Title
It will take 90 minutes to watch. You will never get them back. Do something interesting instead, like watching paint dry.
The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) has stamped firmly on the DVD sequel to low-budget movie The Human Centipede, refusing to certify the second installment of director Tom Six's horror series. The BBFC explains that 2010's The Human Centipede saw "a mad scientist stitch together three victims face-to-bottom" to …
...to practically the entire output of every television station anywhere in the world.
Cut to Australian oligarch laughing maniacally as the larger part of the "developed" world becomes culturally mutilated and spiritually poisoned as it guzzles down the ordure produced from his multi-tentacled-media-monster.
BTW... what happened to the previous five Toms?
"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."
that is from the board. seems like a totally different kettle of fish from the first. i have to wonder what people who want to watch this kind of thing get from it? its not horror it is simply simulated snuff movie. at least 'a serbian movie' seems to have a story, albeit a sick as fuck one.
if we dont ban anything whats to stop simulated child port? where does it stop?
hell, i watched hostel and was shocked at it. i guess some movie directors just want to see real snuff? 8mm was about as close to that subject as i want to get thanks very much.
Battle Royal then.
However this does seam to be the BBFC's perennial hangup with sex in all it's gory detail. If the central character was not sexually aroused, but instead felt guilty for the degradation of his victims and in the end killed himself, would the movie have been passed?
and they are a 15 at best IMO.
read what i posted above. BR hasnt got half of that bad stuff and actually is a clever, well thought out movie. pity the yanks are gonna ruin it by doing a remake! <facepalm>
sex is one thing. rape and mutilation purely for some deviant gratification isnt entertainment. unless you are Jeffrey Dahmer.
I'm all for the BBFC classifying films as age appropriate, but they should not be banning films.
Give it an 18, then adults can decide for themselves whether they want to watch it.
I personally think it sounds revolting, and I have no interest in watching it.
But I would like to be able to watch it, should I wish to.
i loathe all these kinds of movies - hostel, last house on the right, SAWs etc. i cannot for lthe life of me understand what people find enjoyable about watching other people in pain and suffering. it's fucking sick man...serious - who's into this kind of stuff? who buys it?? surely it's just idiots with extremely low IQs and violent tendencies? anyway, were it all to be banned tomorrow, i would be happy.
If you don't like them, then don't watch them, or is that too difficult?
As to IQs and horror, I like a good bit of gore and a few scares and could join Mensa tomorrow. (BTW its Last house on the LEFT).
I'm far more worried about people with narrow minds than people with low IQs.
wot he said (envmod)
I'm against the idea of censorship but if it takes sick shit like this to invoke it , then its a mute point for me.
People who enjoy Hostel , Saw etc , must have zero empathy for other human beings, and hence dont think twice about stamping on peoples faces in brawls outside nightclubs.
"People who enjoy Hostel , Saw etc , must have zero empathy for other human beings"
Central Bankers and Politicians queueing at the box office, then?
It's pretty bizarre crap. Imagine A Clockwork Orange with Alex going "HELL YEAH, MOAR!" during his indoctrination procedure.
Human nature etc.
in SAW bad things tend to happen to 'bad' people. like cops to are bent, or the heroin dealer who ends up swimming in a pool of syringes. its not the same as watching innocent people being tortured. saw kind of tries to teach bad people a lesson using a similar method to how they were being bad. some of it is actually quite clever. i will admit i havent seen past #4 (which was a bit poo IIRC) as horror films arent really my thing. give me a good action sci-fi any day of the week. or a comedy
by your logic when baddies die in action films that also makes the watcher a sick fuck... ?!?!? im a sick puppy for watching Die Hard now? SAW isnt in the same category as Hostel for instance. zero story and just for people who get a kick out torture and snuff. very different.
"People who enjoy Hostel , Saw etc , must have zero empathy for other human beings, and hence dont think twice about stamping on peoples faces in brawls outside nightclubs."
Having empathy for the victims in a torture movie is precisely what makes it MEANINGFUL. You can flinch but still say "I'm glad that's not happening to me right now". If you were so desensitised that you had no empathy, the film would just be a random, boring moving image.
"a real, as opposed to a fanciful, risk that harm is likely to be caused to potential viewers".
So, presumably the BBFC has noticed the harm it's caused to it's people who were forced to watch this movie? Inquiring minds want to know how this has manifested itself in their behaviour other than perhaps by generating free publicity for dodgy movies.
It's called r18, restricted 18 and can only be sold in a licensed sex shop. Basically it's for hardcore porn with actual penetration shots, pretty much anything goes except for torture, rape, bestiallity, etc. So this film would have failed for an r18 as well, if the descriptions are accurate.
r18 isn't because sex is sick or wrong in some way, it's becuase the vast majority of people don't want to watch porn when they get an 18 cert out of the video shop (or download). It's there for differentiation of the sort of things you will see. There is nothing wrong with people having sex, it's just generally considered that it's not the sort of thing that should be generally available to anyone without warning. Kids (ie: under 18) watch 18cert films, you have to be 18 to go into a licensed sex shop, it just makes sense.
the fact that they don't have a rating higher than 18 (and I don't mean NR crap either).
Back in the day, when they had some rather limited restrictions on bestiality films, for example, there were some that you had to be over the age of 25 to rent, if I recall correctly (I was a teen at the time but I recall seeing a second that was restricted to 25 or older) and that might resolve the issue we have today - Parents going, "Well, my kid's mature for 13, he can watch an 18 rated movie..." and then they see things like this - guess who gets assaulted by the outraged parents? The censors.
So, you crank up a higher restriction rating for films, allows for more "artistic" content to be allowed (even if you're going to vomit blood after watching them, most likely) while still protecting our youth from stupid parents who don't realize an 18 rating means 18, not 17, 16, 15 14 and a half...or less.
Then you can protect the stupid people from themselves without censoring the population - you just say, "Sorry, you need to be THIS HIGH to ride this ride kiddo - no exceptions."
Cheers,
BinaryFu
People are talking like there is a difference in law between real kiddy porn and simulated kiddy porn. There isn't.
The Brasseye paedophile special is worth a watch as it's one of the funniest things ever to show on British TV:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9031532194656768989#
But the scene around 16.55 also illustrates that even obvious fake images (childs face added to naked adult body, etc.) would be categorized as child porn.
I'm not suggesting that this interpretation would apply to horror films, which are of course simulated. But I really do wonder about the kind of people who watch this horror stuff for enjoyment. Why would anybody enjoy watching someone being tortured and murdered? I really don't get that at all.
Doesn't murder feature in quite a lot of fiction, from ancient Greece via Shakespeare to Coronation Street? Violence, torture and accidents seem quite popular too.
This film probably leaves less to the imagination than most, but it isn't fundamentally any different to a typical serial killer/horror flick.