Hard-Rocking, Explosive, and Incredibly NSFW Trailer for Lars Von Trier’s NYMPHOMANIAC

     November 22, 2013


Over the past few months, we’ve been getting brief clips from Lars Von Trier‘s two-part, five-and-a-half hour erotic epic, Nymphomaniac.  The film stars Charlotte Gainsbourg as Joe, a self-diagnosed nymphomaniac who recounts her life story to Seligman (Stellan Skarsgard), an old, charming bachelor who finds Joe beaten up in an alley.  Today, we have the first trailer, and in addition to being seriously NSFW (unless your workplace is cool with shots of blowjobs and a character accidentally drooling semen) the movie looks aggressive, dark, and twisted.  In other words, it looks like a Lars Von Trier film.

Hit the jump to check out the trailer.  The film also stars Uma Thurman, Stacy Martin, Jamie Bell, Connie Nielsen, Christian Slater, Willem Dafoe, Mia Goth, Nicolas Bro, Sophie Kennedy Clark, Jens Albinus, and Udo Kier. Nymphomaniac will be released in Denmark and Norway on Christmas Day, and in France in January.  Magnolia has U.S. distribution rights, but no release date has been announced yet.


Around The Web


    • MEY

      So many comments! Impossible to read all of them.

      Opinion (strictly) based on the trailer:

      Theme in itself is not a problem, but I think a movie like this should always offer special atmosphere and something fresh regarding the topic it presents.

      You can put hundreds of famous actors and actresses into the film, you can use images of hard cocks in action, etc… but why… if the result does not provide something special and you are not attracted by the world of the film, what for?

      As a contrast, (for me) the best ‘sex movie’ is Crash from 1996. There were no twenty film stars in it, and you can’t discover pictures showing sexual organs, but the music, the atmosphere, the dialogs, etc. are unique and amazing. Directed by David Cronenberg, with James Spader, Holly Hunter, Elias Koteas. It was a scandal in 1996, was banned in some countries – which is a strange fact for the eye of today. For me it is the WOW movie, and the best, in spite of the fact that it was made 17 years ago.


      • lordjim

        please read the book!i like cronenberg but crash was not even close to ballard´s vision, hollywood would never dare to make a movie out of it, but cronenberg´s movie was a hollywood version of the book, he didn´t understand naked lunch and he didn´t understand crash, in both movies he tried to find the easiest possible way by scratching the surface and failed.ballard´s book is a masterpiece.

      • MEY

        Yes, there are a lot of people who share your opinion. And I think you are right.

        At the same time it is interesting to discover that there are a lot of people who do not want to understand anything from the movie. They see only sex scenes and think that the movie is disgusting. When I saw it, I was fascinated by its atmosphere but there were several people who stood up and went out from the cinema.

        I can imagine that Cronenberg’s approach was intentional and ‘he tried to find the easiest possible way by scratching the surface’ because he thought that more would be too much.

        Too much to understand and/or tolerate? I don’t know.

      • O Rly.

        “Impossible to read all of them.”

        - Really? REALLY?

  • Mixed Race rich kid NYC

    I won’t watch

    • Scott X

      Thanks for telling, I was very concerned about it.

  • lordjim


    • Al Conyado

      Exactly my words after seeing that…

  • Wes

    Notices how they avoided mentioning Shia Lebeouf.

    • sense11

      Yea hes only in half the trailer

      • LeBouf

        I think that there may be some other actors with facial hair that would be easy to confuse with the way Shia looks in the film? I’m pretty sure it’s at least two guys looking semi-similar.

  • zac

    to be a fly on the wall when the MPAA watch this! hahaha

    • Thomas

      Dude, you just made my day. hahaha.

  • sense11


  • Jan

    If this movie had either Emma Stone, Scarlett Johansson or Jennifer Lawrence in it I would’ve FLOWN to Norway/Denmark to see this on Christmas Day. Alas, I’ll wait until it hits the local arthouse theatres.

    • A-rabb


      What a macho prick!

      • doctor_robot


  • me

    my workplace is cool with shots of blowjobs and a character accidentally drooling semen, LOL

  • James Bondage

    So it’s a Scandinavian porn movie with ugly people?

  • Chris Theriault

    trash cinema. who the hell would watch something like this?

