4 Minutes of Film - Erotic thrillers and because I can, Nymphomaniac

In 4 Minutes of Film this week, I review Stranger by the Lake (where, as Greg James so helpfully put it, you see a LOT of willies), discuss Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton in Only Lovers Left Alive and tell you exactly what I thought of Colin Farrell's latest film, with an interview from the charming man himself.

You may have noticed that Nyph()maniac, Lars Von Trier's double whammy, did not get a mention on air purely because I like my job and want to keep it. There is no treading delicately around the fact that this film (I'll count it as one film split into Part I and II) is all about sex. It's essentially a socially accepted porn film for the middle classes. In Part I, Jo (Charlotte Gainsbourg) recounts her life story of being a nymphomaniac or the apparently more PC term, sex addict, to Selligman (Stellan Skarsgard), after he rescues her after an attack.

We see her life in explicit flashbacks; her younger self daring a friend to see how many people they can sleep with on a single train journey (the prize is a bag of chocolate sweeties); a jilted wife (played by the hysterical Uma Thurman) bringing her children to see the woman her husband has left her for; falling in love with Shia LeBeouf. It took me about 90 minutes to realise that Shia was attempting an English accent. Christian Slater plays Jo's father, I don't think he even bothered with an accent. This all happens in Part I and it's sort of what you'd expect, it's hedonistic, it can be quite fun and it is sexy. 

Part II feels much more like hard work. This is where you see Jamie Bell whipping Charlotte Gainsbourg, you see the darker side of sex addiction which includes losing the man she loves and not being able to cope with being a mother. There's a part where Jo goes to Sex Addicts Anonymous and is told to remove or cover anything in her house that reminds her of sex. This apparently includes bath edges and taps. Erm...?

It is a type of assault on the eyes and the brain, 4 hours of this is a lot to take and Lars Von Trier messes with your mind by completely changing the dynamic between Parts I and II. It accelerates massively and you feel left behind, almost desperate to go back to the parts you can laugh at, rather than wanting to cover your eyes. The thing that annoyed me huuuuuuugely was the last 2 minutes of Part II. I won't give anything away but it totally twisted everything that preceded it and ruined the film(s) for me. Utterly. Had it ended 120 seconds earlier, the integrity (ha, pretentious) of the film may have remained intact. 

4* for Part I, 2* for Part II so averages out at 3* overall! Make up your own mind and let me know @BBCR1Rhianna