Human Centipede II

Phony Scott

I thought the original was ok, but far from shocking. It turns out that the BBFC have denied the sequel a certificate. I'll be interested to read the full details for the decision.

The UK's movie ratings body has taken the unusual step of refusing outright to classify a new horror film - and warned there was a real risk of harm to viewers.

The film is a sequel to last year's stomach-churning Human Centipede about a mad scientist who grafts three kidnap victims together.
But the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has ruled no amount of cuts would allow them to give the new film - The Human Centipede II - a certificate and said the movie may fall foul of the Obscene Publications Act.


The original film was given an 18 certificate and was shown in cinemas, and film festivals, before being released on DVD.
Film distributors had applied to release the follow-up on DVD but its rejection means it cannot be legally supplied in the UK.
The BBFC concluded that the thrust of the film was the "sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture and murder of his naked victims".


It said: "There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."


The BBFC said the film breached classification guidelines and "poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers".


The first film caused a stir when it was released last year by Dutch director Tom Six but it was thought to be suitable for adult viewing.
The ratings body said that "although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting, it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film".

Edit: Link

mike65

The guardian describes in more detail and its basically violent porn. It'll find its audience online.

The film then focuses on his fantasies and the torture he inflicts. One scene involves him wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the end of the centipede, having become aroused by the sight of his victims being forced to defecate into each others' mouths.

Corkfeen

While it's most likely awful. It shouldn't be banned as censorship is always a fairly dangerous route to go down and probably far more dangerous than the film itself. You'll also get far more people watching it due to the attention they're drawing too it.

Professey Chin

Cant make a good film so go for the shock factor.
Pretty much what I expected

7samurai

I remember when I read the synopsis for the movie,it sounded so sick and twisted I wasn't sure I really could stomach it. I really liked it and although I found it gross , I found it actually quite entertaining and found myself laughing at a good few bits especially at the mad doctor. The sick bits were def bad but they could have been alot more graphic and I guess this is what the director has done for the sequel . Must be real sick stuff to not be rated these days :eek:

yammycat

banned by BBFC, going to be banned here too so.

Da Shins Kelly

Whatever about the graphic nature of it, it should be banned anyway for being epically sh*t.

johnny_ultimate

Censorship is bad, and the Human Centipede is bad. It's a conundrum of which is less bad.

Audience should probably be given the choice, but if the first is anything to go by this will be some serious junk.

I think that what's needed in the UK and Ireland is a system similar to the US where films such as A Serbian Film and Human Centipede 2 can be released but without an officially sanctioned rating.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am completely against censorship and I don't believe the line that it's to protect the children, but at the same time can a scene in which a man wraps barb wire around his penis and rape a woman be considered entertainment.

I personally found A Serbian Film quite tame after all the controversy it aroused, while it's a difficult film to watch it did have some redeeming qualities and while the message was muddled there was a hint of intelligence it all. With the Human Centipede all you got was genre cliches being trotted out without any intelligence or wit on display, that the bad guy looked like Yzma from Disney's The Emperor's New Groove didn't exactly help matters.

It can be still shown in arthouse cinemas though without a cert? It's not like it's banned, it's just not widely available.

ztoical

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that what's needed in the UK and Ireland is a system similar to the US where films such as A Serbian Film and Human Centipede 2 can be released but without an officially sanctioned rating.

Isn't that what the IFI is for though? It's been several years since I've lived in Dublin and as such had memebership there but I thought they could show films that hadn't been given an officially rating hence the need for memebership. The reality of bringing in something like what the states is you'll have the same situation either way because the majority of cinema chains won't show the films. Outside of major areas like LA and New York it's very very hard to find a cinema that will screen NR films, even NC-17 ratings are considered very iffy by certain chains.

I don't see the point in banning it as your going to end up having more people trying to see it thinking it's going to be something amazing when in fact it's just more rubbish.

This movie must be really bad if the BBFC are contemplating having it banned. They're usually on top form with ratings.

Keyzer

First film was absolutely pointless and crap anyway so not making a sequel is great news in my opinion...

johnny_ultimate

The only thing the BBFC seems to consider banning is material that's just hyper violent for hyper violence sake - the game Manhunt 2 for example. If the HCII is merely a more extreme version of the first (and that was fairly tame once you got past the concept) then it surely falls into the banning category.