    • Super Beef

      people who know Lars Von Trier and his previous works.
      and enjoyed them.

      and perhaps people who understand that a trailer is a marketing tool made by people far removed from any of the actual making of the film they try to advertise. but you already know that. you’re just being facetious because you think it’s cool to trash something before anyone (especially yourself) has seen it.

      so, in response, what the hell would you rather watch?
      a freakin’ franchised mega-sequel coasting itself to success on the goodwill earned by an award-winning actress? (it doesn’t make it a good film, honestly. unless you really do love The Hunger Games’ childish vision of politics and strife, or are looking forward to recognising loads of actors cash a paycheck in X-Men 11: Lets See How Much Money We Can Give To As Many Actors Ever.)

      “trash cinema”, indeed. Frankenprick.

      • straight arrow

        Woa! … I’d totally pay for X-men 11!

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

        Ok I get it. I’ll post a trailer of my junk on youtube to compete with this movie.

      • The Flobbit

        Lars von Trier is an utter hack.

        -90 percent of the world.

      • Scott X

        Come on man. You are trashing X-Men 11 before watching it. And people can love Von Trier and Hunger Games.

      • RiddleThemThis

        No one can love hunger games.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

        Matt does.

    • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

      Is it trash because it’s about sex? I’m not sure if you knew this, but most of the world concerns themselves with who, when, where, and how they will have sex almost every waking day. It’s just what humans DO.

      At least this looks like it has some complex emotional context rather than pure exhibitionism.

      That being said, this doesn’t look like my cup of tea.

    • doctor_robot


  • Steven Fox

    I am a really big fan of Lars von Trier, but this looks just awful. Rammstein, really? Nobody listens to bloody Rammstein anymore, hell everybody’s older than 8th grade.
    I will watch the movie, for sure, but it just looks and feels off, to me.

    • 23YearOldRammsteinFanboy

      Are you kidding me? Rammstein was the only good thing about the trailer, and even still, the fact that Rammstein was associated with a film like this is both a disgrace to the band and to the song.

    • ApparentlyI’mNobody

      You’re right, nobody listens to Rammstein anymore. They’re just considered the biggest German band of all time (even beating out The Scorpions), are the only German band to ever sell out Madison Square Garden (in under 30 minutes, might I add), and played for an audience of over 700,000 people in Russia earlier this year. Too, a few years back in Iceland, 25,000 people out of their 250,000 population showed up for one concert. So yeah, you’re totally right, no one listens to Rammstein anymore…

  • junierizzle

    It’s only appeal is the depiction of sex and to that I say, I’m good. If I want to see that I’ll watch, you know, porn.

    • manofsteelydan

      because you like your “depiction of sex” to be an overtly male-dominated masochistic wrestling fantasy where women are treated as saliva-eating slaves forced to f**k gigantacocks watched from the privacy of your darkened room?

      how depressing that you are yet to engage with the idea (and consequences) of sex and sexual interaction on an adult level.

      • junierizzle

        Yeah, this movie clearly isn’t about “overtly male-dominated masochistic wrestling fantasy where women are treated as saliva-eating slaves.” It’s basically a porn with better lighting. So yeah, just give me regular porn. And nobody is forcing those girls to do anything but that is a different topic for another time.

      • manofsteelydan

        It may seem to be selling it that way to being with, but I’m sure the film will deal with a lot of male and female fantasies, where they derive from, and overall confront sexual politics with an critical eye.

        This is from Von Trier, it’s obviously going to go deep into the inner-workings of the minds of his characters like he always has. Calling it “porn with better lighting” is the type of asinine comment I’d expect from someone totally unacquainted with anything resembling artistic cinema, sex isn’t porn. And porn isn’t sex. And a trailer certainly ain’t the movie. They’re selling the biggest “aspect” of the picture – the one that already was provoking shock and bafflement in certain corners when the film was announced.

        Oh, and if you really believe that “nobody is forcing those girls” then you really don’t know some of the sad facts about the porn industry. It is a different topic, with multiple answers, but let’s not pretend it’s all peaches covered in cream in the world of hardcore pornography.

      • Nick

        You need to check out some better sites…. They have categories you know? Not everything is hardcore torture shit you knuckle dragger. The movie is trying to be controversial. It’s a cry out for attention and it’s obvious. His work is amazing and certain when the movie comes out it will have some intense drama and be a very deep movie, but this is doesn’t hide the fact that this is purposefully prvocative and he could get to thes me place without it being real sex and showing every bit of it, that is all gimmick

      • zac

        Ive seen porn with better lighting and this is not it haha

      • Nick

        You’re the worst…..

      • Guy Smiley

        So… the well publicized opening of the movie, with a woman beaten to a pulp and lying in an alley, isn’t an example of “an overtly male-dominated masochistic wrestling fantasy where women are treated as saliva-eating slaves”?


    • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

      Porn often lacks eroticism. Humans are very complex creatures and porn is usually boiled down to penis-enters-vagina, which is fine if you just want to get off, but some people enjoy (or need) the emotional build up.

      • junierizzle

        I agree. There is plenty of hardcore porn that have erotic/emotional build up. Digital Playground has tons of movies with stories but yeah, the sex is hardcore.

    • Emile

      IT’S ONLY APPEAL? I’m sorry, but the cinematography is always masterful within Lars Von Tier’s movies (one of the few reason I watch his pictures) and any filmmaker should at least watch (or try to) this picture.

  • Mars

    Most pretentious director in the history of pretentious directors.

    • Bernie

      any chance of an elaboration on that point?

      or are you going to carry on like a four year old attempting to talk film theory?

    • Silver Surfer

      “Most pretentious director in the history of pretentious directors.”

      Remember a friend saying a similar thing about Gaspar Noe once we’d finished watching Enter The Void for the first time. Had no idea what he meant though as he just wouldn’t/couldn’t explain it – I mean, if you “don’t get anything out of” the movie/s that certain directors make, I can understand; but calling it pretentious?

      Often makes me wonder if the people saying that have experienced enough in life, or even watched enough good movies, to know what they’re missing out on…

    • Scott X

      And I don’t see it as a bad thing. Anyway, there are many directors I find way more pretentious, like Carlos Reygadas.

  • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

    No extreme close-up on the semen ? No way to watch it.

  • maximus

    i dont care how many arty farty hipster trendies wanna see this..this looks like the some of the weirdest shit i ever seen.

    • Emile

      I think that’s the point. Sexual addiction is haunting.

  • Martim

    I dare any of you haters to show me a movie that is not pretentious in it’s own way. We all deem directors and movies to be pretentious because we all have opinions on how and what we want to watch in a movie and as soon as we see something we don’t like we just shout ‘pretentious’ like it’s something to be proud of. It’s a good thing to be a pretentious director, it only helps to show that you trust your vision and hey, at the of the day, no one is forcing you to go see it! Want a “neutral” movie? Go make it yourself or watch documentaries.

    • Screaming Warhol Baby

      Documentaries aren’t really “neutral” though – that’s the same mistake as assuming they’re non-fiction. They’re (usually) based on non-fictional events, but the moment a director starts to shape a story into something cinematic it loses all sense of “truth”. And besides, if I was to make a film about a famous author based on his own autobiography, and include interviews about his life with countless people it would only ever be “their version” of a certain truth.

      Philosophically, with truth as an entirely individual and abstract construct we could argue there is no truth in our “real world” anyway. It’s a confusing meta-state quandary we find ourselves in day-to-day.

      So, if you truly want a “neutral movie” – check out Andy Warhol’s Empire (from 1964). Just over 8 hours of a continuous shot of the Empire State Building, in slow-motion. That’s cinematic truth at its purest, which is one of its points, I suppose. Though it is as well as that cinematically moribund and deathly boring. FUN TIMES!

    • junierizzle

      By definition no one is pretentious. One needs some talent to direct a film.

  • bob

    i hope there’s a fake casting scene with a green sofa, a desk and an ingenue with tattoos and piercings who swallows

    • Grayden

      why? would you pay to see that? Because you’ve already got the internet..

  • Nick

    All of you going on about defending the valid point against this movie are tools. Saying “film theory” and shit like that doesn’t give you an authority to override genuine criticism. This is a gimmick wrapped around what will probably another good movie fromLars. But blinding yourself from the fact that they’ve only promoted this movie to stir the pot and shake things up is retarded. He doesn’t need to show everything and harp in on the sex scenes. It doesn’t need to be real sex, and everyone defending this is saying that clearly the movie will be deep and take up deep in the mind of the characters… Ask yourself whether he could do that without this gimmicky cry for controversy! Answer is yes. Tools

    • Collosal

      Answer is… No one fucking knows yet!

      Ain’t nobody seen the film, shitheel. x

    • Dick

      i am yet to see much “genuine criticism” in these comments especially from anyone in the ‘against’ camp – can someone please explain why only hipsters and tools would like this? why trier is pretentious? and why no one can string together a decent sentence??

      • Nick

        How about the point that it is controversial just to me controversial? I’m not saying people who like his movies are hipsters. I really love antichrist and while the rest of his work that I’ve seen doesn’t really do it for me, I respect it. This is just stupid though. Distracting for whatever the value the film will actually have. It’s disgusting and trashy and offensive to a lot of people. Nothing is showcasing anything out her that controversy.

