Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

HUMAN CENTIPEDE II Banned in Britain

Nordling here.

I've got no problem with horror films, but I know my own personal threshold when it comes to onscreen violence, and although I'm not one to cry out "Think of the children!", if a movie crosses that threshold, I simply won't see it.  But I'm never going to be in favor of banning a film.  It looks like the British Board of Film Classification has taken that step, however, banning Tom Six's sequel to THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE, according to Movieline, titled THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE).  What that means is that the film cannot be distributed publically in the UK, although I'm sure more enterprising people will figure out a way to get it.

Spoilers for the sequel follow: apparently what got the BBFC's goat is that the film, which is a sort of meta commentary on the first, features a character who sees the original film, becomes aroused by the premise, and decides to reenact it in real life.  Among the horrific things the character does in the film, well, I'll let the BBFC explain:

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.

Sandpaper around his crank.  Okay...

The concept of the first film has, in a way, entered the public consciousness - it was even spoofed on SOUTH PARK's opening season episode.  I'd imagine that the sequel could become more successful, box office wise, than the original film.  That's if it doesn't get stapled with an NC-17 (and it probably will), but I'm assuming Six will just release it unrated for midnight shows.  The BBFC has banned such films as FREAKS, THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and THE EXORCIST.  I won't assume that THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 is in that austere company, quality wise, but now the BBFC has assured that kids all over Britain will figure out a way to find this film and see it for themselves. 

In the meantime, the line for the Home Depot starts to the right...

Nordling, out.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 6, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    From the Sublime to the Ridiculous...

    by AssyMuffJizz

    Thanks for reminding us that AICN is home to both sides of the spectrum, Nordling.

  • June 6, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Dieter Laser gotta eat!

    by Cletus Van Damme

    But not fish n chips apparently.

  • June 6, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    "Central Character" based on Anthony Weiner

    by BoRock_A_Boomer

    "I won't quit"

  • June 6, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST


    by IceMonkey so stupid. The first movie was crap and the second one will be too. Banning it just makes people want to see it.

  • June 6, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Now, I want to see it even more...

    by AzulTool

  • June 6, 2011, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Sounds Disgusting

    by tomandshell

    I think I can happily live the rest of my life without watching this film.

  • June 6, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Kubrick banned A Clockwork Orange himself

    by Monolith_Jones

  • June 6, 2011, 5 p.m. CST


    by AllThosePowers

  • June 6, 2011, 5 p.m. CST


    by AllThosePowers

  • June 6, 2011, 5 p.m. CST

    I'm against censorship in any form

    by Continentalop

    but this movies description makes it hard for me to argue on its behalf. So fuck it, I won't. Especially after reading this: "...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’. " Yeah, that's art.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:01 p.m. CST

    It should've been banned for being garbage.

    by kravmaguffin

  • June 6, 2011, 5:01 p.m. CST

    Monty Pypthon banned by town councils...

    by Rogue Trooper

    ...not the BBFC.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST

    Correct, monolith

    by supertoyslast

    After death threats to his family, Kubrick withdrew Clockwork Orange from distribution in the UK. It was never banned. After his death, Kubrick's family decided it was time to allow it back into distribution.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:02 p.m. CST

    The Banned

    by BosphorusBill

    The BBFC didn't ban Clockwork Orange, that was Kubrick. I don't remember them banning Brian either; I certainly saw it theatrically at some point. And the point of this pedantry? No point, my friends, no point; just like Centipede 2

  • June 6, 2011, 5:03 p.m. CST

    The first film was rubbish anyway

    by Rogue Trooper

    The first film was crap, not because it was horrific, it was just a really band film. Call me old fashioned but I like to be entertained by my movies, the Human Centipede sequel does not sound very entertaining.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Also, Life of Brian?

    by supertoyslast

    That was never banned by the BBFC to my knowledge. However, local authorities still have the ability to refuse a licence and a couple of authorities may have exercised this power (I know this happened with Cronenberg's Crash). In which case, you can just go to the next town to see it.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST

    After reading that - I can only assume HC2 is a load of cr@p

    by marineboy

    Yawnsome stories minus cock and sandpaper pls :)

  • June 6, 2011, 5:05 p.m. CST


    by BSB

  • June 6, 2011, 5:08 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    This is a disgraceful exercise in cruelty and nothing more. Good on ya, BBFC.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Sounds like a shoe-in for Harry's top ten of the year! "I'm never going to be in favor of banning a film" Nordling, that makes you a paragon of righteousness or a fool, or probably both. What if it's a child sex snuff movie? What if it's a movie where some tortured guy puts barb wire round his cock and rapes a defenseless woman? A society that doesn't draw the line ANYWHERE is a society that is fucked.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    My take on this kind of SHIT!!!

    by notcher

    Is that people who have little to no talent at all resort to coming up with random, senseless shock stories to get attention hoping to get big deals to direct horror films. I've seen some real shit in my time, Sage Stallone's "Chaos" comes to mind, and I never have thought it was artistic or good in any way. I say fuck that kinda shit!!! I will never be a contributor to these films again, once was enough with "Chaos."

  • June 6, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Hey cobra

    by Continentalop

    How have you been? Sad that I have to see you at a HC2 tb.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Fuck this movie

    by Lucifer Haywood

    Fuck everyone associated with making it too.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:15 p.m. CST

    So it was okay when they were just sewn together

    by Rex Carsalot

    But don't show any violence or degradation, okay?

