Reviews

I have a theory that this movie isn't what it appears on the surface. It is presented as the story of a sex addict, or "Nymphomaniac". However, I take it to be the ultimate "unreliable narrator" story.

My theory is this: Joe, the main character is not a nymphomaniac, she is a psychopath out for blood. She even admits to wanting to kill someone near the end of the movie. Though she is talking about a specific person, I believe her intent is clear, she will do whatever it takes to seduce a man, thus giving her just cause to kill him.

There are several hints along the way that we have no reason to believe anything she says. On two different occasions she tells Seligman that she never saw Jerome again even though he shows up in her life two more times. Perhaps the biggest clues are the fact that her ENTIRE STORY revolves around things she sees in the room that she is in and cues she takes from Seligman himself.

For his part, Seligman even points out multiple times that there are too many coincidences for her story to be believed; Joe has to guilt him back into her narrative. From the opening of her story, beginning with the fish hook on the wall we can see Joe as the fisher and Seligman as the fish. Her story is the bait.

We even see Joe put this method to use on another character when she rattles off a series of sexual scenarios to blackmail someone into paying a debt. This part of her life is perhaps the closest thing to truth she has told Seligman.

From the time she entered his house, her intent was to seduce Seligman. Her story twists and turns in an attempt to pinpoint what exactly will arouse him but he won't bite. And then she realizes he's asexual and everything goes downhill.

And she gets her kill.

Sure, it could be viewed as a metaphor about mental health and drug addiction. Where it fails is in its handling of such subjects and the need to present itself as a sci-fi, parallel universe thriller. There are far too many plot holes in this juggling act for it to be viewed solely as an unreliable narrator, drug hallucination, even if I were to grant that approach.

It starts out with Greg, the lead character, accidently killing his boss. Nobody knows he did it, yet there was someone in the next room when it happen and they knew he was there. Obviously, if this was all in his head and it never happened, that isn't a problem. But to anyone watching the movie, it looks really stupid because SOMEONE KNOWS HE KILLED HIM.

From there, the character makes far too many irrational decisions to even make it a remotely engaging film. If you make it to the end of the move and think back, the choices become a bit more understandable, if not rational, depending on how you view the story.

As long as this is a drug induced hallucination, I guess the story makes sense. That is THE ONLY WAY. If it's an alternate reality, it's the dumbest thing I've ever seen.

I don't know what this movie was about. I only watched it because it had a great cast and director. I went into it knowing nothing of the plot or story.

From the opening scene, I knew pretty much where the story was going. Older, more savvy gambler takes young guy under his wing and teaches him the "tricks of the trade". At some point there's going to be a double cross and things go south. It was all there. Only, it wasn't, and it didn't.

What followed was a slow burn character study in which every one of my assumptions slowly fell apart.

I will be honest, I still do not know what the movie is about. In the opening scene the maverick gambler mentions having two adult children he "hasn't seen in years". This is a passing remark not related to the story in any way. However, I couldn't help but get the feeling that he was trying to atone for missing out on their lives. What I initially perceived as manipulation on his part-he seemed far to nice to not have altererior motives-in the end turns out to be, though imperfect, simply fatherly love.

The movie intentionally doesn't spell ANYTHING out for the audience. It's all up to you to figure out. By the end of the movie I was honestly wondering, "what's the point?" But I think THATS the point. You don't walk away NOT THINKING. To me it's a story of imperfect individuals atoning for iniquities-perceived or otherwise- that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives.

Maybe I'm wrong and I missed the point completely. But I think, somewhere deep in the subtext of this often restrained scrip is the message of a man looking for forgiveness. I won't spoil anything more but I highly recommend the movie. Enjoy!

Where to begin? The narration throughout detracts from the story, minimizing any depth of character that may have been there. Cage's voice over plagues what may have been an otherwise engrossing story had there been less dialogue. Unlike movies that succumb to the "tell-dont-show" method of storytelling, this simply just over TELLS everything to the point of boredom. It feels as if the filmmakers don't trust us to get the message, thus beating us over the head with narration which, in some places repeats things that have already been said by the character just minutes before.

Narration aside, my biggest complaint about the movie, which I found nearly unwatchable, is it's portrayal of those in the medical profession, and paramedics in particular. Does this mean I wasn't entertained? Well, no. The story, what little there was, was interesting enough. However, as far as plot goes, it is severely lacking.

The reason I found it near unwatchable is in the way it handled the hospital staff scenes and paramedic characters. Now, I don't know what being a doctor was like in the 90's nor do I know what paramedics can get away with. What I do know is that that I can't be expected to sit through a 2 hour long movie about paramedics in New York and not come away asking, "How did they get away with that?".