      • Quall

        “It’s disgusting and trashy and offensive to a lot of people.”

        Only sex, dude. It’s how we all came to be…

      • Nick

        I’m not offended by sex lol. I’m quite fond of it. But watching it in a movie and calling porn art is stupid

      • Quall

        Calling “sex” featured in a film “porn” before watching it is stupid, offensive and trashy, especially with the connotations associated with it most frequently.

        Perhaps we should instead be having the discussion as to whether there is such a thing as “pornographic art”?

        Or maybe you could grow up and quit acting like a bitch. Sounds more like you are being far too churlish over your apprehension of seeing full-frontal female and MALE nudity. Grow a pair of balls and understand that this is a work of art, and art is innately human. And humans are innately sexual (even asexuals are intrinsically sexual, having thought about the processes and actions enough to understand it is not something they feel necessary for themselves to participate in.)

        Calling a film stupid before seeing it is stupid.
        And everyone on here acting like they know exactly what the film is going to be like is even worse. You’re like eighth-graders.
        Film should be difficult, disturbing and bold.
        I can’t remember the last time I saw full-frontal sex scenes in a film specifically about sexual awakening, flowering and sexual addiction – I can’t remember the last time I saw a film about sex dealt with in a realistic and carefully thought-out manner. Most films throw sex onto the screen so it’s two bodies smashing together without any thought – titillation for teenagers too young to get past the filters their parents put on the computer.

        Hopefully this will be different. But I think we should all reserve judgement until we’ve seen it – and maybe try and broaden our horizons a little bit.

      • Nick

        Not reading the behold thing. But you’re right about sex being human and I have no problem with it being in movies. It’s not art to show a girl sucking a dick you fucking moron. I don’t mind watching at all, but it’s not art I’m watching. I’m not one for censorship or anything and since it’s already there I don’t think it needs to be removed but it’s still not art. Let’s no glorify some bullshit attention whoring act to be different

      • Nick’s Prick

        You’re the worst.

      • Guy Smiley

        It’s not the sex that bothers me, it’s the violence towards a woman that’s also in the movie. The promotion for this movie has practically glamorized the fact that it opens with a woman beaten and lying in alley.

        I can’t judge the film yet, having not seen it, but it almost seems like there’s a message here that a promiscuous woman “got what was coming to her,” and that bothers me.

      • Rabbi Jon

        “The promotion for this movie has practically glamorized” HOW?

        By mentioning that the film begins that way, with Stellan Skarsgard’s character taking her in and her recounting her life story after the horrific event has taken place? Because nothing in this trailer has “glamorized the fact that it opens with a woman beaten and lying in [an] alley” – it has sold the sexual aspect of the film, to both titillate and irritate. Titillate anyone who thinks too much with their genitals, titillate anyone who has ever enjoyed and continues to enjoy Von Trier’s entertaining provocation of most audiences and to irritate those opposed to Trier and those opposed to sex as seen naturally on-screen.

        If YOU are getting that message you propose from the trailer alone, then I believe it must say much more about your view on women than it does on Von Trier’s. The same problem people had with Antichrist, if people saw it as an entirely misogynistic film I think it was revealing a hideous character flaw in them, not within the film, where Defoe’s character was almost wholly to blame for his wife going nutso by being a dick.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

        We all know how sex works. So this is not a sexual educational documentary. right ?

        Then it must be the psychological aspect of the sex that is the core of the movie… hum. Interesting.

        Then Let me ask you something: why showing semen drooling on this sweet mouth? Knowing that even the prostitutes don’t drool semen.
        This is just a Porn movie then.

      • tarek takes it up the chuffer

        Learn to f**kin’ write, tarek.
        This comment is both grossly unpleasant and woefully idiotic in equal measure.

        Presumably you talk from personal experience in your understanding of how “even the prostitutes don’t droll semen.”

        And your wording on “why showing semen drooling on this sweet mouth?” is stomach-churningly stupid.

        “This is just a Porn movie then.” – your criticism is astounding. Your wording perfected. This is the death of film criticism, well done. You win.

      • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

        Frankly, you really think that a man fu***ing a woman is a form of Art ? if this is true, then we are all artists. Some more gifted than others.

        If ejaculating in the mouth of a woman expresses any form of art, then we could do it in the street, like those artists who draw your picture for few pennies. I can see myself doing that on the corner of a busy street, but I will do it for free for the sake of Art.