  • June 6, 2011, 5:16 p.m. CST

    It may not be your kind of thing

    by Rex Carsalot

    It REALLY isn't mine - but I'd never stop someone from making it. There aren't too many horror movies that actually get under my skin anymore, but this one, in concept and execution, went right there. In that, at least, it's high art.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    Having standards is a *good* thing. I don't know when it ever became a bad thing.

  • They had to add MORE to the rape scene and make it MORE horrific and disturbing!

  • June 6, 2011, 5:21 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Conti, hey dude! I sent a hello your way in the infinitely more refined environs of the Spielberg-back. These torture porn shock movies just fucking kill the joy of cinema for me. Not my cup of tea at all but the guys who run this site seem to love em.

  • ...but good on the UK for having some standards. It's kinda like in the Dark Knight when the people on the boats refused to blow each other up. The Joker (the director) is all alone on this one with his pathetic croneys.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Banning may not be the right answer but something must be done.

    by MaulVader

    A lot of hacks put out crap just to capitalize from the shock value of it all. In the process we all devolve. Although banning may not be the answer, some sort of penalty should be levied against these dumbasses. Maybe tax the earnings from said crap at such a high rate that its not economically feasible unless the movie is a super smash.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:27 p.m. CST

    They should have banned the first one as well...


    for being an unwatchable piece of shit. It wasn't even that disturbing, just really bad filmmaking. This one sounds like they are just out to raise the stakes in offensiveness. Now every shitty filmmaker out there is going to try to top A Serbian Film.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Get your heads out of your asses!

    by Christopher Bynum

    Wait, your head's in someone else's ass? Sorry, my bad.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    That being said...


  • June 6, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Atari should re-release Centipede

    by Christopher Bynum

    Only when you shoot the segments, blood and guts fly everywhere.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:30 p.m. CST

    The next one will be called Human Centipede: The Ark

    by TheJudger

    and it will have every kind of animal ass to mouth, on a boat.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:31 p.m. CST



    Who hasn't fucked a piece of sandpaper before?

  • June 6, 2011, 5:33 p.m. CST

    They should blow up the person in the middle

    by Christopher Bynum

    Isn't that what businesses like to do? Cut out the middle man?

  • June 6, 2011, 5:34 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    You mean like this:

  • June 6, 2011, 5:36 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    BSB, you are right my friend. When you mention banning someone like Nordling will pipe up and say 'oh yes - but *they* wanted to ban rock and roll music in the Fifties. *They* are so short sighted. This is just like that.' No fuckwit, this is NOT just like that. This is someone getting raped, tortured and brutalised for your entertainment viewing. You guys at aicn should plug into your common human goodness and choose the right side for once.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:37 p.m. CST


    by Amfpsych

    I think you're wrong. Censorship will always be a slippery slope and freedom of speech even applies to porn, torture porn or otherwise. As long as the law isn't being broken (as in snuff or child pornography) then it's ok to be made. The good news is the the public votes with it's wallets, and if a film is gratuitous crap it won't be seen by many.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:38 p.m. CST

    I refuse to watch the first movie. Too much for my delicate tastes.

    by JuanSanchez

    And I'm not being sarcastic.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:39 p.m. CST


    by robert

    I have seen a lot of stupid horror films in my life, only to be either incredibly shocked and disgusted or mildly entertained by the stupidity of it. I'll give Motel Hell as an example and add Hostel in as well-pick and choose your labels. It's this kind of crap that not only makes you wonder WTF the makers, writer, producers were thinking but also what kind of sick freaks sit in a show like this and call it art or entertainment. I have seen everything from classic horror through todays more modern fare to include the SAW franchise stuff and even Hellraiser back in the day. This one just crosses the line in so many ways. Granted I have only read a description, but that for me is enough to steer clear of this thing. When is there a point where we as people actually and literally draw a line that no one should cross. I used to mock the prospect of things like the Running man and other future doomsday scenarios, but how far off are we now from having that be a reality? I'm not talking today, but in our lifetime. Seriously, WTF.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:40 p.m. CST

    We need a human centipede themed GIF featuring harry knowles

    by carlanga

    just an idea

  • June 6, 2011, 5:41 p.m. CST

    I thought the second one would be about

    by England's Finest

    the director having a camera sewn to his arse so he could produce more shit like the first one.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    Rogue Trooper

    by david starling

    I agree - Human Centipede was fucking awful, and a chore to watch. I put myself through it, and wish I could beat the running time of the diabolical piece of shit out of the director's hide. I actually sat through Martyrs, and could see the point of the film - Human Centipede had no point at all.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:44 p.m. CST

    What happened to cinema?

    by GWARHOL

  • June 6, 2011, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Human Centipede Part Three: Afterbirth

    by treatment

    i wouldn't mind seeing the female character impregnated by way of centipede egg. then the central character could masturbate to the eventual half breed while playing Atari's centipede listening to Ride of the Valkyries... <end scene>

  • June 6, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Devin Faraci and Beaks' favorite movie of the year has arrived....

    by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Gravy

    No doubt Beaks will wax lyrical about how it's all really an artistic metaphor for the decline of Western civilization and the rise of the new Chinese superpower or something...

  • June 6, 2011, 5:48 p.m. CST


    by darth_hideous

    there already is one. it just keeps panning to the right and the harry-centipede goes on forever

  • June 6, 2011, 5:52 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    Exactly. This is common sense we're talking about here, and society is losing that with each passing day. It's disgusting to see HC on the Redbox panel alongside How To Train Your Dragon. This is mostly why, in an age where you can watch any type of violence by simply entering a URL, I don't mind some simple PG-13 horror. It's enough for me. I'm looking to escape the real world when I watch a movie, and the real world has become quite horrifying enough.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST

    I'm not a right wing nut but it should be banned from the planet

    by mistergreen

    No value to human kind whatsoever.