But yeah pretty sure IFI can show unrated films unless they're actively banned by IFCO (have they banned the film yet?).

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The only thing the BBFC seems to consider banning is material that's just hyper violent for hyper violence sake - the game Manhunt 2 for example. If the HCII is merely a more extreme version of the first (and that was fairly tame once you got past the concept) then it surely falls into the banning category.

But yeah pretty sure IFI can show unrated films unless they're actively banned by IFCO (have they banned the film yet?).

I don't know about you, but I'm damned glad they hold that stance.

ztoical

ztoical wrote: »

Isn't that what the IFI is for though? It's been several years since I've lived in Dublin and as such had memebership there but I thought they could show films that hadn't been given an officially rating hence the need for memebership. The reality of bringing in something like what the states is you'll have the same situation either way because the majority of cinema chains won't show the films. Outside of major areas like LA and New York it's very very hard to find a cinema that will screen NR films, even NC-17 ratings are considered very iffy by certain chains.

I don't see the point in banning it as your going to end up having more people trying to see it thinking it's going to be something amazing when in fact it's just more rubbish.

I was referring to the manner in which Unrated DVD and Blu Rays are released in the US meaning that there is no such thing as a banned film. The IFI can show the film but I imagine that they won't given how in recent memory private cinemas and festivals in the UK were unable to screen teh uncut version of A Serbian Film.

The problem you have with Human Centipede 2 is the same one you had with the IFCO recent re-banning of I Spit on Your Grave. Most people would have been completely oblivious to the existence of ISOYG and paid no real heed were it certified in Ireland but the second it was out right banned once more the title instanlty shot to the top of many peoples must watch list.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't know about you, but I'm damned glad they hold that stance.

Yes and no: I'd rather this kind of junk didn't get made, but I also think adults should be allowed make their own decision on what they want to watch if it's fiction. Obviously a line should be drawn at anything approaching 'real' snuff.

It's a tricky one, and I'd be against censorship in general. But when something like this comes along, perhaps the world is better without it. Who am I to make that decision though?

Galvasean

ztoical wrote: »

Isn't that what the IFI is for though? It's been several years since I've lived in Dublin and as such had memebership there but I thought they could show films that hadn't been given an officially rating hence the need for memebership.

I don't think the IFI was set up to show the likes of the Human Centipede 2.

Nibs05

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Centipede_II_(Full_Sequence)

After reading this I'm not supprised it's being banned,

Galvasean

It doesn't matter how nasty, degrading or humiliating the film is to it's fictional characters. People should be allowed to use common sense and avoid such tripe.
banning a film like this only makes it become the stuff of legend where people will actively seek it out. Ban attempts are often free publicity for sub par films. The DaVinci code (book and film) was poorly written and not particularly entertaining, but became a huge hit thanks to people kicking upa fuss and trying to get it banned. Most people wouldn't have heard about the blasted thing, let alone paid money to see it had it not been for wannabe dogooders trying to get the thing banned.

Zombienosh

Yep, Banning a crap film multiplies its sales, curiosity etc. I'd say the centipede crowd aren't too worried about this.

johnny_ultimate

tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film in the series

I hate to say it, but that is actually a funny idea for a sequel.

Alas, postmodernity is wasted on the Human Centipede.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I hate to say it, but that is actually a funny idea for a sequel.

Alas, postmodernity is wasted on the Human Centipede.

The one thing I will say about Tom Six is that there is an air of wit about him. From the interviews I've read about him he comes across as quite a likeable guy who may like Uwe Boll actually make some good films when he gets the notion of making the sickest film ever out of his head.

Boll's reputation as being the worst director of all time has serious hurt his more recent films, Tunnel Rats, Rampage, Darfur, etc which are pretty damn good films but most people won't even give them a chance. Six may very well turn into a competent director but the controversy surrounding this film may tar his name forever.

Off topic but anyone genuinely looking for a great little genre picture should check out the remake of Mother's Day which is out here on Friday. It's a simply astonishingly good remake and a damn fine film in it's own right.

ejmaztec

Deleted User wrote: »

The one thing I will say about Tom Six is that there is an air of wit about him. From the interviews I've read about him he comes across as quite a likeable guy who may like Uwe Boll actually make some good films when he gets the notion of making the sickest film ever out of his head.

