HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
Will be giving this a miss, until know if the 2nd is even made. Does look rubbish but might be worth an evening of laughs if can see other part too.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Human Centipede: First Sequence
- Thread starter Acker79
- Start date
Easy 10
Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Well, that was all fairly revolting. I probably could have done without seeing that.
On reflection, I think if I HAD to be involved, I'd definitely choose to be at the front. The poor bitch in the middle gets a pretty raw deal, and the one at the back seemed to end up malnourished.
On reflection, I think if I HAD to be involved, I'd definitely choose to be at the front. The poor bitch in the middle gets a pretty raw deal, and the one at the back seemed to end up malnourished.
- Thread starter
- #44
This film has been on my sky box waiting to be watched since it premièred on syfy. It's now doing the rounds on movies for men or whatever. Anyhoo, I'm bumping to provide you all with an alternative version, if you think the original is/might be too much:
[yt]_gLagIYMHVE[/yt]
There's 6 more parts, I think, each ranging from 4-8 minutes in length.
[yt]_gLagIYMHVE[/yt]
There's 6 more parts, I think, each ranging from 4-8 minutes in length.
footychick
Nicola
Saw this recently and it was pretty sick.
When's the sequel out?
When's the sequel out?
garethlewes
New member
- Nov 9, 2010
- 77
Anyone thinks this is sick must watch 'The Serbian Film' its so horrible I only got a semi 
JBizzleBeard
Well-known member
Finally got round to watching it and thought it was alright. Dunno what all the fuss is about (from some people), it's certainly no worse than any other 'horror' film I have seen. I will give the second one a watch as/when/if they make it 8.5/10
Barrel of Fun
Abort, retry, fail
Saw this recently and it was pretty sick.
When's the sequel out?
The Human Millipede has been casting for two years now. They are closing in on a final line up.
How does an actor comeback from that?
Casting Agent: We are delighted you could attend today. We're very excited about this project that should appeal to both adults and children. What was the last project you were involved in?
Actress: I was the middle one in Human Centipede.
Casting Agent: NEXT!
keaton
Big heart, hot blood and balls. Big balls
- Nov 18, 2004
- 9,972
For once, we don't have to see the forbidden film to assess the censor's decision. The British Board of Film Classification's ban on The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) isn't based on the unacceptability of what's actually being shown. It's based on the concept on which the film is founded.
Tom Six's The Human Centipede (First Sequence), featured a crazed surgeon who sewed three kidnapped people together to produce the arthropod of the title. It was classified 18 without cuts for both cinema and DVD in 2010. His follow-up shows a man becoming sexually obsessed with a copy of the original film and inspired by it to create a "human centipede" of his own.
In their adjudication, the board mention "graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation". They refer to a scene in which the central character "masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film with sandpaper wrapped around his penis" and a sequence "in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the centipede being forced to defecate into one another's mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the centipede".
However, cuts like the 49 snips that rendered A Serbian Film acceptable were not to be considered as a means of dealing with these unpleasantnesses. For the problem wasn't the sights and sounds that would have assailed us, but the idea that gave rise to them.
The board explain that the original film was OK (if "undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting") because its centipede was the product of a "revolting medical experiment", whereas its successor is unacceptable because its own centipede is "the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy". They add: "There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."
Most arguments about film censorship founder on the difficulty of comparing subjective judgments about the likely impact of particular shots. Underlying issues, for example the ongoing complaint about the acceptability of violence compared with inhibitions about sex, are pushed into the background. This time an ideological stand has been nakedly taken. It offers an unusual insight into the minds of those who believe they must protect other adults from films that would endanger them.
The board refer not only to their own classification guidelines, but also to the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964. Understandably, they say they seek to avoid letting through material that may be in breach of the law. Famously, the acts prohibit the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to encounter them. The board say they engage "in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police and the Ministry of Justice" to determine what this might mean in their own field of responsibility. They concluded that The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) might indeed be considered obscene.
At last, then, we are offered a concept, rather than mere images, that those called upon to adjudicate in such matters deem to be sufficient in itself to pose what the board called "a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers". So what is it?
It's not the "degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder" which the board tell us that Six's new film offers. Clearly, it couldn't be, given their indulgence of so much of these things elsewhere. It's "the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure" that poses the problem. This link is apparently too dangerous in itself to be dwelt upon, however it's depicted.
Well, Six himself clearly accepts that films can corrupt, since his new offering turns on that very idea. Nonetheless, if it's to be the subject itself, rather than its depiction, that rules a work out of contention, then the notion that the one thing beyond the pale is a connection between sex and pain seems almost quaint.
We're being asked to assume that the avalanche of non-sexual violence that the movies unleash on us is leaving us unscathed, even though most real-world violence seems to be of this kind. Sexual sadism seems to play but a small part in the savagery that surrounds us. Is the big screen really more likely to turn us into kinky torturers than into more straightforward brutes? Or has Mrs Grundy returned to annoy us with a kinky preoccupation of her own?
Tom Six's The Human Centipede (First Sequence), featured a crazed surgeon who sewed three kidnapped people together to produce the arthropod of the title. It was classified 18 without cuts for both cinema and DVD in 2010. His follow-up shows a man becoming sexually obsessed with a copy of the original film and inspired by it to create a "human centipede" of his own.
In their adjudication, the board mention "graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation". They refer to a scene in which the central character "masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film with sandpaper wrapped around his penis" and a sequence "in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the centipede being forced to defecate into one another's mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the centipede".