  • June 6, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST

    The first movie wasn't gross at all

    by Cobb05

    I kept hearing how disgusting and horrible the first movie was. I've never been a fan of movies like Faces of Death, where you see a lot of gore and sick stuff like that. So hearing about the first movie really made me think it was going to be totally gross. But I watched it, thinking, if it got too bad, I can just turn it off. The movie wasn't a great movie, but it wasn't that gross. The concept was gross, but you don't see anything. I will say that the German guy was creepy as hell, but he did a good job. I'm not for banning films, but does it really matter? I mean it's not like this movie was going to make $100 million. People who want to see, will find a way to see it. So if you ban it, they'll buy a bootleg or download it online. It's really not a big deal. The movie will make some cash when it comes out on DVD, from people who saw and liked the first one. I'll watch it, but again, if it's not interesting or too much for me, I'll turn it off.

  • June 6, 2011, 6 p.m. CST

    I just had to read that before eating dinner, didn't I?

    by MrEkoLetMeLive

    This whole genre of horror has completely gone over my head. I don't get the appeal of the Saw/Hostel/Human Centipede/Touristas style of horror at all. Who the hell goes to escapist entertainment to be reminded of man's horrible inhumanity to man? Give me vampires, zombies, Satanic posessions, and Freddy any day over this stuff.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Uh oh. Here comes the censorship debate!


    Hold on tight, kids. This is where things get heated!

  • June 6, 2011, 6:05 p.m. CST

    make no mistake

    by dagwood

    this isn't great filmmaking, this is controversy for its own sake. Anyone can make an objectionable film, but doing so for its own sake seems infantile. And quite frankly, boring.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:06 p.m. CST


    by mrlebowski

    It's actually a DEPICTION of cruelty, not cruelty itself. These are two entirely different things. It's ridiculous that the members of the BBFC think they are superior enough to stop the ordinary man on the street from watching this. If they really think it has the potential to cause viewers to do the wrong thing are they going to check themselves into a secure facility in case the start barb wire raping people?

  • June 6, 2011, 6:07 p.m. CST

    I agree with the BBFC here

    by misnomer

    not that I'm biased :) I'm generally anti-censorship but this sequels "meta" idea of arousal definitely crosses the line into rape-porn territory. Theres no artistic integrity to protect with this piece of garbage. Let Holland enjoy this and I'll look forward to Fright Night.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Maybe if they make it into a musical, it will be easier to watch.

    by sweeneydave

    I, personally, found that including lots of song and dance numbers made it easier to watch people getting murdered and baked into meat pies, then fed to unsuspecting participants of cannablism (including children), by a hero willing to make every human sacrifice to satisfy his thirst for vengeance against a city he once called home but now perceived as unjust. You know, make it fun.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Here we go...

    by jameskpolk

    If we're going to have 30 MORE posts from every contributor to this site, all defending HCII to one extent or another, please count me out. Will someone let me know when this is over, because I plan not to visit this site for a while while this garbage is debated to death.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:10 p.m. CST

    100% agreed with BBFC and pity those who actually want to see it

    by Proman1984

  • June 6, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    ok, he got a film banned

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    now maybe he's got it out of his system and he can stop trying to gross people out.<P> No excuse can be made for banning a film if it isn't breaking laws. People will just download this though, if they can't buy it, so he's likely to get fucked on sales, but I don't like the notoriety he'll gain, cause you know he loves it. <P> Kind of depressing, this state of affairs. No merit, artistic or otherwise. Just people being horrible to people.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    I agree with the BBFC

    by D o o d

    I would say that they fairly banned this piece of crap. I'm not for banning for the sake of banning but seriously that description says it all! Another point I should make is that the BBFC would have given them a choice of removing certain scenes to avoid the ban, but they obviously didn't see the merit in that!

  • June 6, 2011, 6:12 p.m. CST

    I agree as well

    by lead_sharp

    Tom Six can fuck off, he's not making a film he's wanking over people going 'Eeeeeew'. Life of Brian wasn't really banned though and Kubrick himself shelved Clockwork Orange after the British outcry.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:13 p.m. CST

    Sounds like a candidate for the Harmony Korine fan club.

    by Playkins

    Personally, I can't stand films that do nothing more than shock the viewer. Even a film like "Martyrs" manages to make a point and transcend being merely "shock art".<P> That being said, it's a slippery slope to ban entertainment because certain individuals deem it to be inappropriate.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    Man, I thought "The Human Centipede" was hilarious.

    by fustfick

    And from the description above, Part 2 sounds even funnier. These movies are not meant to be taken seriously.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:16 p.m. CST

    I watched many R-rated movies when I was young...

    by HansBubi

    ...but it bothered me when I overheard teenagers in high school talking about having watched Human Centipede. I don't want to be a hypocrite since I actively seeked out more "mature" movies when I was young, yet I can't help but be annoyed by how many young children and teens will see this movie simply because of the bizarro marketing and word of mouth it gets but doesn't necessarily earn.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Not banned, rejected.

    by Rogue Trooper

  • June 6, 2011, 6:19 p.m. CST

    Call the third one "A Serbian Centipede"

    by tomandshell

    And it will be the most tasteless movie ever made.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:20 p.m. CST

    agreed, this is nothing like the scapegoat bannings

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    of the 80's and 90's. I mean, Reservoir Dogs? Come on. Any geek my age will have fond memories of that fuzzy Dogs pirate tape.<P> Banning just gives him a platform, but I can't really find fault with the BBC on this. I just hate the idea that it is playing into his hands. I'd love the film to have just been ignored (but then we'd be dealing with some child necrophilia snuff etc film next year when he gets desperate for the attention).