Boll's reputation as being the worst director of all time has serious hurt his more recent films, Tunnel Rats, Rampage, Darfur, etc which are pretty damn good films but most people won't even give them a chance. Six may very well turn into a competent director but the controversy surrounding this film may tar his name forever.

Off topic but anyone genuinely looking for a great little genre picture should check out the remake of Mother's Day which is out here on Friday. It's a simply astonishingly good remake and a damn fine film in it's own right.

I'd say that you were half right on that.

I saw the first one on the home channel for crap movies i.e. Sy Fy, and it was pointless bilge. Even Edward D Wood's work was pure genius compared to that particular effort by Six.:o

Dublindude69

Deleted User wrote: »

Off topic but anyone genuinely looking for a great little genre picture should check out the remake of Mother's Day which is out here on Friday. It's a simply astonishingly good remake and a damn fine film in it's own right.

How have you seen Mother's Day is it ain't out till Friday?

bnt

Galvasean wrote: »

I don't think the IFI was set up to show the likes of the Human Centipede 2.

They showed Cold Fish a couple of months ago, which was fairly brutal, I thought. But I haven't seen The Human Centipede I or II, and even if the IFI try it I doubt I'll bother.

Galvasean

bnt wrote: »

They showed Cold Fish a couple of months ago, which was fairly brutal, I thought. But I haven't seen The Human Centipede I or II, and even if the IFI try it I doubt I'll bother.

I suppose they would if there was sufficient demand for it. They are a business after all. IIRC they showed part 1 at the Horrorthon

Dublindude69

Dublindude69 wrote: »

How have you seen Mother's Day is it ain't out till Friday?

Because of connections, Darren Lynn Bousman even asked me to write a short review of the film and send it on to him. I will even have a Blu Ray copy of the film before the end of the week, all fully legal.

mike65

Is it a feminist tract disguised as a backwoods horror flick like Charles Kaufmans (not the Charlie Kaufman!) original?

mike65

mike65 wrote: »

Is it a feminist tract disguised as a backwoods horror flick like Charles Kaufmans (not the Charlie Kaufman!) original?

It lacks the original kitsch humour and is a superior film in nearly every regards, Rebecca De Mornay is terrifying in it. If you like the original you should love the remake

johnny_ultimate

bnt wrote: »

They showed Cold Fish a couple of months ago, which was fairly brutal, I thought. But I haven't seen The Human Centipede I or II, and even if the IFI try it I doubt I'll bother.

Cold Fish had artistic value though. Human Centipede by all accounts has little going for it bar excessive violence - hell, that's pretty much the point according to all involved.

Of course, then there is the whole debate of what 'artistic value' is, and the circle continues unbroken.

Galvasean

Art is overrated :P

johnny_ultimate

Galvasean wrote: »

Art is overrated :P

Going by HC First Sequence, it really really isn't :pac:

Tom Six posted this today in response to the BBFC banning and he actually does have reason to be angry beyond the ban that is. The BBFC, on their website give away not only the films plot but also what is I assume the most pivotal scene in the film.

Thank you BBFC for putting spoilers of my movie on your website and thank you for banning my film in this exceptional way. Apparently I made an horrific horror-film, but shouldn’t a good horror film be horrific? My dear people it is a fucking MOVIE. It is all fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art. Give people their own choice to watch it or not. If people can’t handle or like my movies they just don’t watch them. If people like my movies they have to be able to see it any time, anywhere also in the UK.

Phony Scott

I don't know what to make of the film, but I don't like making a judgement call on something I haven't seen. For the record, I thought the first film was ok in so far as it didn't take itself remotely seriously and there was a fair bit of dark humour found between the hamfisted set-up. I suspect this will be much the same. However...

Jumping on the ostensibly liberal bandwagon of "I'm against censorship but ban this filth" without having actually seen the film seems pretty ignorant to me. Bare in mind that's what happened with films like 'Texas Chain-saw Massacre' and 'Last House on the Left'. I'm not saying HCII will be as good as either of the latter two films, no doubt it will be awful, but this is shock cinema and it has an audience, hence why half of you saw the first film in the first place.

Considering Cannibal Holocaust goes near uncut these days, I find showing the acceptance of a turtle being hacked to bits (and is real) and a woman being raped with barbed wire (a fiction) doesn't quite add up to me. One falls foul of the obscene publications act, whereas the other doesn't. The actors in HCII consented to be in the film, I'm not so sure about the turtles consent to be hacked to pieces in Cannibal Holocaust!

