Human Centipede II Refused U.K. Classification
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Eh, the original Human Centipede was an overrated shock-thriller-horror film that ended up looking more hilarious and stupid than scary; skirting Eli Roth levels of pointless stupidity rather than genuine horror.
My guess: The sequel is just going to suck that much more, based on how much it's being hyped.
My guess: The sequel is just going to suck that much more, based on how much it's being hyped.
You just referred to the victims as a thing.Celtic_Kerr said:
That's why they are not supporting it. They are afraid #2 will cause people to try this.
And I completely agree! This movie and the first one should never have been made. I saw bits of the first movie because everyone was talking about it.
There are very few things I regret in life.
Watching the human centipede is number 1 on that list.
Tokyo Gore Police is better than the human centipede.Atmos Duality said:
And that movie is weird.
You'll have to import it, then. No UK classification means it's illegal to sell in the UK, I believe.Cheesebob said:
Oh, I haven't seen any genuinely disturbing asian horror flicks for about 4 years now.Tentickles said:
I'm trying to remember the name of the last one I saw; have been since I saw this topic...
It had some truly nasty shit in it; yet it's all simple stuff. A group of brothel whores all ganging up and torturing one of their own because she broke the rules.
It's certainly *not* a movie I would enjoy watching, but at least I felt genuinely disgusted at their actions (the actual horror) and sorry for that character. Rather than laughing at the hilariously bad CGI antics of an ineptly designed movie with a flagrantly retarded plot.
The creater is just trying too hard now. The first one was already disgusting, but with its so called "100% Medical Accuracy" did seem to be *intriguing. (*I think most people watched out of curiosity though, not out of any actual interest)
However now, with this kind of a movie description, you just know he is simply trying to top the last one in the most grotesque way possible. Approx 2 hours of people being tortured, with not so much as a proper story in place? AGAIN? Come on now. A good movie (or game or book) Needs its audience to think about it afterwoulds, and analyse the impression the movie left. Showing what is, in fact a Scat Porno for 2 hours, is not an admirable feat.
Hell even SAW with its 2 hour long torture-fest at least left viewers with more of an impression than this crap. I did on occasion think about what I would do if I was ever placed in a torture chamber by "Jigsaw". Whether I would have the strength to endure the torture and live with the physical deformaties, or simply give up and let myself die quickly. It was the whole premise of the film, that was the whole point of it. "What would you do?"
HA! What are you gonna think about when you have recollections of the Human Centipede?
Which place your gonna take? (Front, Middle, Back)
Here's an example of the disturbing mixed with art : The Silent Hill series, or more specifically, SH2. James's relationship with Mary is both beautiful and sad, yet the psychology of the whole aspect of the game is brutal, tortures and disturbing. Yet, there are no grotesque sex scenes, (except for a few seconds with Pyramid head, which I might add are kept short and ambiguous). Even though it basically contains rape scenes it doesn't exactly become digusting, which alot of movies and games make the mistake of doing. With all this chaos going on, the story is still kept strong and the atmosphere is still clear.
This is kinda why human centipede fails. Its disturbing TO the point of disgusting. Yes, it does try to handle taboo, which is something I would actually like to see movies and games doing moreoften. However Human Centipede fails to balance out a good story as well as keeping the taboo and the grotesque to a reasonably watchable level.
To me, people eating their own snot is both disgusting and taboo, but just because you make a film out of that, it doesn't mean you've created a masterpiece. It just mean that I'm gonna need alot of convincing to go see that crap.
However now, with this kind of a movie description, you just know he is simply trying to top the last one in the most grotesque way possible. Approx 2 hours of people being tortured, with not so much as a proper story in place? AGAIN? Come on now. A good movie (or game or book) Needs its audience to think about it afterwoulds, and analyse the impression the movie left. Showing what is, in fact a Scat Porno for 2 hours, is not an admirable feat.
Hell even SAW with its 2 hour long torture-fest at least left viewers with more of an impression than this crap. I did on occasion think about what I would do if I was ever placed in a torture chamber by "Jigsaw". Whether I would have the strength to endure the torture and live with the physical deformaties, or simply give up and let myself die quickly. It was the whole premise of the film, that was the whole point of it. "What would you do?"
HA! What are you gonna think about when you have recollections of the Human Centipede?