  • June 6, 2011, 6:26 p.m. CST

    I fully agree

    by Mephisto the Great

    If this description is to be believed, then I agree with the ruling. There is a line of what kind of sadistic garbage should be shown in theaters, especially when it comes to the brutal depiction of rape. No one is stopping the filmmaker from producing it -- they are simply preventing it from being shown to the general public. If such degraded perverts want to watch such tripe, let them download it. Ugh.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:29 p.m. CST

    What this movie needs is a good "Chris Farley" type.

    by sweeneydave

    Someone to yell "OH!!! WHY?!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!" during the rapage. You know, get people to chuckle a little.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Not banned, rejected.

    by Rogue Trooper

    The BBFC, haven't banned, the film, they just haven't granted it a certificate (although it pretty much amounts to the the same thing). As such the film viewed in cinemas or released legitimately on an video media. @ velvet_sloane - thanks for agreeing with me! @ azultool - I'm pretty sure the BBFC have heard of the Internet (fucking or otherwise). The BBFC rates films for theatrical and video release, they also rate video games. The Internet does not fall under the remit of the BBFC. Of course anyone who really want to see Human Centipede II can, if they try hard enough or look in the right place, but, in doing so, they'll probably be depriving themselves of 90 minutes or so of their lives watching a film that will, quite literally, suck ass.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Nordling, get your facts right...

    by Ace of Wands others have pointed out, the BBFC did not, famously or otherwise, ban either Clockwork Orange or Life of Brian (some local English councils did ban Life of Brian but I saw it on its release without any fuss in a cinema in Elgin, Scotland).

  • FFS, it sounds like the film makers are actually trying to encourage psychos in the audience to try this out themselves.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Sound like fucking shite anyway ...


    OH NO, Its banned???? How will I sleep tonight???

  • June 6, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    It depends on the grit of the sandpaper.


    Something like 60 grit - Ouch! Yet say, 480 grit might be pleasantly soothing.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:35 p.m. CST

    Im glad it is banned!

    by clavo

    I have never cared about movies being banned. I think it is stupid, but this time I am totally for it. The fact that someone needs to make a movie from this garbage scares me. The first was bad enough, but this is crossing some sort of least in my head and my heart. I just do not see a reason for this sort of movie to be made.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:37 p.m. CST

    melonman and others

    by Winston Smith

    You beat me to it. I don't believe Clockwork was ever BANNED, it was Kubrick who removed it after getting death threats. As for this film, maybe I'm getting too old for this shit (so to speak), but I just have zero interest in this. Same as Serbian Film. The only good thing about the first film was that the premise is ripe for parody. And these are the kinda films where I really do wonder about the filmmakers. Though a lot of films, including this, I think are more about just MAKING AS SHOCKING A FILM as possible, because that gives you publicity and money and fame, I would be kinda surprised if Tom Six *didn't* have a scat fetish at the least. Compare that to, like Philosophy of a Knife, another film I've never seen and never will see, but that film sounds like the director really does have some psychopath sadistic tendencies and is getting "off" on it in the most legal way he can. Or August Underground. At least some shock movies PRETEND to be real movies. And I'd also argue there's a difference between HORROR films and SHOCK films. Sometimes the genres mix, but as a whole, they're practically different things.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:38 p.m. CST

    by clavo

    I agree with you. When we were young it wasn't readily available to watch this garbage. We were more of the toxic avenger vhs kinda life. Now however, it is way too easy for these kids to watch this crap without the knowledge of parents. I know for a fact that kids (13 and younger) are watching this in the comfort of their own bedrooms and that bothers me very much.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Oh, and any banning is wrong, anyway;

    by Ace of Wands

    I'm anti-censorship but that's not the only rerason I would apply. Banning just gives a movie publicity and kudos that it often doesn't deserve and makes people want to see it simply because it has been made taboo. When I was a teenager Soldier Blue was the "must see" film because it had been banned by some cinemas (not sure if it was actually banned by the UK Censors or Local Councils). Saw it yesterday in the bargain bucket at HMV video store. 'Nuff Said. p.s Not equating Soldier Blue in any way with Human Centipede, just using it as an example of the siliness of censorship.

  • Many years ago the BBFC was notorious for its approach to and cutting\banning of films. However in the last 10 years or so it has become more relaxed and the decisions made by the Board are usually spot on. In fact the BBFC web site is an excellent resource to determine if a films content is suitable for your kids for example. I'm not a fan of censorship but the Board has well defined sensible parameters for its decisions and if this film has exceeded them it has no choice but to refuse a certificate. Unlike the US a film cannot be shown without a BBFC certificate - there is no concept of an 'unrated' cut in the UK.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST

    As for the excuse, "it's not meant to be taken seriously"

    by Winston Smith

    I sometimes wonder if you're not projecting your own opinion on the film. I've worked with a few lesser shock directors and they're not quite aware that what they're making is "funny." It's more that they think it'll bring them fame or money. They don't necessarily take it seriously, but there's no intellectual quality to it. It's just meant to be shocking, and once you go far enough, certain things will seem "funny" because they are so extreme. If you actually look at some of the shit Dr. Mengele did or Vlad the Impaler, people doing real things to real people, and put it on screen accurately but maybe with just a slightly low budget, I'm sure people would argue "it's not meant to be taken seriously!" I mean, Vlad the Impaler literally had pieces of wood shoved up people's asses real slow so it would take them a long time to die. How that's SOOO different than a guy raping a woman with barbed wire, well, guess I just don't get the "humor." Then again I thought Hatchet 2 was boring and too self-referential, so take my words for what they are.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:43 p.m. CST

