Human Centipede II Refused U.K. Classification

[Jesus Phish]

I think the travesty here is that this film got a sequel.

I think it was a travesty that there was a first film....

And there's another to go.

This lad must get funding from the same place as Uwe Boll surely?

 

[Shio]

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.

Spoiler: Also...

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

The centipede in the first film didn't last very long, lol.

 

[Cheesus333]

p.s. to clarify i mean it sucked ass

Hehehehe... I see what you did there.

Oh, wait. Now I've just remembered what this thread is about, and I feel sick again.

I didn't see the first one, I don't see the appeal in watching people shit in other people's mouths...

Watching people toss themselves off whilst watching people shit in other people's mouths is somehow even less attractive a film prospect. When this film doesn't arrive here in the UK, it shan't be missed by me.

 

[Shio]

It's funny how people are glad it got refused classification (effectively banning it) because it contains content they don't like, BUT don't you dare censor their video game art!

 

[Demonicdan]

It's funny how people are glad it got refused classification (effectively banning it) because it contains content they don't like, BUT don't you dare censor their video game art!

If there was a viseo game with a premise like this I don't think anyone would be against banning it.

 

[Sun Flash]

...and nothing of value was lost. The first one literally had nothing going for it other than shock value.

 

[thathaloguy117]

I'm usually not on-board with government censorship, but this one takes the cake. Who wants to go to a movie in which a guy uses sandpaper to ****************************************************************and then****************************************************************monkey******************************************and then uses his fist********************************** I can't see any reason to see this movie at all... Maybe to break up with my girlfriend at?

 

[Bon_Clay]

Still doesn't explain most of the comments, its just a movie. If it happened in real life then people being outraged is understandable. This is fiction, whether it was some crazy person writing the story on used napkins or a big budget movie doesn't make a difference.

There should be no such thing as an Obscene Publications Act, trying to make subject opinions on publications people have to choose to see into law is nonsense. And putting people on a watch list for seeing a movie violates freedom of speech and thought. That's a far more destructive thing to society than any movie could be.

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.
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.

Child pornography isn't even a similar issue as fetish porn that freaks people out. Child porn isn't illegal because someone might see it and be offended, that's the absolute least of anyone's concern. Its illegal because its a documentation of child sexual abuse. Its something completely unrelated to publications that is illegal, and then compounded by it being spread around.

The whole illegal pornography categories are nonsense in my opinion. You can have movies about any level of violence and its fine. You can have any level of nudity and people having sex and its fine. But somehow combining the two in the same scene makes it obscene?

If people can watch Saw and not being serial killers, they can watch something like this and not become serial rapists, or mad scientists. Its either people are mindless idiots who are easily influenced by any movie, or they are sane, rational adults who aren't one raunchy flick away from chaos.

But yes just being refused classification is quite different than being banned outright. I still think a movie theatre should be able to play any movie they want to, granted they only let adults see in. If the general public in that area doesn't approve of such a movie and wouldn't want it playing there, they won't buy tickets to it. If no one buys tickets to it, it doesn't make money and they stop showing it.

 

[Killertje]

Haven't seen the first one and am not interested in the second. However banning it is just sad. If 18+ (year old) people want to watch this crap, let them. I did see the southpark episode about this and consider it pretty funny.

If you think watching this movie turns people into freaks you must also believe playing cod turns people into mass murderers. It doesnt work like that so stop acting like it does if whatever is in the movie disgusts you. There are lots of people out there who believe shooters are disgusting and we all think those people are retarded, so dont be a hypocrite.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

Oh. Oh well. Didn't want to see this anyway; this stupid publicity stunt of a movie can get stuffed for all I care.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Never a fan of censorship. But have no problem with anyone who would go and see this movie(from the plot above), if uncensored, being added to a register somewhere...

Normally I would jump up and down about something being censored, but just cannot summon the breath for this piece of s*!t....

Oh and for those in the UK thinking of grabbing the movie anyway on line for the lulz, don't, as you will get added to a register. No really as without BBFC cert, I'm sure it will be classed as exterme pr0n and you will get added to a register if found in possession of that in the UK....

 

[EdgeyX]

I'm really not fussed that I can't see it, to be honest it's not my sort of film.