        I love Art!

  • cineast4

    Really don’t know what to make of Von Trier. On the other hand he has shown himself capable of great film making with the likes of Melancholia and Dogville but then he does stuff like this (as there was nothing in this trailer, which was horribly cut granted, that showed any sign of the subject matter being taken seriously) and The Idiots, which seem to have been made solely to please the teenagers giggling at the back of the cinema.

  • Gerard Kennelly

    Oscar predictions 2015
    best actor -colin firth -railway man
    best actress -cate blanchett -monuments men
    best sup actress -Stacy Martin -Nymphomaniac
    best sup actor -billy crudup -Blood Ties

  • ska7triumph

    So yeah what I expected. At least LVT keeps (up?) his promises. I just hope it’s better, more fun and diabolical, than MELANCHOLIA or ANITCHRIST. Wow those hurt in so many boring ways… (except Gainsbourg and Durst, naked and/or acting their asses off mind you). Oh boy the puns keep — wait. I’ll stop.

    On a more serious note, didn’t I read that he’s giving up final cut to someone else since he can’t get the picture to edit under the 5 hour timeframe? And that only the hardcore version is getting done?

    And, even with the limited theatrical release over in the States (what rating will the MPAA have to invent for this one, NC-31?) it’s best gonna have to be a marathon 4-hours tops. Maybe the distributor will get an intermission out of this. Maybe…

    • http://tarek-to-verso.over-blog.com/ tarek

      why 4 hours ? Everybody knows that the audience will ejaculate in the first 15 mn and then leave the cinema.

      • tarek takes it up the chuffer

        You are just some kind of incredibly naff troll, aren’t you, tarek?

  • grapes9h5

    I cant wait

  • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

    I’m not even sure how Youtube allows this trailer.

    • Grayden

      Art is free speech. Google allows searches for pornographic photos.

      • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

        Pornographic material is not allowed on Youtube.

      • Spanish Fly

        So, we must come to the debate on whether art can be pornographic! Which it surely can.

        Pornographic imagery (that of any kind of penetrative intercourse) should not simply be reserved for the dirty corners of the internet, it should be open and free for use outside of the unpleasant connotations most associate with it.

        Porn is for base human want.
        Art is something we should need to truly fulfil ourselves spiritually.

        Why can an image not be a pornographic one and be artistic? Or are we all so narrow-minded?

      • http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

        Sex in itself is not spiritual. Animals do it and they are not spiritual creatures. Spirituality is a distinctly human trait, which means it’s linked to our human consciousness in a way that transcends physical stimulus.

        As for youtube and graphic sex – there’s no reason for it other than exhibitionism. It’s just meant to be naughty or taboo – there’s no uniquely artistic merit to seeing an erect penis getting throated.

      • Spanish Fly

        You have far too naive a few of what sex can be, if it is only “meant to be naughty or taboo” then. And in and of itself a “erect penis getting throated” is not uniquely artistic – but the context around that moment can make it artistic, no?

        Sex isn’t merely a physical act for a lot of people. I don’t aroused for instance by simply finding someone physically appealing, I have to have an emotional connection with someone before I feel sexually-attracted to them.

        Sex, in itself, can be innately spiritually. To merely render it as a wholly and only a physical act is to misunderstand the idea of physical love, the intertwining of two people both physically and mentally.

        Otherwise, you might as well drill a hole in a wall and stick your dick in it – because you wouldn’t need anything else but your cock and a hole to shove it into.

        Sex should transcend physical stimulus, and it does for me every time I do it – because I have invested time in a relationship for the sexual act to be another level, not something I am craving for the moment I met that person.

        And let’s grow up a little, exhibitionism is not an unartistic thing – the naked human form and the actions that the body can undertake without clothes can be totally 100% artistic. There are so many people in these comments who seem totally unaware that their bodies can be more than meatbags, that they can be viewed as beautiful aesthetic art pieces. The human form, the human voice, the human body, human interaction – can be and are already explored in artistic mediums.

  • Redjester

    Those claiming this to be nothing short of cinematic trash/pornography are a little too Puritan in their sensibilities for their own good. Was “The Dreamers” cinematic porn? What about “Shame”? Some of the best modern art is sexually gratuitous in nature, would you consider that to be trash?

    People really need to get over themselves regarding “sex”, especially considering how OK they seem to be in regard to violence.

    On another note, Shia needs to give his manager a massive raise as the films he’s participated in since Transformers have all more or less been terrific ones and have convinced me the kid can actually act.