    This is a real movie? Like... That is hilarious

    by Andrew Coleman

    Just reading that I kept going: "No way". I mean how does that movie even get made? I mean there must be so many movies out there that need cash and this gets made? That is crazy. I hate bannings... When Utah "banned" Zack and Miri make a Porno it almost made me never want to go there ever! But banning this seems like a universal effort to just destroy what is a movie that should have never existed.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    No interest in seeing it, but it shouldn't be banned...

    by Turd_Has_Risen_From_The_Gravy

    Why should it? Because it has no artistic merit? Plenty of films, both controversial and otherwise, have no artistic merit. What's offensive are pretentious idiots like Mr. Beaks (or the filmmakers themselves) trying to claim that there's some sort of allegorical subtext to these films as an excuse to justify them and their interest in watching them. There isn't. These type of films are what they are, and people enjoy watching them for sick thrills, the same way they would watch a scat video online or something of that order. I highly doubt, though, that any but a tiny percentage of weirdoes are watching these things with their cocks in hand, feeding some sick fetish and harboring rape fantasies that they wish to enact in real life. For the majority, the reality of watching films like this are more of the nature of showing you can take it; dumb kids boasting of things like "I watched the human centipede, dude. It was the sickest movie I ever saw, but I was man enough to stomach it. I'm hardcore, dude." It's a rite of passage for them, and for older folks who watch them its more just morbid curiousity or just to say you've seen it. Therefore, the BBFC's justification for banning this film is nonsense because people who would get off on this stuff are lunatics to start with, and the percentage of potential criminals/rapists even more miniscule, already disturbed, and as likely to be equally roused to action by almost anything else (video games, Catcher in the Rye, The Beatles' Helter Skelter, Taxi Driver, grapefruits in the shape of womens' breasts, the face of Christ on a piece of toast; who knows what? They will always find some sort of justification for their abhorrent actions). Where exactly do you draw the line? If a film's violent or sexual content is simulated and doesn't involve actual harm, nor the exploitation of minors, then there really is no justification for banning anything, no matter how distasteful. Laws in any truly evolved society must be based on rational objectivity and analysis, not dictated by emotional fervor and outbursts, no matter how distasteful you or I might find something.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:46 p.m. CST

    BBFC Cannot ban things

    by ihatetalkbacks

    As far as I knew the BBFC cannot ban a film. It can issue a certificate that is used by local councils to determine the age for viewing. A film can still be shown if it is uncertified but it has to be aproved by the local council and they often will not do this for any film the BBFC does not like. Some local councils banned Life Of Brian, and others lowered the age for Poltergiest and Batman in 89 I think. It may still show up on film festivals. It will not be available on video though. The BBFC does need to aprove it for home viewing. They seem to let more through if it has artistic merit, and it probably shows how bad this is. They have been far more forgiving of things in the last 10 or so years and many unrated films like Chainsaw Massacre for instance can now be on video even.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Did Choppah make a Two Girls One Cup joke yet?

    by Darth_Kong

    Be easy Sailor! ;)

  • June 6, 2011, 6:53 p.m. CST

    people that go see films like this

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    should spend an hour or two watching some of the videos on liveleak. There's enough heartbreak and genuine inhumanity there to last anyone a lifetime. I've seen things on there that will stay with me all of my life, so the idea of going to a cinema to get such feelings as recreation, it's anathema to me.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:56 p.m. CST

    chickenstu Straw Dogs

    by ihatetalkbacks

    Dont be so stupid about what you post. Straw Dogs was unrated as the BBFC thought that the rape scene was ambiguous and that it could be read as the female character enjoyed it. While that particular reading is debateable their belief in the morality of it being shown on screen is not. That is why they came to their decision.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:56 p.m. CST

    soldier blue

    by Winston Smith

    Funny someone mentioned that, I know some people watching it now say "more of a comedy than drama" because some of it's a bit dated and the violence is so extreme. Further proves my point. Also, for the banning, but maybe again because I'm getting older and because the Internet makes it possible to see anything (you want Cartel executions? You can find 'em) I just don't really care anymore. Nothing can TRULY be banned, so all it does is help give free publicity. And to that it's like, okay. I'm sure the filmmakers aren't complaining. I just sorta don't care. Not anymore. It's too easy to get your stuff out there, no matter what it is, if you want. The bigger problem I have is overall how WE look at ratings. These ratings boards get too much power. The ratings should be more like guidelines than actual rules. I'm American, but the MPAA is bullshit. Violence slides while sexuality doesn't. I've always felt to deny ANYONE from seeing an NC-17 movie is absurd. It should be just like R, as far as how you get in, just it's saying, "we think this is even more extreme." To try and classify what people can and can't see in the end is fruitless. People who want to see something will see it regardless, just like people who want to do drugs do it regardless if it's legal or not.

  • June 6, 2011, 6:57 p.m. CST


    by ArmageddonProductions

    First of all, the first HUMAN CENTIPEDE was maybe a very soft "R". It has a rep, that's for sure, but you actually don't see anything all that disturbing -- unless you think three people strapped together ass-to-face with diapers and performing the train is your idea of "disturbing". A lot of grotesque shit is implied, but the filmmaker didn't really know how to utilize any of it properly, so it basically winds up being ninety minutes of some hilarious German dude barking bon mots at three of the world's most desperate actors. I'm not suggesting that anyone watch it, but if your only reason for not doing so is because of the potential gross-out factor, you saw more disturbing shit in ZOMBIELAND. They even get around potentially having to show nudity.</p><p> Secondly, part of what I'm sure the BBFC is taking umbrage to, aside from what sounds like a lot of attention being paid to some dude's schlong, is the fact that all these derogatory acts are all being performed upon TWELVE PEOPLE who were connected together via ass-to-mouth. I mean, seeing all this happen to one chick is awful enough, but on top of that, it's happening after a twelve-way crude surgical connection.