Which place your gonna take? (Front, Middle, Back)
Here's an example of the disturbing mixed with art : The Silent Hill series, or more specifically, SH2. James's relationship with Mary is both beautiful and sad, yet the psychology of the whole aspect of the game is brutal, tortures and disturbing. Yet, there are no grotesque sex scenes, (except for a few seconds with Pyramid head, which I might add are kept short and ambiguous). Even though it basically contains rape scenes it doesn't exactly become digusting, which alot of movies and games make the mistake of doing. With all this chaos going on, the story is still kept strong and the atmosphere is still clear.
This is kinda why human centipede fails. Its disturbing TO the point of disgusting. Yes, it does try to handle taboo, which is something I would actually like to see movies and games doing moreoften. However Human Centipede fails to balance out a good story as well as keeping the taboo and the grotesque to a reasonably watchable level.
To me, people eating their own snot is both disgusting and taboo, but just because you make a film out of that, it doesn't mean you've created a masterpiece. It just mean that I'm gonna need alot of convincing to go see that crap.
I never thought I'd agree with the BBFC. It just seems all too damn clear that the director is acting out some personal fantasy, it doesn't even seem intended to entertain, or even scare, it just kind of exists like some dark part of the Internet you just want to forget you ever saw.
The description alone makes me want to bleach my eyes and brain so I can pretend I never read it. Watching the movie (either of them) would just be torture.
However, I don't agree with banning the film. It is fiction, in which case I can never agree with censorship on fictional material. If this had been realistic (in terms of being a scat recording)? My vote would be on the paper with a speed rivaling Flash himself.
However, I don't agree with banning the film. It is fiction, in which case I can never agree with censorship on fictional material. If this had been realistic (in terms of being a scat recording)? My vote would be on the paper with a speed rivaling Flash himself.
This x1000.spectrenihlus said:
Who the hell thinks this shit up? You have got to be seriously fucked in the head to create a film like this. I am totally against censorship, but good lord, at least try to make the film worth watching.
No such thing as the obscene publications act? Is child pornography illegal in your country? I'm pretty sure for almost all readers of the Escapist that it is.Bon_Clay said:
In the UK the line of disgust a just a bit wider and the act lays out the specifics; brutal or non-consensual sexual images are illegal even if they are faked or (okay this bit is ridiculous) an animated representation.
This is getting refused classification because it's so close to the illegal pornography and the only redeeming feature is the sheer fantastic (and not the good sort) nature of the subject. In fact refusing classification to a film is against the BBFC's current policy so it must have no or almost no artistic merit whatsoever (the board have all expressed pretty liberal views about censorship in the past.)
It's not banned anyway; you'll just have a hard time obtaining a copy or going to watch it not get prosecuted for owning or showing it in private. The procedure for actually banning something in the UK is remarkably complicated and drawn out and involves the high courts. Personally I think there should simply be a "refused classification" stamp in the nature of the age ratings but I'm not on the BBFC.
I think the obscene publications act is overly draconian and far too vaguely defined - I'm totally with you on the watch list comment but that is how the act is enforced- and I think censorship is a terrible thing but to say that the act shouldn't exist is a step too far for ANY country in the western world.
The director is a strawman created to make a good case for censorship!
Seriously, ban it forever. But I don't like banning things...
Still, ewwwwwwwwwh.
Seriously, ban it forever. But I don't like banning things...
Still, ewwwwwwwwwh.
The plot summary sounds more like a police report.
Now if you made a crime drama film using this character as the antagonist, making a statement about the controversy of free speech and how the media can affect the minds of the populace (admittedly you would have to be mentally disturbed from the start to be this heavily affected, but still...) then I could see it being interesting, or at least good enough fodder for a CSI episode.
This is an exploitation film, plain and simple. I felt nauseous watching a video review for the first one and had to read how it ended via Wikipedia.
Kudos to the UK, wish that other countries would follow suit.
But I'm not a big fan of gorrorfests, so there's a strong bias there.
Now if you made a crime drama film using this character as the antagonist, making a statement about the controversy of free speech and how the media can affect the minds of the populace (admittedly you would have to be mentally disturbed from the start to be this heavily affected, but still...) then I could see it being interesting, or at least good enough fodder for a CSI episode.
This is an exploitation film, plain and simple. I felt nauseous watching a video review for the first one and had to read how it ended via Wikipedia.
