Siv, the sexual nurse, has married Hans Henrik Holm and is living in misery while her husband seems to be hiding something from her. He starts inviting men to have sex with her for money, and Siv is torn between what she has to do and her marriage.
Just three years after Mac Ahlberg's directorial debut, he makes the sequel - yet you could swear at least 10 or 15 years have passed. The first movie was an elegant and sexy erotic drama with all the style of an arthouse movie, and the sequel is more of a typical drama with some smaller erotic touches. It's needless to say that comparing the two is nearly pointless, yet it's impossible not to.
In this movie some time has passed and Siv has married Hans Henrik Holm. Their money has been spent by the (to be revealed) voyeuristic Hans, and her life is just going down hill. Hans then lets a man of wealth have sex with Siv for money, and this starts a new activity within the relationship - while she has sex for them to get money, Hans happily observes. Siv is not entirely happy with the situation at hand, but her problem doesn't seem to be that she is sleeping with other men.
Though I find the changes interesting and would like to think that much of the style is changed to fit her new, married, depressed life, I still kinda doubt that's what they were going for. I really loved the first one due to the style. Where it was a clumsy movie in many aspects, it had such class and high entertainment values that it came off as something much more than it really was - a typical Scandinavian erotic drama. The sequel, devoid of most of the artistic merit, does indeed feel like the typical Scandinavian erotic drama that the first would/could have been - but luckily wasn't. This wouldn't have been brought up if it wasn't for the fantastic first film, as it's only next to that one that this feels bland in most of its execution.
Essy Persson didn't return as Siv here, and instead we were treated with Gio Petré. She's not much older than Essy Persson was, but carries herself as someone much older and wiser. This is partially because of the changes the character has gone through, but perhaps also the differences in actresses. This sequel is a more solid production, much less clumsy it seems, but I can't deny that there are a number of scenes where I felt Gio Petré didn't give it her all. She seemed a bit empty. And not in the way that her character was empty, but how it seemed like she didn't know the character that well. Still, I think the movie works with Gio in the role, as it fits the ideas that the movie wants to portray.
The first film was a rather entertaining, fun and highly stylistic erotic drama, and I will never be able to value this sequel higher. But because the differences are so big, it's also not hard to ignore what made the first one better. It's not the same kind of movie, at all. Hell, "Jeg, en kvinde 2" is quite a depressing movie. A sad portrayal of a marriage. Not to mention that the movie takes a rather drastic, dark turn towards the end that explains a lot about Hans Henrik Holm. Not that we aren't left with questions about him, though. He's a lurid little bastard, no doubt.