  • June 6, 2011, 7 p.m. CST

    Cenorship is counterproductive...

    by AnarchyWorldsEnd

    Just like the drug war and any other societal constraints which attempt to punish thought crime or prevent ancillary consequences to a primary action. It is likely that someone who comes out of watching a film like HC viscerally enjoying it wasn't quite right to begin with. But by censoring it those who would avoid it of their own volition might be tempted. And most of those people will wish they followed there instincts to begin with. Art (and I hesitate to call these films that) viewed under ones own will cannot perverse anyone who was not so inclined in the first place. I'd rather have such films out in the open where they can be properly eviscerated under public scrutiny than given the "legitimacy of being censored. The writings of Orwell and Friedman were censored. HC doesn't deserve even the remotest association with those works. Even De Sade's most perverse work can fairly easily be read as an allegory on aristocracy. Ascribing anymore value to HC beyond it being exploitative trash more to be mocked than offended by is silly.

  • June 6, 2011, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Gravy Turd...


    Completely agreed. I am by no means defending shit like this, but I am totally against any form of banning or censorship. Should I desire to see this, I should have every right to do so. The real sickening thing is the people who make these kinds of films out to be something better or more meaningful than what they really are. It is a parents' job to keep his children from seeing stuff like this. I have a DVD rack full of horror movies and films not meant for kids, So I don't let them see them! It's really not that hard if a parent does his or her job. But censorship is such a fine line and really personal reaction to something. How do you decide who gets to choose what is acceptable and what is not? What are the criteria? If you're going to ban this for scenes of rape, then do you have to ban something like The Accused? Bottom line, if this type of thing offends you, steer clear of it.

  • June 6, 2011, 7:13 p.m. CST

    The Exorcist...

    by those_crazy_swedes

    The Exorcist was refused a certificate for home video during the 'video nasties' hoopla of the early 80s. The BBFC passed it for theatrical release. (I believe the same is true of TCM but I'm not certain.)

  • June 6, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    Swedes - youre right.

    by ihatetalkbacks

    The BBFC used to justify the different rules for cinema and video because of the rewind function. That a "delicate" person could simply rewind the tape and watch a disturbing piece over and over again.

  • June 6, 2011, 7:20 p.m. CST

    The Tree of Life is banned here too

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Still no word of a release date. Pathetic.

  • Can't have that!

  • June 6, 2011, 7:30 p.m. CST

    Why didn't somebody ban the Sex In The City movies?

    by Dr Gregory House

    Think of all the harm those drag queens have done to our society. No, I'm not joking.

  • June 6, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    I'd rather sandpaper my dong than watch anymore Jen Aniston rom-coms.

    by Dr Gregory House

    Who do I lobby to get THOSE banned? Anyone?

  • as long as it's labeled and people are warned going into it banning a film should NEVER occur. it won't work anyways - if anything people will want to see it more. all the UK has done is lose tax revenue from any legit sales of this film. people will still see it. banning is dumb.

  • June 6, 2011, 7:41 p.m. CST

    More like two girls, one CHOP.


    Aka every night since I divorced my fifth wife.

  • June 6, 2011, 7:42 p.m. CST

    fuck this film


  • June 6, 2011, 7:49 p.m. CST

    Sounds fucking retarded

    by kafka07

    He could have gone with a slightly clever sequel idea. Like have the doctor from the first film team up with another doctor and they make a longer centipede. And find ways to keep the centipede alive longer. Start the film by showing the longer centipede and the doctors acting maniacally joyous about their creation, and then go into back stories for each character. Introduce other types of human medical experiments along the way. Have people sewn together in a 69 position. Have twins sewn into siamese twins. Make the siamese twins have sex with the human centipede.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Good on them for banning it...

    by alienindisguise

    this dumb piece of shit is just a worthless gimmick that deserves no distribution anywhere. Hacks like this sick fuck don't deserve to make films.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST

    Re: kafka07

    by ArmageddonProductions

    It IS a loger "centipede" this time, like four times as long. That's part of what I'm sure the BBFC has a problem with. During interviews, Tom Six was gushing about how this one was "100 percent medically INaccurate", so I don't think it's all gonna be implied this time like the first one; you'll probably see lots of sick and disturbing shit, surgery-wise.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:06 p.m. CST

    The BBFC Doesn't ban anything!

    by Symposium

    They tell the film makers/producers/studios whoever that to get the film released in the UK under the current rating system what cuts or changes will need to be made! It's up to them to do it or not. All this means is we'll get a cut version over here. Boo Hoo. Oh and for the record only REAL men masturbate with sandpaper!

  • June 6, 2011, 8:11 p.m. CST

    I jerk it with icy hot.


