Human Centipede II Refused U.K. Classification

[Plurralbles]

I kinda' want to meet the writer(s) and director of centi2 and kick them in the dick.

WTF were they thinking.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I still don't like censorship, no matter how win-filled it is.
It could have been, very easily, a critique of Labourite policies.

I think there should be exceptions when 99.999% of the populace agrees with the censoring.

 

[Solo-Wing]

We will show it in theatures and anyone who buys a ticket to it opening day is to be shot on the spot.

I honestly do not think this movie should come out. It would be an abomination and the director should be locked up in a white spongy room. That movie just sounds sickening. Espesually when I looked up the wiki to see if this was true.

The plot of Full Sequence involves a centipede made from twelve people, will feature a largely British cast, and will have the tag-line "100% medically inaccurate". Six has stated that with the first film having desensitized audiences to the idea of a human centipede, the sequel will be much more graphic and disturbing, First Sequence being "My Little Pony compared with part two." In an interview, Ashlynn Yennie stated that the sequel will contain "the blood and shit" which viewers did not see in the first film.

Serously??? TWELVE PEOPLE!?... Humanity has failed us.

I am kinda regretting living in Canada. Very few things are censored here.

 

[Svenparty]

Granted it sounds less tasteful and worse than the original but THAT IS WHAT I WANT DAMMIT!, This will surely work in the favor of everyone involved in the film let me explain:


(Publicity )------(Controversy)<-----(Censorship)


(If you don't get it picture Censorship as the Asian man in Human Centipede, Controversy as the girl in the middle and Publicity as the one on the end)

ALSO:

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

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

What about the fact someone actually made this story?

Have you people even seen the film? Despite the grotesque subject matter it's suprisingly tame and isn't some fuzzy student production.

 

[Panda Mania]

Ach. That's...messed up. I think...I think I almost support the UK on this. Better keep it out of mainstreams cinemas, lest any poor soul go to see it without knowing what it really is. There should still be a way for people who want to watch it to watch it, though. Have it in specialized venues, release the DVD sooner, I don't know. There's always ways. I, for one, however, will be avoiding it like the plague. It doesn't even have a "artistic metaphor!" argument to hide behind, like A Serbian Film.

 

[Rad Party God]

I've never heard of that movie before, but after hearing Human Centipede, this was the first thing that sprung up to mind.

It's made of human parts and a certain radioactive chemical, not 3 persons stitched together, mouth to ass.

So, yeah, that movie sound pretty fucked up, glad it got banned.

 

[prouler]

I actually have no problems with the government refusing a rating to this. you wouldn't expect the latest snuff film/porno advertising 3 cumshots and 2 decapitated corpses to get a theatrical release. this crosses the line to make it obscene, so if they don't want theaters showing it, that is fine, I won't expect them to be screening playboy either, and if you want to get a hold of it, there will be ways. I see this less as infringing on personal freedoms, and more like keeping a terrible movie from getting to much exposure or making its money back.

 

[4RM3D]

This movie is so horribly wrong...

Yet, I can't resist my curiosity to go see it, just to know what the fuss is about.

Still, there is no way in hell that I'm gonna be caught in the movie theater seeing this even if I would get a free ticket for it. I mean, people might think I have gone crazy. Oh wait...

 

[Dr. Dan Challis]

so hows it any different from the SAW franchise?

I know Saw is the go-to whipping boy in discussions of "torture porn" (I really hate the perversion of that term) but it's really a poor example. Firstly, there's no appeal to the prurient: Jigsaw gets no pleasure from the traps he springs on his victims, nor is the audience intended to. Moreover, the series has built up a complex and involved mythos that extends beyond the torture scenes and includes a villain that's a fully fleshed out (and occasionally sympathetic) character. The Saw series is really a cautionary tale about the dangers of forcibly imposing one's morals on others. In fact, the story arcs in Saw 1-3 and Saw 4-6 uncannily mirror the story arcs of The Godfather 1 and 2, respectively.

They're not indelible works of cinematic genius but there's a lot more going on in the Saw films than its detractors would like to acknowledge. Anybody who'd lump Saw in with the Human Centipede, which truly is exploitation simply for the sake of it, clearly doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

 

[Zoe Lynn]

How did this even get a sequel!?

 

[Svenparty]

I'd curiously like to know how many people in this thread actually saw the original before jumping on the centipede wagon and deciding purely based on the concept that it's "Sick Filth". I certainly find it hypocritical that these people will campaign for the rights of what they find entertaining but not for the rights of things they either don't or don't know if they enjoy

 

[fates_puppet13]

dear god
http://media.funlol.com/pictures/15086.jpg

 

[Charli]

Well..good... is all I can say, a second coming of this weirdness does not need to exist.

Go Go UK Film board, finally not doing something that makes me groan.

This isn't unnecessary censorship, if you wanna see it that bad buy the DVD, it's simple.

 

[Musiclly enhanced]

fucking hell you must be one sick mofo to think up even the first film let alone the this kind of sequel

 

[zarix2311]

This movie was controversial? I didn't think so.

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

Need I remind you why?

