Human Centipede II Refused U.K. Classification

Astoria

New member
Oct 25, 2010
1,887
0
0
I don't know what's more disturbing, the fact that these sorts of things are thought up or the fact that thye decide to make movies out of them.
 

Quellist

Migratory coconut
Oct 7, 2010
1,443
0
0
I think the funniest thing about the whole mess is that for once the Porn parody of this series is probably better than the original movie (it was certainly better recieved).

As to seeing either first sequence or full sequence, no thankyou...
 

Hawkmoon269

New member
Apr 14, 2011
145
0
0
Considering we're pretty liberal over here with most things, this film must be damn fucking awful to actually get refused a rating. So I'm not really too bothered.

That said, does this rule it out as a DVD release? If not, there'll be plenty of people getting it when it comes out just for the gross out factor. And even if there is no DVD, it'll be all over the internet for the rest of time, so seeing it is hardly going to be a problem.
 

Furbyz

New member
Oct 12, 2009
502
0
0
vansau said:
Human Centipede II Refused U.K. Classification

Six has claimed in interviews that the first movie will be "My Little Pony compared with part two."

Permalink
Is this man aware of Cupcakes?
 

DarkhoIlow

New member
Dec 31, 2009
2,531
0
0
I'm pretty much on board with the censorship after seeing what the sequel "has to offer".

That plot is so wrong on so many levels I can't describe it.
 

Sephychu

New member
Dec 13, 2009
1,698
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
Sephychu said:
MelasZepheos said:
Sephychu said:
snip.
The thing is, what you're saying is that there does have to be a line somewhere. I'm saying there doesn't. A person's right to privacy is an important one, and as long as what they are watching doesn't harm someone, I don't think it's anybody's right to tell them they can't watch it.

This movie depicts horrible events, but it isn't somebody filming them. Nothing in this film is actually happening, so if other people get off to that, it isn't wrong to them, it's very right, and people who find it wrong being in the majority isn't enough for me to find it right to deny them pleasure, as long as it occurs at nobody else's expense.

snip.
I suppose a lot of my concern raises from 'if a person's privacy is needed because it involves things like this, I'd be concerned about what sort of person they were.'

I guess the best way to phrase this would be to say: Imagine if you had to disclose all your viewings to someone. It would be embarassing, but actually I would be fine with all my porn, all my erotica, everything I read or watch, being shared, because underneath I have nothing to hide in what I view. People who insist on having their privacy make me nervous because it suggests to me they have something to hide.

The sort of person that would watch this is obviously a torture porn fetishist, and there is a difference between a torture porn fetishist and a more common Sadist or Masochist. Sado-Masochism is a complex but understood series of internal checks and balances between the sadist and the masochist, which is why they go so well together. Sadism is not so much getting off on the thought of someone feeling pain but (according to what I've read and my small sampling of sado-masochist friends) it's the knowledge that your sexual control and arousal is leading to someone else's sexual arousal through domination. It might self-destructive, but actually since the masochist's sexual arousal through being dominated is tied to the sadist's arousal through the dominance, it's actually a sharing of the roles for mutual benefit, much as any relationship.


snip.
I see what you're saying and, really, it comes down to what you'd rather. You are arguing for the safety of people and I am arguing for my ideal total freedom of expression. While I don't think the two will forever remain mutually exclusive, I think they are now.

The problem really, in my view, is with people who cannot draw the line in real life, or the notion of such, necessitating the presence of a line in fiction.

The basis of my idealism is that what you said about being totally comfortable with all the stuff you watch is something I wish for everyone. Time was that no matter how open-minded you were, you'd be embarrassed to reveal your collection of erotica because nobody would accept anything even slightly niche that you owned. So I guess I'd like it to broaden, so nobody has to feel guilty about doing something totally harmless just because they have an unusual fetish that they can't suppress, nor would I wish them to.
 

