New Trailer for NYMPHOMANIAC: VOLUME II Starring Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jamie Bell, and Shia LaBeouf

by     Posted 279 days ago

nymphomaniac-volume-2-charlotte-gainsbourg

A new trailer for the second half of director Lars von Trier’s sexual epic Nymphomaniac has arrived.  Nymphomaniac: Volume II continues the story of Joe (Charlotte Gainsbourg) as she recounts her life to an old bachelor (Stellan Skarsgard), this time focusing on her adulthood.  This trailer is certainly aggressive and quite weird, showcasing the further sexual exploits of Joe and giving us further looks at the characters played by Jamie Bell, Willem Dafoe, and Shia LaBeoufVolume I was only just made available VOD earlier this month, but Volume II hits the market in just a couple of days.

Hit the jump to watch the trailer and click here to read Matt’s review of Volume I.  The film also stars Stacy Martin, Mia Goth, and Jean-Marc BarrNymphomaniac: Volume II will be available VOD on March 20th and opens in theaters on April 4th.

Here’s the logline for Nymphomaniac: Volume II:

NYMPHOMANIAC: VOLUME II picks up with the story of Joe’s adulthood, where her journey of self-discovery leads to darker complications.

nymphomaniac-volume-2-poster




Like Us


Comments:

FB Comments

  • Pingback: New Trailer for NYMPHOMANIAC: VOLUME II Starring Charlotte Gainsbourg, Jamie Bell, and Shia LaBeouf - SC NATO | SC NATO

  • Frank

    Artistic Porn, when porn is dolled up to be more than what it really is, porn. I swear this plot to this movie is one, I’ve probably heard before attached to some softcore porn movie. Thanks Von Trier, you made more high class, arty porn, porn.

    • GrimReaper07

      If the purpose of this film was to make people jack off to it you’d be right. As its not, you just come off as a naive, ignorant, shallow and a prude.

      • Frank

        I’m no prude, I like porn, porn’s not a bad thing, the bad thing is it pretending it’s anything other than porn which it tries to do. I think the ignorant ones are the people championing this as great cinema while they put down you’re average skinamax flick or one of those low budge sexpolitation movies from the 60s or 70s. Really no difference between this and Deep Throat and Debbie Does Dallas other than cleaner film stock, well know actors and higher budget. Frankly, I find it insulting that Von Trier doesn’t admit he’s making a movie that is virtually porn, it would be liberating if a director did admit to that once in a while.
        I think Von Trier’s incredible shallow and naiive if he thinks his movie here isn’t anything more than high class dolled up porn. I guess that’s like if a prostitute said she was a escort and not a prostitute and was above all the pimps and prostitutes of the ghetto and elsewhere who sold their bodies on the streets.

      • GrimReaper07

        If you think this is a sexploitation movie you’re clearly delusional. How are you supposed to do a movie about sex addiction without explicit sex scenes? Or is simply not possible to do a movie about sex without it being porn? God forbid there be a movie about sex, a very important part of people’s lives. Saying that a movie that shows the pitfalls of sex addiction is porn is like saying that Breaking Bad is a series that endorses the use and distribution of drugs. I’m calling you a prude because you immediately link sex in a movie to porn, without caring about the context.

        As for your other comment, yeah, I know Von Trier isn’t a director who does mainstream cinema nor is Haneke. Their films aren’t big hits because they deal with powerful themes in a way that makes viewers uncomfortable, sort of like some of Kubrick’s work. Audiences prefer escapist entertainment, which is absolutely fine. But box office success has absolutely nothing to do with a movie’s quality, as evidences by some of the greatest films of all time having tanked at the box office. Von Trier’s movies are obviously arthouse , but using that adjective as an insult is moronic. It’s totally fine for someone not to like arthouse cinema because its not a type of genre that’s ever going to appeal to the masses. It’s another thing to call these movies crap cause you’re bored by them or because their point flies over your head.

      • Frank

        I’m sure if you watched the movie, you would see Trier all up in the people’s faces watching every moment of their sex as if he enjoyed it. I’m not delusional, he enjoys it, like that guy who directed Blue is the Warmest Color, perverts in hiding, they enjoy filmming these movies. Sex is very important but Trier is lying to himself and the generally public when the movie’s basic plot and description sound like a porno movie. Actually he’s nothing like Kubrick, Kubrick actually said something and made movies that people know about widely see. Kubrick also made more mainstream impact. Trier never did that, and he won’t do that. I’m not using Arthouse to insult it, that’s what is, it’s also porn, sweet, arty porn, no insult about that.

      • GrimReaper07

        A- You haven’t even seen the movie, so I can’t see how you know how the sex scenes are filmed or what their narrative value is. If anything I’ve only seen you complain about the trailer. Also, if you think Blue is the Warmest Color is porn, then I have no hope for you.