The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film in the series, The Human Centipede, masturbating to the first film, using sandpaper to pleasure himself. He decides to create a "human centipede" of his own, which he uses to his own sexual delight, taking sexual pleasure in watching victims of the centipede defecate in each other's mouths and raping the woman at the end of the centipede.

The only good I can see in this is that the government would put anyone who sees this film on a watch list.

Precisely my thoughts

 

[Tdc2182]

I'm not upset, even though banning films is completely against my personal morals of Freedom of Speech.

The two don't have to clash, it's all about understanding the spirit of your personal ethics rather than just taking an idea and enshrining it.

Why do you value freedom of speech? I'm guessing it's probably because it allows people to air their honest beliefs and to live without fear of censure. If that's the case you can then understand why you value that freedom as opposed to simply obeying the tenet that 'all speech should be free'.

Films being banned is largely a bad thing because it attempts to censor what people can express in films, normally that's an issue because it can be used for State suppression of free thought. There's nothing inherently wrong with banning a film, but there is something wrong with what can be achieved by doing so.

The acid test for this film is in what it's attempting to express. Which is nothing. It's not expressing any ideas, it's merely designed to titillate/nauseate people. All that's left is a series of images that can either gratify those with a fetish for extreme violence or serve to disgust and possibly scar those without.

In this context you can approve of banning a film like this without violating the ideals you stand for.

That is a very good way to put it, so thank you. I can go back too not caring about this "film" anymore.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

so hows it any different from the SAW franchise?

I know Saw is the go-to whipping boy in discussions of "torture porn" (I really hate the perversion of that term) but it's really a poor example. Firstly, there's no appeal to the prurient: Jigsaw gets no pleasure from the traps he springs on his victims, nor is the audience intended to. Moreover, the series has built up a complex and involved mythos that extends beyond the torture scenes and includes a villain that's a fully fleshed out (and occasionally sympathetic) character. The Saw series is really a cautionary tale about the dangers of forcibly imposing one's morals on others. In fact, the story arcs in Saw 1-3 and Saw 4-6 uncannily mirror the story arcs of The Godfather 1 and 2, respectively.

They're not indelible works of cinematic genius but there's a lot more going on in the Saw films than its detractors would like to acknowledge. Anybody who'd lump Saw in with the Human Centipede, which truly is exploitation simply for the sake of it, clearly doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

I'd go as far as to say Human Centipede is a distant cousin to SAW, and certainly the SAW franchise's existence helps it. And I have to disagree, the only reason anyone goes to watch any of the SAW films willingly is to watch the characters be tortured physically and mentally.

I never felt it was nothing more then a thin plot made to put people in a horrible situation. And whats the point of it all? The bad guy always gets away at the end, or passes the mantle on a successor. Nothing is ever concluded, the characters barely learn anything beyond "fuck I wish I never turned up on this mad man's radar", and they get killed so frequently theres no time for the audience to bond with anyone character.

It does have more claim to being art then Human Centipede, certainly it at least makes an attempt to try to be. But in terms of audience appeal, I'd be willing to bet money that theres is a heavy cross over of fanbase.

 

[Dogstile]

Good, nobody will try to show it to me now.

Not in cinemas. You can still import it.

Comment removed

Are people so messed up that they would pay to go see that? There is no good reason to go. Other than they are just so messed up that they should be in counselling instead.

How about having it in theaters and when people pay and go in to watch they get rounded up and sent to do menial labour. Use the sick (man I really want to swear, wait, I'm censoring myself. NOOOOO) to help make the world a better place for the rest of us.

Counselling?

Seems like you're a more likely candidate. I'm curious to see what's so "shocking" about this film and i'll gladly go to the cinema with a few friends to find out. Calling someone sick and generalising everyone is an issue that a lot of people need help with, seriously.

Wish it was refused classification in the US...

Hells, I wish it was refused classification in the WORLD.

Wow a lot of negative comments.

The only good I can see in this is that the government would put anyone who sees this film on a watch list.

the film was potentially in breach of the Obscene Publications Act, meaning its distribution in the UK would be illegal

Watch list? You're going to have half the 1st worlds bored teens on that list. Also, does anyone else find it a little sickening in itself that something really obscene can be deemed illegal in the UK? I could understand if it was, hell, child porn or something equally horrifying, but this is fiction!

Anyway, i'm going to go see it, i'm bored and curious, plus the film is BRILLIANT bad movie night material. Horrifying quotes and nausea here i come.

And if you think i'm sick for enjoying a obviously fake film with a terrible plotline, you obviously haven't seen enough horror films. The only reason this ones getting any flack is because its in the spotlight. I'm assuming everyone forgot about that scene in the hills have eyes 2 where a survivor from the first one gets raped on camera. And its slimy and pus filled and disgusting.

Edit:

As a final point, the reason he's made this one more gory is because exactly 3 things happened in the first one that was remotely gory. the final fight, the bit with the pus, when she escapes from him the first time. Thats in reverse order.

It was quite literally boring as hell. I bet most of the people in here haven't even seen the first one, because everyone who did see it knows exactly why it shouldn't be banned from cinemas. Its a horrifying concept, but it really wasn't all that bad compared to other films.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

SANDPAPER WOULD HURT SO MUCH.


WHAT THE FUCK.

OT: Didn't see the first one, didn't want to see the first one.

Won't see the second one.