Xyphon

New member
Jun 17, 2009
1,613
0
0
Hopefully it's better than the last one. I walked away from that one EXTREMELY disappointed. From the way everyone was going on and on about it, I expected a lot more nasty shit. Wasn't even gross. I expected one of the girls to tear away from the others asshole and bring the persons lower intestine with them, at the very LEAST.

But no. All you really see is ass skin on their faces. For fucks sake, SAW is nastier than that movie.
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
the sort of person who would watch this movie and like it for its content is someone I would consider to be a rather dangerous individual, and I suspect would also be someone (to link to my first point) who would not be willing to divulge the nature of his leisure materials.
I might enjoy watching it, but it's got nothing to do with me wanting to recreate anything I see in the movie for myself (well, not in any actual way, you'll see what I mean further down).

I'm a horror fan, I always have been, I've been fascinated with the genre since I was a child and I watched Hellraiser for the first time. I loved the make-up, I loved the experience of sitting in the dark and having the movie lightly tease my fear response and put me on the edge of my seat. I was amazed at how someone was able to have horrible things done to them through the magic of special effects.

I've always seen it as fiction, even when I was a kid I knew it was fake. So a movie like this is probably something I'd watch for the learning experience, it might show me how to do something I've never seen done before and make me want to figure out how I can replicate that effect myself with simple materials like latex and tissue paper, but I'd never do that to a real person.

The actual stuff going on in the movie sounds like it's trying way too hard to go for shock value, so it's probably a movie I'd laugh at more than feel any disgust towards. I'll just see it as a lame attempt to get in with the more accomplished horror movies so it can never meet any expectation other than a very, very low one.

I can watch the actors have corn syrup thrown over them and have their fake limbs torn to shreds and laugh at it because I know it's fiction and I can simply laugh at how pathetically hard it's trying to illicit a response from me of horror or disgust when it's just going about it in such an unsubtle way, only showing how little the director knows about the horror genre and how much effort it actually takes to make a good horror movie which can make me both terrified and disgusted with just a few sound effects and a well-placed shadow.

However, it's not like I'm completely devoid of empathy. Yes, I can laugh at horror movies that are showing some of the worst stuff imaginable, but I have literally cried like a baby after watching a documentary about abuse cases against the mentally disabled in one of UK's asylums. Why? Because that actually happened, it wasn't fiction. Those were real people suffering real pain, not actors. The abuse they went through for years was not staged for entertainment, it was to expose the system and force some action to be taken against it. So, I cried.

The point is, I could easily enjoy even the sickest, more depraved and horrifically graphic movie ever made (which I'm guessing The Human Centipede II is trying its hardest to be) because I know that it's nothing but fiction. I understand the mechanics behind it and what makes it work and what makes it not work as a horror movie. I might enjoy the learning experience of the movie and figuring out how they did some of the effects, I might even enjoy just how pathetic it in its attempts to call itself a movie, but I'll probably not enjoy the movie itself, because it sounds like it sucks balls when compared to some of the really good horror movies out there.

So, basically, people like horror movies for different reasons and just because they like them doesn't automatically make them a dangerous person is probably what my point is.

Sorry for the long post, I'm one of those types of fans who feels the need to defend their fandom at even the slightest provocation, I suppose. I don't mean any offense by this post.
 

EradiusLore

New member
Jun 29, 2010
154
0
0
i think the reason its not going to be shown in UK cinemas is because we have taste and this film was just bad...really bad

p.s. to clarify i mean it sucked ass
 

GLo Jones

Activate the Swagger
Feb 13, 2010
1,192
0
0
Well, it's good to see the BBFC protecting the mindless drones paying to see movies they haven't heard of before. Seriously, you get some real idiots complaining about the content of movies like this, when a small investigation tends to warn you beforehand.

Wouldn't the people to the back of the centipede die from not eating proper food?
 

Wilko316

New member
Jun 16, 2010
260
0
0
...
Just wow ...
The first film was just awful enough, but this sounds like a whole other step across the line.