http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/06/06/ ... enity-laws

Spoiler alert:
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.


Yikes. Who really wants to see this? I actually managed to sit through the first Human Centipede, but not Naked. Maybe that makes me a square, but this sounds like a terrible combination of the two mixed with the bastard child of Mel Gibson and one of those mutant rabbits from Fukashima.

Sounds gross.

Still shouldn't be -banned-.

Naked?

Are you referring to the Mike Leigh film...? You can't be. Is there a Tom Six film called Naked, too? Or are you telling us you were clothed when you watched The Human Centipede?

Yes, Mike Leigh's film. Which could also be called Rape: The Movie. I tried to watch it, but holy shit is there a lot of repetitive rape sequences. Sure, it has some very clever monologues, and I suppose it has a lot to say about "post-Thatcher era" Britain... But like many of Mike Leigh's films, there isn't a whole lot of story. But there are multiple sociopathic rapist characters. Who each rape a lot of people. And it was very unpleasant and I didn't regret turning it off.

I can see the confusion though. There is something to be said for taking the time to italicize movie titles.

Naked is certainly a tough film, more visceral than usual Leigh fare, but it's just odd to me you wouldn't be able to watch it to the end. And I've never even imagined it could be classified alongside Human Centipede type fare.

I hope you don't know who Gaspar Noé is.

To be fair, I was watching it with a friend. I don't remember who it was, but we decided that we had had about enough after the fifth scene of that horrible rich asshole raping/attempting to rape a defenseless woman. I guess it would fall under the category of hard-to-watch, a grouping so individiually subjective that someone could include Who Framed Roger Rabbit, if they are young and sensitive to animated characters being melted in acid.*

And while I really appreciated aesthetic aspects of Enter the Void, I have zero interest in watching Irreversible. To be clear, I think that Hollywood and my own taste in horror movies has made me pretty well desensitised to violence. Sexual violence, maybe not so much.

* = That was me around the age of nine.

I'll watch it, though I wasn't crazy about the first.

Sounds hot, yeah.

I don't know how I feel about this... on the one hand, as a kid, I was always dead against censorship of any kind... Back then, the BBFC were a lot tougher on horror films and a lot of them were banned for no real good reason. They've lightened up a lot since then, and I don't think there are many (if any) of the original "video nastys" still banned. Our collective stomachs have gotten pretty strong over the years.

So for the BBFC to ban this outright, it must be pretty diabolical. I can't imagine they're idiots, so they must know how easy it would be for people who want to get hold of it to do so via torrents and whatnot, I guess they're just putting their foot down and doing it to make a statement.

As for me, I'll skip it...

Sounds terrible.

I also sat through the first one.

I watched the first one last night. I've been hearing about the movie for some time now. To me the sequel sounds what the first movie should've been. A sick grotesque perverse horror movie considering the main idea. I found the first movie to be pretty tame from what I expected.

Sandpaper is not a good idea

I think I'll pass

Actually sounds halfway interesting.... It's most likely pure trash but the examination of sexual perversity and sexual violence is an interesting and complex topic.

No its not, its almost always used for extra cash or controversy. In the case of Human Centipede 2, it probably doesn't even have that. Sounds like an hour and a half long version of 2 girls 1 cup.

fixed.

Your an idiot and after your quote, a disturbing idiot at that and because of that, I question whether you even have a soul..

There's nothing wrong with what Michael A said. It can, broadly speaking, be an interesting topic.

Explain the success of David Cronenberg then.

Frankly, I think that the sexualisation of violence has given success to Michael Bay, Zach Snyder, and a wide-ranging genre of death cinema in general. Of course, Bad Boys II and 300's sweaty, muscle-bound heroes don't explicitly get off to killing bad guys... But one could surmise that lots of people get off to watching them do it. Whole genres like action, science fiction and horror are filled with movies that subtly sexualise violence, and it sells. I don't know if I want to watch The Human Centipede: Full Sequence, perhaps because it seems like it wants to test the spectator's appetite for on-screen carnage and call out those who subconsciously get off to violence. But I do applaud it, as well as Sucker Punch and Ichi the Killer, for making the connection, because it's valid and has a tremendous impact on American, and by extension global, culture.

Is it really better for violence to be done tastefully and tolerably? Doesn't that just make us accept it without question, just like we accept the three wars (not counting military action in Yemen, etc.) we're involved in?

Maybe violence in movies should really make the audience cringe in pain. Maybe on-screen violence should be hard to stomach. Of course, movies like this only increase audience's tolerance for violence... But again, I'd rather have the movie actually explore that.

Ah, but you're moving the goalpost. All Michael A said, and all I agreed with, is the general notion sexual perversity and sexual violence can be compelling subjects for a film. Neither he nor I specifically defended what may or may not unfold in Human Centipede 2.