 

[Valdus]

God I want to punch the guy that wrote this movie. Too many good ideas are flushed away but this filth get's made so easily? When he tries making a movie for people to enjoy rather than just trying to gross us out and be a dick I may watch it.

 

[Shio]

It's funny how people are glad it got refused classification (effectively banning it) because it contains content they don't like, BUT don't you dare censor their video game art!

If there was a viseo game with a premise like this I don't think anyone would be against banning it.

Because it's way cool to tell other adults what they can and can't enjoy so long as it hurts no one, right? Hear that, parents against video games? You can totally ban violent video games that you dislike and find offensive.

What?

Nah, it's cool - they ban anything they find disgusting too.

Yeah, I know. Pretty hypocritical of them, huh.

 

[captainwolfos]

Never seen the first film, don't think I'd watch the second even if it wasn't classified in the UK.

There are some lines even -I- don't cross. The entire concept of both films is disturbing. But if you want to go watch them, go right ahead. I don't judge.

 

[BrotherRool]

In the UK we're not so hypocritical as to demand absolute free speech for important things like light entertainment, and then start a global witch hunt when someone actually tries to use free speech for the unimportant things, like the actions of governments legitimate and illegitimate.

Seriously, the BBFC is a good organisation and it's very very rare for a film to be refused classification. The film makers knew the rules and they broke them anyway

 

[Kiefer13]

While the film is no doubt disgusting and fucked up, if you (like me) don't want to go and see it, there is a simple solution: Don't go and see it. Just because I find it disgusting doesn't mean I think it should be refused classification. As disgusting as it may be, it's a piece of fiction. Its censorship however is a very real thing, and in my opinion, much more abhorrent.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Still doesn't explain most of the comments, its just a movie. If it happened in real life then people being outraged is understandable. This is fiction, whether it was some crazy person writing the story on used napkins or a big budget movie doesn't make a difference.

There should be no such thing as an Obscene Publications Act, trying to make subject opinions on publications people have to choose to see into law is nonsense. And putting people on a watch list for seeing a movie violates freedom of speech and thought. That's a far more destructive thing to society than any movie could be.

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.
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.

Child pornography isn't even a similar issue as fetish porn that freaks people out. Child porn isn't illegal because someone might see it and be offended, that's the absolute least of anyone's concern. Its illegal because its a documentation of child sexual abuse. Its something completely unrelated to publications that is illegal, and then compounded by it being spread around.

The whole illegal pornography categories are nonsense in my opinion. You can have movies about any level of violence and its fine. You can have any level of nudity and people having sex and its fine. But somehow combining the two in the same scene makes it obscene?

If people can watch Saw and not being serial killers, they can watch something like this and not become serial rapists, or mad scientists. Its either people are mindless idiots who are easily influenced by any movie, or they are sane, rational adults who aren't one raunchy flick away from chaos.

But yes just being refused classification is quite different than being banned outright. I still think a movie theatre should be able to play any movie they want to, granted they only let adults see in. If the general public in that area doesn't approve of such a movie and wouldn't want it playing there, they won't buy tickets to it. If no one buys tickets to it, it doesn't make money and they stop showing it.

"Child pornography isn't even a similar issue as fetish porn that freaks people out."
Check out the UK's extreme pr0n law if you don't think fetishes are treated the same as CP....

 

[Sephael]

I didn't even find it shocking, it was just crap (...)

I see what you did there (probably not intentionally )

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

and rapes the ends of the centipeed?

Tbh i thought thats where i thought the first film was going, i was actually surprised at how tame it was. I mean, apart from the actual concept, there was nothing too grotesque in the film. Obviously the sequal is trying to rectify this.

I dont think these films should ever have been made, but at the same time i dont agree with censorship. I think just about everyone who wants it banned, would never have went to see it anyway.. and its not like children are going to be able to see it because it would be an 18. So if someone wants to see it they should be able to make up their own mind.

I think banning this film isnt the right way to go, i think the reason the first film was a 'success' was due to the shock factor, but now that wont be there.. so this film would probably flop... and THEN we wouldnt be subjected to any more terrible sequals.

But the fact that its being banned might even spur them on to make more.