    Sandpaper is only to get rid of the bunions on my dick veins.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:17 p.m. CST

    God I want to see this almost as bad as CONTINENTALOP!!!

    by Stuntcock Mike

  • June 6, 2011, 8:17 p.m. CST

    All These Brits With Their Backs Up...

    by Rebeck2

    Meanwhile, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE wasn't released theatrically in the UK until 1998. Give me a fucking break. That's just ridiculous. We don't ban movies in the US, and the UK does - that's the bottom line. Empire Magazine says this means it is ILLEGAL to sell this movie in the UK. Hate to break it to you, that is fucking BANNED.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST



  • June 6, 2011, 8:19 p.m. CST



  • June 6, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST



    My stuntcock is here.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:20 p.m. CST


    by rayseedy

    You want to know what is going to be more harmful to society? People forcing moral standards on others, not some dumb b-movie about a guy jerkin off with sandpaper. Really, who here is so high and mighty then can say what is "art" and what is not? Here's an idea: If you don't like what this flick is about, DON'T WATCH IT. So many of you sound like fucking right-wing p.c. hypocrites. How is reading the description of the fick any worse then seeing it? (and f.y.i, I turned the first HC off after 20 minutes and I think the new one sounds totally dumb. I just think people shoud think for themseves and not be forced to obey the moral judgments of others.)

  • June 6, 2011, 8:23 p.m. CST

    People screaming "Freedom of Speech!"

    by Wookie_Weed

    "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -- Soren Kierkegaard

  • June 6, 2011, 8:23 p.m. CST

    I Don't Care If...

    by Rebeck2

    The movie has Hitler making a horse fuck Helen Keller. YOU DON'T BAN MOVIES.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Good call Britain.

    by Epsilon

    Honestly, do we as a society have to go as far as we can just to say that we did? Can't we draw the line somewhere and, can't Human Centipede II be that line?

  • June 6, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Ban Six as well

    by Wookie_Weed

    And everyone like him.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:43 p.m. CST

    BBFC: So whats your point?

    by tailhook

    Lol.. oh wait. And ya.. sounds like another shockfest wrapped in the cloak of 'artistry'. Also known as what to show your girlfriend when you want to break up with her, but you don't want to actually say it. 'Hey hun.. lets stay in tonight. I have the perfect DVD.'

  • I was really excited to see CANNIBAL FEROX when it came out on DVD like 10 yrs ago because it had such an extreme reputation bestowed on it by the BBFC. But it turned out to be a shitty little piece of garbage that should have been forgotten two weeks after it stopped playing on 42nd St. On the other hand, most of John Waters' early, pre-POLYESTER films were basically trolling the Maryland state censorship system for the sake of publicity. And I do think PINK FLAMINGOS and FEMALE TROUBLE are legitimate pieces of capital-A Art

  • June 6, 2011, 8:48 p.m. CST

    Weak-minded fools.

    by Aaron

    I cannot believe that supposed lovers of art and film are actively calling for the banning of a piece of work. You should be ashamed. It is a fucking movie. There are people out there right now doing things that are horrific beyond comprehension, to real living people, IN REAL LIFE. But ban this movie, that'll do, pig. Goddamn troglodytes. Stop thinking about your fucking selves for a change and try to develop some empathy for fuck's sake. Worrying about a movie when millions of children, women, babies, old people, minorities, whites, blacks, EVERY KIND OF REAL PERSON is dying screaming somewhere right now, as we sit on a web site. If I was not so self-absorbed I would commit suicide out of disgust for humanity and its chicken shit fucked up priorities.

  • June 6, 2011, 8:49 p.m. CST

    You can do it, Kyre! I berieve in you!

    by Darkman

    Great "South Park". Still not gonna see the movie, though.

  • June 6, 2011, 9:02 p.m. CST

    good for the UK!!

    by antonphd

    and if someone makes a movie about a nazi who gets to masturbate as jews are burned alive they should ban that film too it's called balance. you hold on to one thing without letting go of the other. you give room for people to make offensive films but you don't let them make films to appeal to the serial killer market. expect to find out that the film makers have been engaging in what they are filming. they have killed someone or they have tortured someone. they have most definitely raped someone. you don't make a film like this unless this is what turns you on in real life.

  • June 6, 2011, 9:21 p.m. CST

    Life of brian remains the only film in ireland...

    by emeraldboy

    whose film ban remains in place. you can of course buy the film. It was banned in ireland so as not to offend the legion of mary. Speaking last week on the excellent John Murray show on rte radio one Micheal Palin was asked what his religious and love his answer palin said " I am an agnostic with doubts"

  • Putting aside the fact that art is subjective anyhow, even if this is the worst film ever made (I'm sure it isn't), even if 99.9 percent of people find it repulsive, or would never want to see it, even if has practically no redeeming qualities whatsoever, it still should never be banned. Why? Because it is only make believe, it's not real, and as such the content breaks no laws. Bad taste isn't illegal, and neither quality nor taste have any place in deciding whether or not something should be censored and/or banned. People has a right to watch or not watch, to opinionate or simply ignore, but no one has a right to say what other adults should be allowed to watch and what they shouldn't, as long as the content in question is not actually real and as such breaks no established real world laws (such as actual child pornography or beastiality shown on film would, for instance). Being opposed to censorship isn't about what you personally want to see, it is about the right for each of us to be able to choose what we want to see and what we don't. And that right should never be taken away by any Government or any person, because if people start banning things just because they don't like them or see no value in them, where does it all end? Do you really want somebody else deciding what you should or shouldn't see? Sure you might not care about this film, but what about when they decide that Cronenberg has made a film that goes too far, or that a certain film might be taken offence at by a certain interest group, and so would be 'easier' to just ban in order to avoid any such controversy to begin with? Censorship is the death a freedom, and the final bastion of the closed mind.

  • June 6, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Banning this film is useless...

    by Jarados

    It will only drum up more press for the movie and inspire the kiddies want to go, "Ooooo!" and go see it. If the U.K. really didn't want folks to see it, they should just hire a journalist to write a detailed review / synopsis of the movie. That should suffice.