        B- Kubrick did make arthouse films and the most mainstream he ever did was Dr. Strangelove (hardly considered a mainstream movie at the time of its release since it was a comedy about how everyone was going to die). How on earth could anyone ever consider 2001 a mainstream movie? I’m not saying Von Trier is better or even on the same level as Kubrick, but both are directors who’ve always had something to say with their movies, even if it disgusted and made viewers uncomfortable (remember the rape scenes in A Clockwork Orange?).

        C- I still don’t get why people think this is porn. Cause it has sex scenes? Porn is something people make for people to jerk off to. Neither I nor you have seen the movie, but most of the reviews I’ve seen have praised the film and pointed out how intentionally unattractive the sex scenes are (and also that there aren’t that many). You’re talking without having a clue of what you’re talking about. You’ve only read the film’s synopsis, seen maybe a couple of trailers and read that it features explicit sex scenes. It’d be okay if you didn’t know more than that about the movie if you weren’t so convinced you do and such an a******about it.

      • Frank

        2001 actually became mainstream with time.
        People will probably jerk off to this and Blue is the Warmest Color, it happens get over it. That’s why it’s usually praised as erotic. I’ve already seen the trailer and the plot description, massive graphic sex scenes, nothing else.

      • GrimReaper07

        Oh you’ve already seen the trailer and the plot description? Sorry, I didn’t know you were such an expert on this film. And lol on 2001 being mainstream. Show that film to any mainstream moviegoer and they’ll walk out in the first 40 minutes. If they manage to stick around until the end, odds are they’ll call it pretentious artsy crap.

        By your reasoning so many things are porn. There are people who’ll jerk off to anything that’s slightly erotic (including, for example, paintings). That doesn’t remotely make it porn. The fact that its erotic doesn’t make something porn. Its porn if its only intention is that. Nymphomaniac isn’t all that different from Shame in that it features graphic sex scenes but still has a brain and plenty to say.

      • Frank

        Shame actually had a better plot than this. This is just a porno plot and I really don’t need to know everything abou this girl’s sexual awakening Von Trier, that just makes you look like a pervert. 2001 isn’t at all pefect and most would walk out of it, deal with it. Hell even the writer doesn’t totally understand or like the movie.

      • GrimReaper07

        Love how you can compare the plot of both movies having only read the film’s synopsis. Also, what do I care about some people walking out of 2001? How does that make it any less of a film classic?

        Ugh why do I even care. You’re so square and close minded and you obviously had already made up your mind about the film the second you heard about it. Before you said 2001 was mainstream, now you say most walk out of it because incomprehensible. There’s no point in arguing with you since your comments are so inconsistent and make no sense.

      • Frank

        It’s mainstream due to it’s usuage by most people in comedy still and as references in mainstream movies. That’s all I’m saying, if people actually sat down to watch they’d probably walk out.. Though to be fair it was a better movie that Tree of Life.

      • “deal with it”

        To quote you, Frank, “deal with it”.

        This film has been made. It has come out. Reviewers have responded (largely positively). The film may not “be for everyone”. And you may be one of those everymen. But it is for some people. In the same way the limited release of films by Mike Leigh, Werner Herzog, Bela Tarr, Yorgos Lanthimos, Bong Joon-Ho (and the list is endless) appeal to a smaller less-broad demographic.

        “deal with it”

        Some people who prefer a film to be a little less meat-headed have to put up with your Summer Blockbuster bullshit most of the year nowadays – seems there is hardly a moment left in the whole American calender where cinema is nothing more than “just entertainment” – so you go enjoy yourself in your corner, they can enjoy their own little slice of peace and quiet and you can learn to grow up.

        Acting like a baby who was weaned onto the bottle too soon and still aches for Mammy’s nipples. Maybe that’s why you can’t take an extensive and unashamed look at sex?

        “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” you braindead fucking retard “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it” “deal with it”

      • Frank

        I’m actually dealing with, it’s porn, I’m dealing with it. It’s Von Trier, I’m dealing with it. So what life goes on.

      • Frank

        I’m sure if you watched the movie, you would see Trier all up in the people’s faces watching every moment of their sex as if he enjoyed it. I’m not delusional, he enjoys it, like that guy who directed Blue is the Warmest Color, perverts in hiding, they enjoy filmming these movies. Sex is very important but Trier is lying to himself and the generally public when the movie’s basic plot and description sound like a porno movie. Actually he’s nothing like Kubrick, Kubrick actually said something and made movies that people know about widely see. Kubrick also made more mainstream impact. Trier never did that, and he won’t do that. I’m not using Arthouse to insult it, that’s what is, it’s also porn, sweet, arty porn, no insult about that.