Galvasean

Phony Scott wrote: »

Considering Cannibal Holocaust goes near uncut these days, I find showing the acceptance of a turtle being hacked to bits (and is real) and a woman being raped with barbed wire (a fiction) doesn't quite add up to me. One falls foul of the obscene publications act, whereas the other doesn't. The actors in HCII consented to be in the film, I'm not so sure about the turtles consent to be hacked to pieces in Cannibal Holocaust!

Quoted for great truth.

IsMiseLisa

I think banning HC2 is pointless. I don't particularly want to see the movie, but as a grown adult, I really should have to choice to purchase it if I so choose.

If anyone is interested (doubt it), I wrote a blog post on the topic. Not another blogger. :rolleyes:

Phony Scott

IsMiseLisa wrote: »

I think banning HC2 is pointless. I don't particularly want to see the movie, but as a grown adult, I really should have to choice to purchase it if I so choose.

And that, for me, is what it boils down to BUT the legal wranglings behind the scenes amount to it being a problem with the obscene publications act and whether or not the film makers will be brought to court over the film because of that act. Kim Newman seems to know what's going on, so check up his posts on Facebook for more info. Oh, I'll check out your blog later, but as far as I'm concerned, you're on the right track

Phony Scott

Also, despite not liking a lot of what Peter Bradshaw has said in the past, he is reasonable here, though bear in mind that he, and The Guardian, have been proven to be horribly inept in the past, as seen the bottom of the article. The debate continues…

gypsy_rose

does anyone know when it's being released in America, can't find info anywhere

MickShamrock

The original was one of the worst movies I have seen in recent memory. No redeeming features whatsoever. Plus, with how the original ended I don't quite see how they have scope for a sequel.

stuartfanning

It has been given a certificate in Australia where the board has been tough on violent releases in the past.

http://www.classification.gov.au/www/cob/find.nsf/d853f429dd038ae1ca25759b0003557c/5de60ac33e826745ca25788b005e34c9?OpenDocument

PucaMama

i watched the first film, purely cause i had heard how violent it was ment to be. (i do like violent horrors) and i have to say i was dissapointed. at the very least its just an excuse to put certain things in a film that belong on an "adult" site :eek:

but then again me and the bf rented out "i spit on your grave" a few months ago and i was disgusted with that too.

jcf

All this talk has made me want to see it, so the censors have failed!

Which version of Spit on your grave is really bad ? - as in violent ?

_LilyRose_

MickShamrock wrote: »

The original was one of the worst movies I have seen in recent memory. No redeeming features whatsoever. Plus, with how the original ended I don't quite see how they have scope for a sequel.

Think it's about a copycat doctor-character who finds out about the 3 and wants to make it 12...

uughh it's just rotten.

Otis Driftwood

jcf wrote: »

All this talk has made me want to see it, so the censors have failed!

Which version of Spit on your grave is really bad ? - as in violent ?

Both versions of I Spit on Your Grave are crap.

The original one isnt really violent at all,save for the rape scenes but even they pale in comparison to the likes of Irreversible.

The remake is crap and is basically a rape/revenge movie whose director is a big fan of the Saw movies.

Id avoid them both tbh and I only watched the remake out of pure curiosity.

PucaMama

jcf wrote: »

All this talk has made me want to see it, so the censors have failed!

Which version of Spit on your grave is really bad ? - as in violent ?

ive only seen the remake and its just an excuse to show rape in my opinion.

chin_grin

Well I think they're after taking a leaf out of Dead Space 2's advertising and just showing peoples' reaction to the "trailer".

http://io9.com/5837649/human-centipede-2-trailer-includes-the-most-disgusting-sound-effect-ever

To be honest it doesn't sound that bad, although I haven't even watched the first one yet!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRTFsLFzDrE

Sentid

Just saw the trailer... Has horror gone too far? I mean I classify horror as something scary,m yet a little bit predictable in that we've all thought about it at one stage. Now the first one was bad enough... but this time they decided t

add a sexual nature to the centipede.

Yuck, right?!?

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_human_centipede_ii/trailers/11154029

biko

AH -> Film

On Topic, I wouldn't even watch the trailer. Not really into shock-gore.

Leeg17

Link to the trailer? I can't find it.