Kudos to the UK, wish that other countries would follow suit.
But I'm not a big fan of gorrorfests, so there's a strong bias there.
This is strange. I watched the last film, felt uncomfortable and largely ashamed for it. However, why is the normally open-minded and accepting Escapist community now saying stuff like this should be banned? It's a fucking movie. Nobody should ever, ever be okay with censorship. It is nobody's right to tell people what is right or wrong to watch, and you shouldn't get to pick and choose situations in which censorship is allowed.
I'm going to watch this film, maybe on the internet(I'd never dream of going to see it in public), and it'll probably make me feel just as uncomfortable, but I don't very much appreciate a load of people saying that I'm mental or should be examined for it.
Least of all a load of people who complain about videogames getting bad reputation despite the hilarious acts of violence and gore they depict, rather than purvey.
(For the record, I watched the first movie because for a while, it was hilarious, and I expect the second one to be the same.)
I'm going to watch this film, maybe on the internet(I'd never dream of going to see it in public), and it'll probably make me feel just as uncomfortable, but I don't very much appreciate a load of people saying that I'm mental or should be examined for it.
Least of all a load of people who complain about videogames getting bad reputation despite the hilarious acts of violence and gore they depict, rather than purvey.
(For the record, I watched the first movie because for a while, it was hilarious, and I expect the second one to be the same.)
Being a big horror fan, I was going to have a real rant in the comment section about this descision. However, after reading the movie description...well...it does sound pretty sick even by horror movie standards. Plus, I really do not like watching rape...
I think that moveis like this should be cleverly done with a lot of implication. When movies like this become gory, it transforms a disturbing yet intriguing concept into trash. Case in point:saw.
I think that moveis like this should be cleverly done with a lot of implication. When movies like this become gory, it transforms a disturbing yet intriguing concept into trash. Case in point:saw.
Given that it does pretty much contravene the UK Obscenity Laws, including the Indecent Displays Act, the Video Recordings Act, the Obscene Publications Act, the classification board didn't really have much other option than to ban it.
Argue about the initial laws all you like, but this is not the BBFC making an exception for one movie, this just happens to be the only vaguely well publicised movie that got shown to the BBFC that completely contravened almost every law Britain has in place against such movies.
There's a whole laundry list of things which can be banned under the Obscenity Laws, and actually when you really go through you you'd realsie the BBFC stretches those regulations pretty far already to allow a lot of movies through. Things like 9 Songs the point could be argued either way, but they allowed it. Saw straddles the border (as has been said above) but they allowed it.
Sooner or later you have to draw your own line in the sand, and the BBFC have drawn theirs, and I'm quite glad they did. I saw about ten seconds of the first movie and I regret it to this day, and I'm fairly certain I'll go on regretting it for much longer. The film has nothing to offer of artistic merit and even less as pornography, which is about the only thing it could be used for.
Arguing for this movie being allowed to be classified is like arguing for a 1 1/2 version of 2 Girls 1 Cup to be licenced for public distribution. Crass, unnecessary, and wholly useless to the world. This film didn't even need to be made, and I see no reason why anyone should honour whatever sick process led to its creation. Not everything is art and some things are so far removed from it they should be opposed.
Argue about the initial laws all you like, but this is not the BBFC making an exception for one movie, this just happens to be the only vaguely well publicised movie that got shown to the BBFC that completely contravened almost every law Britain has in place against such movies.
There's a whole laundry list of things which can be banned under the Obscenity Laws, and actually when you really go through you you'd realsie the BBFC stretches those regulations pretty far already to allow a lot of movies through. Things like 9 Songs the point could be argued either way, but they allowed it. Saw straddles the border (as has been said above) but they allowed it.
Sooner or later you have to draw your own line in the sand, and the BBFC have drawn theirs, and I'm quite glad they did. I saw about ten seconds of the first movie and I regret it to this day, and I'm fairly certain I'll go on regretting it for much longer. The film has nothing to offer of artistic merit and even less as pornography, which is about the only thing it could be used for.
Arguing for this movie being allowed to be classified is like arguing for a 1 1/2 version of 2 Girls 1 Cup to be licenced for public distribution. Crass, unnecessary, and wholly useless to the world. This film didn't even need to be made, and I see no reason why anyone should honour whatever sick process led to its creation. Not everything is art and some things are so far removed from it they should be opposed.