However, cuts like the 49 snips that rendered A Serbian Film acceptable were not to be considered as a means of dealing with these unpleasantnesses. For the problem wasn't the sights and sounds that would have assailed us, but the idea that gave rise to them.
The board explain that the original film was OK (if "undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting") because its centipede was the product of a "revolting medical experiment", whereas its successor is unacceptable because its own centipede is "the object of the protagonist's depraved sexual fantasy". They add: "There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience."
Most arguments about film censorship founder on the difficulty of comparing subjective judgments about the likely impact of particular shots. Underlying issues, for example the ongoing complaint about the acceptability of violence compared with inhibitions about sex, are pushed into the background. This time an ideological stand has been nakedly taken. It offers an unusual insight into the minds of those who believe they must protect other adults from films that would endanger them.
The board refer not only to their own classification guidelines, but also to the Obscene Publications Acts of 1959 and 1964. Understandably, they say they seek to avoid letting through material that may be in breach of the law. Famously, the acts prohibit the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to encounter them. The board say they engage "in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police and the Ministry of Justice" to determine what this might mean in their own field of responsibility. They concluded that The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) might indeed be considered obscene.
At last, then, we are offered a concept, rather than mere images, that those called upon to adjudicate in such matters deem to be sufficient in itself to pose what the board called "a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers". So what is it?
It's not the "degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder" which the board tell us that Six's new film offers. Clearly, it couldn't be, given their indulgence of so much of these things elsewhere. It's "the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure" that poses the problem. This link is apparently too dangerous in itself to be dwelt upon, however it's depicted.
Well, Six himself clearly accepts that films can corrupt, since his new offering turns on that very idea. Nonetheless, if it's to be the subject itself, rather than its depiction, that rules a work out of contention, then the notion that the one thing beyond the pale is a connection between sex and pain seems almost quaint.
We're being asked to assume that the avalanche of non-sexual violence that the movies unleash on us is leaving us unscathed, even though most real-world violence seems to be of this kind. Sexual sadism seems to play but a small part in the savagery that surrounds us. Is the big screen really more likely to turn us into kinky torturers than into more straightforward brutes? Or has Mrs Grundy returned to annoy us with a kinky preoccupation of her own?
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
Here's the BBFC's exact reasoning for banning the second movie...
"The first film dealt with a mad doctor who sews together three kidnapped people in order to produce the ‘human centipede’of the title. Although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film and the Board concluded that it was not in breach of our Guidelines at ‘18’. This new work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film and who imagines putting the ‘centipede’ idea into practice. Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the ‘centipede’ idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to escape, this sequel presents the ‘centipede’ idea as the object of the protagonist’s depraved sexual fantasy.
The principal focus of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is the sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder of his naked victims. Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis, and a sequence later in the film in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’. There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience. There is a strong focus throughout on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure. It is the Board’s conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character’s obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: “It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
“The Board also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA) or any other relevant legislation. The OPA prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them. In order to avoid classifying potentially obscene material, the Board engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police, and the Ministry of Justice. It is the Board’s view that there is a genuine risk that this video work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above."
"The first film dealt with a mad doctor who sews together three kidnapped people in order to produce the ‘human centipede’of the title. Although the concept of the film was undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting it was a relatively traditional and conventional horror film and the Board concluded that it was not in breach of our Guidelines at ‘18’. This new work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), tells the story of a man who becomes sexually obsessed with a DVD recording of the first film and who imagines putting the ‘centipede’ idea into practice. Unlike the first film, the sequel presents graphic images of sexual violence, forced defecation, and mutilation, and the viewer is invited to witness events from the perspective of the protagonist. Whereas in the first film the ‘centipede’ idea is presented as a revolting medical experiment, with the focus on whether the victims will be able to escape, this sequel presents the ‘centipede’ idea as the object of the protagonist’s depraved sexual fantasy.
The principal focus of The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence) is the sexual arousal of the central character at both the idea and the spectacle of the total degradation, humiliation, mutilation, torture, and murder of his naked victims. Examples of this include a scene early in the film in which he masturbates whilst he watches a DVD of the original Human Centipede film, with sandpaper wrapped around his penis, and a sequence later in the film in which he becomes aroused at the sight of the members of the ‘centipede’ being forced to defecate into one another’s mouths, culminating in sight of the man wrapping barbed wire around his penis and raping the woman at the rear of the ‘centipede’. There is little attempt to portray any of the victims in the film as anything other than objects to be brutalised, degraded and mutilated for the amusement and arousal of the central character, as well as for the pleasure of the audience. There is a strong focus throughout on the link between sexual arousal and sexual violence and a clear association between pain, perversity and sexual pleasure. It is the Board’s conclusion that the explicit presentation of the central character’s obsessive sexually violent fantasies is in breach of its Classification Guidelines and poses a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers.
David Cooke, Director of the BBFC said: “It is the Board's carefully considered view that to issue a certificate to this work, even if confined to adults, would be inconsistent with the Board's Guidelines, would risk potential harm within the terms of the VRA, and would be unacceptable to the public.
“The Board also seeks to avoid classifying material that may be in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964 (OPA) or any other relevant legislation. The OPA prohibits the publication of works that have a tendency to deprave or corrupt a significant proportion of those likely to see them. In order to avoid classifying potentially obscene material, the Board engages in regular discussions with the relevant enforcement agencies, including the CPS, the police, and the Ministry of Justice. It is the Board’s view that there is a genuine risk that this video work, The Human Centipede II (Full Sequence), may be considered obscene within the terms of the OPA, for the reasons given above."