally created as a comic book hero by Marvel Comics. In what seems as a last effort to milk the comic book turn movie trend, Hollywood gives us Thor. Speaking of trends in Hollywood, Thor does not seem to skimp in the product placement department (Acura being the main offender). Having never read the comic books, I can only base my review off this film. It seems fair to assume that a film would give you the proper background for those in that position. Spoiler alert, it does not.

The film takes place in Asgard, a fantasy realm where Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to become King in. Thor is a chiseled god whose muscles are as large as his arrogance. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) who is Thor’s father and current King, is interrupted moments before he announces the news of a new King by an attack on Asgard by the Frost Giants.

Thor is more of the act first think later type of character, which leads him to strike an attack on the Frost Giants against his father’s wishes. Thor is not the smartest god of Asgard, but I suppose you do not have to be when your special weapon is a large hammer. Odin decides to punish Thor by banishing him from Asgard to teach him to wise up. This benefits Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who is the outspoken but mischievous brother of Thor as he is now in position to become the ruler.

Thor’s banishment sends him to a small town in New Mexico. The film does not explain as to why that location but I can only presume it is because that is where the comic books sent him. Upon being transported to New Mexico he is hit by Jane Foster’s (Natalie Portman) van. Inside the van are Foster’s crew who are essentially weather chasers that have been noticing strange patterns in the sky.

Thor’s hammer also is transported to earth by Odin who renders it unless until it is in possession of a worthy persons hands. Luckily, the hammer happens to be transported close by just a little after Thor was. However, the hammer was lodged into the earth so firmly that nobody can pull it out. In an admittedly amusing scene, many of the locals make it an event to try pulling this large mysterious hammer out of the ground. But they all fail obviously because they are not worthy enough.

Jane is enthralled with Thor but does not start out on a good note. Literally moments after he is out of the hospital where Jane caused him to be after hitting him with her vehicle, take a guess at what happens again? Yep, she hits him again with her vehicle. The film is riddled with these types of cheesy, over-the-top events perhaps aimed to unsuccessfully entertain young children.

Still somehow Jane and Thor predictably fall for one another even after Thor makes a fool of himself trying to fit in on earth. Even before Thor suddenly decides to wise up and actually start helping others out, Jane seems to be in love with him. This proves that looks are clearly the most important feature. Thanks Hollywood.

Thor eventually realizes that he can use his special powers not only for his own advantage but also to help others in need. It was hard to care too much for the main character, because of how arrogant he was for most of the film. I know the idea was to ultimately show how he has grown from boyish acts to adulthood, but viewers must first have vested interest in the character before they can root for them. I suppose this a nice twist among most other comic book characters. It seems like most often the superhero is using his powers to help others before being tempted to use for their own good.

Almost always Natalie Portman’s roles in films are done fantastically, like her Oscar winning role in Black Swan. However, Thor managed to make Natalie Portman look dull and uninspired mostly with terrible dialog. I hate to say it but even her sidekick Darcy (Kat Dennings) had a much more memorable character even though her character was completely pointless other than some random comedic relief lines now and then.

Something that stood out to me was they did not go into as much detail as they could have. We see Odin without an eye but are never told how exactly that happened. Also, how did Loki just appear in the room in New Mexico then all of a sudden leave without being questioned by anyone? Why was Thor’s recently wounded face immediately heeled when he was transported back to his realm? Why did it take his hammer to transport to earth longer than it did for Thor?

At the very least, you will get a few laughs as were thrown in to perhaps keep the film watchable. But good luck trying to decipher what was meant to be funny and what was just an awful and cliché dialog that makes you laugh.

As much as I did not enjoy Thor, I cannot help but assume that if you are very into the comic book series of it that you may like this film much more. Although, my favorite film critic Roger Ebert once said that just because you like a film it does not mean that it is a good film. So perhaps hardcore fans may only better understand what is going on than actually consider it a good film.