I would argue that almost nothing presented in the movie is accurate or realistic. Now, I could be wrong, but I really hope for all our sakes I'm not. Everything ranging from paramedics simply not showing up to a call, all the way up to them drinking while driving and crashing the ambulance into other cars-without consequence, is on display.

Between the doctors in the hospital and the paramedics on the street, everything was off. Nothing in the hospital was cohesive, almost as if it existed solely in the context of the scene they were in at the moment. Staff contradicted themselves depending on what the movie needed at any given time and the doctors were chillingly cold and unprofessional. It felt like an all out assult on the people it was depicting. If this is realistic, I haven't seen it.

When it comes to issues of realism, you can expect a certain level of accuracy for any given movie. This is NOT a movie that gets away with saying paramedics were drinking and driving, wrecked cars, flipped the ambulance, and walked away with no police intervention and zero repercussions. It is also NOT a movie that gets to introduce a paramedic character that casually assaults a person in the back of an ambulance.(again, with no repercussions)

Of the many, MANY egregious instances of characters acting in ways that would otherwise be wildly inappropriate or outright illegal, there's- paramedics arguing about what calls to take, casually instructing suicidal people on how to correctly kill themselves, making small talk over the radio with dispatch instead of taking calls and, to top it all off, one paramedic straight up nearly murders someone.

You might be thinking, "I'm sure all of this plays into the story somehow". It does not, unless the story is trying to show how crooked the New York medical profession is. There is zero consequence to any actions by the characters. The movie itself doesn't even bat an eye at the character nearly murdering a mentally ill person. Of course, we accept that character as being a BAD person but it doesn't matter in the context of the movie. And to make it worse, the main "good" guy stands buy and let's it happen, never saying a single word about it. He just takes him to the hospital, in the ambulance, with his partner who nearly murdered the man and drops him off like nothing happened.

Of course, there's an underlying message about forgiving yourself and letting go that's, if we're being honest, really superficial. Nothing about the story warrants the outrageous actions shown onscreen. The actions of the characters have no bearing on the story whatsoever. It's a cold hearted, numb look at the lives of the ones who are supposed to keep us safe. Only, I don't think that's what they were going for.

What a great idea!...right up until it wasn't. From the fever dream failings of Leo's character to the depiction of a late 60's Hollywood recreated down to the last detail, nothing feels out of place. Except the entire ending that the whole story hinges on creeps up and falls flat on its face. There's no realization, no revelation and absolutely no intention, aside from the fact that one COULD rewrite history in such a way as to disregard and disrespect those who died at the hands of such evil people. Those who live on are treated to Tarantino's childish, albeit impressively intricate, attempt at historical fiction taken to the most egregious of degrees. Never before have I seen someone trash so many for no reason other than to further their ego-maniacal domination of alternate history type storytelling. I guess going in I had expected that some care had gone in to keeping with the historical framework of the Polanski/Tate story line/murder and that whatever fictional groundwork would be built around those events leading up to and including those events. I had even worked out along the way how said events would impact the protagonist, what with all of his existential crisis and fits of self loathing building up. Perhaps that may have seemed too obvious a route to Mr. Tarantino, instead opting for a ludicrous 3rd act so over the top as to rival even his history twisting film Inglorious B*st*rds. At least in that film some care was given as to what led to those changes. Here, there are no subtle drops in the sea. No easing into what could have been. Where we should perhaps have seen character growth begin to form around these great changes, something for the audience to connect to, we simply find emptiness- a hollowed form as soulless as the imagined history that can never be. If Tarantino was trying for a retribution message to those at fault, yeah we get it, they are terrible people. We don't need this film to tell us that. Did it possibly tarnish the reputations of others that had no business being caught up in a display of flashy Hollywood make-believe? Did it ride the back of high profile tragedies only to twist reality for its own benefit? Yes. Yes it did.

There is absolutly no reason for the story to exist outside of characters making stupid decisions and saying stupid things. The entire plot revolves around the fact that the main character HAS TO DO EVERYTHING SOMEONE TELLS HER TO DO. If that wasnt bad enough, most of the things she is told to do requires massive suspension of disbelief. To make matters worse, Ella, the main character makes the dumbest possible choices to keep the stupidity going to the very end. Whether it's character error, such as her "obeying orders" that were never given to her and vice versa, or her not even trying to fix things that could easily be remedied through simple communication, she painfully drags out the most basic of plot devices for comedic as well as story purposes.