Well you could say there is a legitimate reason to torrent it now in the UK. Although anyone who does I will have a lower opinion of and not because torrenting is illegal...
Human Centipede II Refused U.K. Classification
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Hmh... can't say I care for the film much, but I think the premise is interesting. That is, making a sequel, where the first part is literally a plot device. A film about a film. A bit narcissist, but interesting nonetheless. Even more so when You consider that the first one already appears to have generated bad publicity and it would seem the protagonist of the second one is exactly the sort of person the general public, as witnessed in this very thread, would imagine being a fan of the first. I'm sure it's not exactly a new idea - there's nothing new under the sun, after all - but I never heard of it before.
Which goes to prove one thing: No matter how filthy a film might be regarded in general, some douchebag - i.e me, in this case - will always find some artistic merit to it.
Will I watch it? Nah. Would I refuse classification? Hell no - I think it's actually pretty easy to classify a film like this ;P
~Sylv
Which goes to prove one thing: No matter how filthy a film might be regarded in general, some douchebag - i.e me, in this case - will always find some artistic merit to it.
Will I watch it? Nah. Would I refuse classification? Hell no - I think it's actually pretty easy to classify a film like this ;P
~Sylv
Yes I know, but just because its treated as the same issue, doesn't mean it really is. One of them is a crime by itself before its ever on film. Its not a censorship issue, its about protecting children from sexual abuse (and circulation of acts of it on film are further abuse). The other is something people are offended by and personally dislike, nothing but opinions, which should not be made into law.ph0b0s123 said:
Oh, You're right.Generic Gamer said:
Let's ban all porn.
Oh, and also all thrillers, slashers, horrors, and pretty much any product of the entertainment industry that doesn't have some more or less transparent moral message shoveled in somehow.
Expression in horror flicks? The whole premise of the genre is to unsettle. You can do that in a subtle or a smart way, sure. But that's not to say the full frontal assault is not a valid tactic.
~Sylv
Human Centipede III: Double sequence.
The Human Centipede III (Double Sequence) tells the story of a woman who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the second film in the series, The Human Centipede II, masturbating to the second film, using a belt sander to pleasure herself. She decides to create a "human centipede" of her own, which she uses to her own sexual delight, taking sexual pleasure in watching victims of the centipede defecate in each other's mouths and raping the man in the middle of the centipede.
The Human Centipede III (Double Sequence) tells the story of a woman who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the second film in the series, The Human Centipede II, masturbating to the second film, using a belt sander to pleasure herself. She decides to create a "human centipede" of her own, which she uses to her own sexual delight, taking sexual pleasure in watching victims of the centipede defecate in each other's mouths and raping the man in the middle of the centipede.
I don't see how those are mutually exclusive.Generic Gamer said:
Well, in that case, I apologize. I was not aware that is how the UK classification works, and was a bit overzealous there. Though even without having seen the movie, I do not agree with that kind of an interpretation - but that's a different pair of shoes altogether.
And I stand by the statement that many movies can be accused of "using the story as an excuse" like that; it's a very subjective phrase. I know people who'd summarize the entire saw franchise like that, for example. Or "Irreversible", or "Suicide Club".
~Sylv
I uh...oh God, that sounds like a terrible movie. When I heard the first was a horror where what you didn't see was worse than what you did see, I was intrigued and pleased...until I found out the specifics.
Making a movie purely to make the most grotesque thing you can is...well I guess that's still art, but it's not something to be encouraged.
Should it be banned? I would say no, although I find the idea disgusting and exploitive on a personal level. The concept is sick, but the 'just a movie' phrase still rings true. Unless real-world evil is committed for the movie it'll remain a figment of 'creativity expression' and nothing more. Should it be banned from cinemas? Well, yes. That's a (semi) public place, and this should certainly not be given a public screening.
So...I guess I'm on board this time around. It's not some shameful act of censorship, it's just filing the film under the appropriate heading and keeping it to private showings only.
Making a movie purely to make the most grotesque thing you can is...well I guess that's still art, but it's not something to be encouraged.
Should it be banned? I would say no, although I find the idea disgusting and exploitive on a personal level. The concept is sick, but the 'just a movie' phrase still rings true. Unless real-world evil is committed for the movie it'll remain a figment of 'creativity expression' and nothing more. Should it be banned from cinemas? Well, yes. That's a (semi) public place, and this should certainly not be given a public screening.
So...I guess I'm on board this time around. It's not some shameful act of censorship, it's just filing the film under the appropriate heading and keeping it to private showings only.
It's not grotesque or disgusting, it's just stupid. It's a dumb horror movie straight out of the cliche playbook with one weak idea to hold it up. The sequel will probably be just as bad.