      • GrimReaper07

        If you think this is a sexploitation movie you’re clearly delusional. How are you supposed to do a movie about sex addiction without explicit sex scenes? Or is simply not possible to do a movie about sex without it being porn? God forbid there be a movie about sex, a very important part of people’s lives. Saying that a movie that shows the pitfalls of sex addiction is porn is like saying that Breaking Bad is a series that endorses the use and distribution of drugs. I’m calling you a prude because you immediately link sex in a movie to porn, without caring about the context.

        As for your other comment, yeah, I know Von Trier isn’t a director who does mainstream cinema nor is Haneke. Their films aren’t big hits because they deal with powerful themes in a way that makes viewers uncomfortable, sort of like some of Kubrick’s work. Audiences prefer escapist entertainment, which is absolutely fine. But box office success has absolutely nothing to do with a movie’s quality, as evidences by some of the greatest films of all time having tanked at the box office. Von Trier’s movies are obviously arthouse , but using that adjective as an insult is moronic. It’s totally fine for someone not to like arthouse cinema because its not a type of genre that’s ever going to appeal to the masses. It’s another thing to call these movies crap cause you’re bored by them or because their point flies over your head.

  • GrimReaper07

    I wonder what the trolls think now that the films has been getting wildly positive reviews and that they all mention how there’s much fewer sex than what is being advertised. Maybe those prudes will switch off from watching superhero movies and start seeing real films for a change.

    • Frank

      Probably not, Lars Von Trier and Blockbuster never go together well, except maybe back in the day when you could rent him at Blockbuster.
      And I don’t think it’s prudism, it’s because people don’t care or like Lars Von Trier, face it, it’s like Michael Hanake being a audience winner. He’s not going to be one at all. The audience isn’t going to pay to see his arty, boring BS, or his porn masquerading as a deep, serious thoughtful movie either. They’ll just wait till later to rent it on Netflix or something and then never watch it again. Because you know what, Lars Von Trier is nothing but an arthouse,pretentious director who isn’t in the least bit mainstream or known by most average people, probably even in Denmark. And I for one am not going to waste my money on watching countless drabby porn from a danish guy when I could watch that for free on the internet or because there are other more exciting movies out there like those so called superhero movies. You are in denial and are in a fantasy world if you think not.

      • partysub

        you could have saved a lot of time and just not seen it instead of wasting so much energy telling everyone how it’s going to fail. even if this sucks, your argument that average moviegoers won’t like it and it won’t do big numbers don’t really matter to my or anyone’s personal enjoyment.

      • Frank

        It’s not suppose to, the commenter was saying how much mainstream audiences don’t go see his movies and him wishing they did. And he had to burst his like angry, egotistical bubble, A. because he’s wrongheaded about the reasons, B. He’s such a stuck up person. C. I don’t care about Trier’s porno movie.

      • Frank

        It’s not suppose to, the commenter was saying how much mainstream audiences don’t go see his movies and him wishing they did. And he had to burst his like angry, egotistical bubble, A. because he’s wrongheaded about the reasons, B. He’s such a stuck up person. C. I don’t care about Trier’s porno movie.

      • partysub

        you could have saved a lot of time and just not seen it instead of wasting so much energy telling everyone how it’s going to fail. even if this sucks, your argument that average moviegoers won’t like it and it won’t do big numbers don’t really matter to my or anyone’s personal enjoyment.

      • BraindeadBabies

        “Probably not, Lars Von Trier and Blockbuster never go together well,
        except maybe back in the day when you could rent him at Blockbuster.”

        Terrible one-liner. Just shite.

      • Frank

        Ah, everyone’s got to be a critic.

      • Sten

        And you needed more than 70 lines to tell everybody how much you aren’t interested in this movie?

      • Frank

        Yes, sorry about that.

  • Shia LeBeouf

    “I AM NOT AN INTERNET TROLL ANYMORE”

    • Frank

      Thank God he cut out your d*ck.

  • The Flobbit

    Why recycle the same poster for the second film? Why not make entirely new ones…?

  • Brett

    I don’t know how people can call nymphomaniac Vol 1 porn.
    I saw the flick and expected, well, porn.
    Truth to tell though, I’ve seen more R rated movies with better sex scenes than this flick and didn’t think this movie was porn at all; anyone who calls this movie porn probably hasn’t been exposed to much porn.
    I think Lars over-hyped the ‘porn’ label to get as much publicity for this very boring movie as possible. Honestly though, this is just a movie about a girl who happens to like sex, has a lot of it though very little nudity is shown, not more than any other R rate movie with sex in it.
    Seriously, this movie is HIGHLY OVERRATED: the woman calls herself a nymphomanic because she likes sex and well, doesn’t everyone? She has lots of sex because she likes it and I just think that makes her normal — not a nymph.

  • Pingback: Nymphomaniac Online Subtitrat Volume I & Volume II

  • Pingback: How Hard Is It To Correctly Pronounce "Seagull"? - Hollywood Elsewhere

Click Here