    • HE1NZ

      Shame was a piece of crap for sure.

  • Strong Enough


  • Christian Grey

    Dear Lars Von Trier,

    Why are you not the one directing 50 shades of grey?

  • stylus59

    so what if she ate a hotdog and spit some milk out?

  • Cooper

    Charlotte Gainsbourg looks like a crackhead tranny in this film. She has the ugliest body.

    • Rabbi Jon

      wonderfully anti-humanist and sexist comment there, Rick.

      people come in all shapes and sizes – it’s nice to be educated on that fact by a film, instead of misled under the idea that everyone should and does look like a movie star.

      outside of the silver screen, people are normal. the abnormality actually comes from Hollywood and its overly-beautified actors.

      • mr_teaspoon

        wonderfully anti-humanist and sexist comment there, Rick.

        Oh shut up. So your logic is that, because Charlotte Gainsbourg belongs in the categories of ‘human’ and ‘female’, any comment against her is therefore anti-humanist and sexist?

      • Rabbi Jon

        No, I’m telling him as fact that saying someone has “the ugliest body” is a sexist statement that facilitates the idea that there is any one way, or set of ways, for either the male of female form to be in order to be “sexy” “desirable” or even considered “beautiful” by some meat-headed fucktards.

        My logic is that a couple of people agreed with my assessment – also taking into consideration that some guy decided to say that the wonderfully talented Charlotte Gainsbourg should only be assessed on how she does or doesn’t look like a “crackhead tranny” in the film, instead of whether she is effective in her acting within the movie.

        Now piss off, dickslice.

      • mr_teaspoon

        No, I’m telling him as fact that saying someone has “the ugliest body” is a sexist statement that facilitates the idea that there is any one way, or set of ways, for either the male of female form to be in order to be “sexy” “desirable” or even considered “beautiful” by some meat-headed fucktards.

        Oh good lord. OK, for one, it’s called hyperbole. Human beings engage in it all the time. ‘This is the worst day ever’. ‘I hate egg salad’. ‘Charlotte Gainsbourg has the ugliest body’.

        Two, and stop me if you’ve heard this one before, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There’s nothing contradictory about acknowledging that truth while still expressing ones opinions.

        My logic is that a couple of people agreed with my assessment

        Oh, well that’s always a good marker.

      • Rabbi Jon

        So I can go ahead and say “He’s a nigger” and it’s just hyperbole now? – no more racism, ever again!

        And beauty is only in the eye of the beholder when we deem there to be an understanding of beauty solely based on looks – which it isn’t. Being beautiful is something more than the way one looks, and even then if you only deem someone beautiful on the way they look, you are doing so based on pre-conceived notions of what beauty is in a physical sense – so what your mama and papa and all those magazines and films told you was “beautiful.”

        Naff off, shitstain.

      • mr_teaspoon

        So I can go ahead and say “He’s a nigger” and it’s just hyperbole now?

        Uh….what? Are you really trying to compare the subjective judgment of someones physical attractiveness to fucking racism?

        I…don’t even know how to approach that, other than to say it’s self evidently OK to find somebody ugly. It’s not OK to hate an entire race of people.

        And beauty is only in the eye of the beholder when we deem there to be an understanding of beauty solely based on looks – which it isn’t.

        No, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, period. And considering we’re talking about a comment entirely concerning someones physical appearance…

  • eternalozzie

    It’s a little graphic but i would hardly call it porn … it looks like it’s focusing on the traumatic side of some messed up people’s lives .. can’t really tell much from the trailer that was solely designed to spur controversy but tell very little about the actual movie.

  • poppincherry

    who needs to see this when’s there’s bang bus.

  • Pingback: Stomende trailer voor Von Trier's NYMPHOMANIAC - Cineme | Cineme()

  • Luis
  • Pingback: NYMPHOMANIAC Release Dates. NYMPHOMANIAC: PART ONE and PART TWO Will Be Released in Theaters and VOD | Collider()

  • daniel

    porn,porn,porn.according to this piece of shit director,movies should be like a rock in your shoe,bullshit.i fucking despise him

  • daniel

    shia la douche should stay away from any future indiana jones movie

  • Pingback: NYMPHOMANIAC Images and Character Portraits Featuring Charlotte Gainsbourg and Connie Nielsen | Collider()

  • Pingback: NYMPHOMANIAC PART TWO Trailer. NYMPHOMANIAC Stars Charlotte Gainsbourg and Shia LaBeouf | Collider()