  • What the fuck is the wiorld coming to? Best Buy, Target, everyone seems to sell this trash fucking movie. Where are the goddamn parent's groups? Judas Priest was sued in open court because some uppity bitch though one of their songs might have said something scary when played backwords, and now you can buy peopleforced to shit in each other's mouths at the fucking grocery store? And there is ZERO controvercy about this? It's even a special $9.99 Blu-ray at Best Buy! Apparent a fucking premiere seller! Did this director make some kind of deal with the fucking Devil or something? How is this shit possible?

  • June 6, 2011, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Give me a deal, Hollyweird: I'll make audiences puke.

    by kabong

    I'll show you evil.

  • were there really no other scripts available??????????

  • June 6, 2011, 10:07 p.m. CST

    I had assumed it was because

    by smackfu

    during one of the torture scenes, one character head-butts another. For some reason that sort of thing pushes the BBFC over the edge.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:11 p.m. CST

    story telling is not just entertaining or make believe

    by antonphd

    story telling is THE power that humans have that has made us the dominate life form on the planet. yes, we can entertain with story telling but that is just a small portion of what story telling means to humanity. story telling is our ability to communicate with each other. from cave painting of animals we hunt or we are afraid of or we are in awe of to math that we use to determine if there is a planet revolving around a star that we can barely perceive with our own eyes. with story telling we communicate the knowledge and wisdom of the past and the hopes and fears of the future. with story telling we can free people. with story telling we can oppress people. there is a reason why religions are expressed in stories. films are one of the most powerful mediums for story telling. which is why it can be so dangerous to the human potential to ban films and also why it is so critical to realize that sometimes it is the wise thing to do. will people who want to watch torture find a way to watch this film in the UK? yes. people who want to find pleasure in suffering will find a way in this world to find pleasure in suffering. but that doesn't mean that the rest of the people in a society should treat the film as if it is openly acceptable in their society. the people who made this film are fucked up in the head and so are the people who want to watch it. society has every right to protect themselves from people who get pleasure from suffering. and if you think that story telling can't influence people to do horrible things then you need to read history

  • I'm sorry but just last week they reported on the busted baby mill in Nigeria that sold babies for sex slavery and human sacrifice. Yeah, that's the kind of world we live in, folks. It's no stretch of the imagination - I'm deeply sorry to say - that there are plenty of eager investors ready to throw money at some 'ground-breaking' torture porn auteur so they can profit from DVDs in every Best Buy, Walmart, Target, Redbox, what have you, aimed at an enormous market of both kids and maladjusted 'adults'.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:26 p.m. CST


    by BSB

    to desensitize people to the point where we can enjoy watching genocide in a theater with a large popcorn and soda.

  • Now, it's a common stocking stuffer.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:31 p.m. CST

    I don't know if I regret seeing the first one...

    by blackwood

    but I won't ever watch it again. It was a physically painful experience. I don't know if there's another film I've seen that made me so uncomfortable. I was crawling out of my skin the entire running time. I won't be watching this. Well, maybe. Morbid curiosity might get the best of me. But I won't like it or myself. I don't think we need to 'protect' people against awful things. I think we need to inform and empower people to make the right decisions for themselves. Protecting people from ideas, even unsavory, perverse, malicious ideas, doesn't give them the tools to do that for themselves, and that's dangerous.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Dieter laser

    by BuffyFaithtribyeah

    Was a very spooky German. If this kind of movie is your cup a tea go watch and enjoy. I will probably download this and laugh at barbwire rape. Its only a movie.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:44 p.m. CST


    by Lucifer Haywood

    Very good point, I have made the decision to not watch this horrible crap, and I have expressed to my 13 yr old how I feel. If she succumbs to morbid curiosity or peer pressure to watch it that's out of my hands. Rape with barbed wire. wtf.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:46 p.m. CST


    by redteeb

    Based in the raft of evidence of history, and more importantly, statistics of media censorship and it's correlation with crime rates across the world, your argument is complete nonsense. Evidence based policy. One day....

  • But it was historically accurate, so that's okay.

  • June 6, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Shock for sake of shock. Pass.

    by onezeroone

    Don't care if every country bans it, am not really gonna see this at all, not even for morbid curiosity. There is no meta commentary, it is just torture porn masquerading as commentary on torture porn.

  • That means that America's dumb teenage generation will plonk money down to see this out of curiosity and their desperate need to be accepted and not be left out of the loop. <p>

  • June 6, 2011, 11:29 p.m. CST

    gave Human Centipede *some publicity

    by Bobo_Vision

    He said the film deserves the MTV Movie Award for Best Kiss. <p> It was a good joke.

  • June 6, 2011, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Sounds like a setup for "The Aristocrats."

    by SagaciousPenguin

  • June 6, 2011, 11:51 p.m. CST

    The first film is not that bad at all.

    by BigTuna

    Weird? Yes. But what do you see that's gross or offensive exactly? A film like "Martyrs" is so much worse.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:05 a.m. CST

    The first one sucked.

    by Yelsaeb

    It was just so stupid. After they get stitched together what else is there to do? Have them jump through a hoop? The movie literally grinds to a halt after about thirty minutes. I almost took the movie out after about forty minutes of them climbing that staircase. For the sequel, it sounds like Tom Six thought he'd take the Eli Roth root by making everything unnecesarily over the top just for the sake of doing it.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:06 a.m. CST

    I saw the first one and...

    by karmo

    it really wasn't all that shocking in it's execution. I actually got it on Netflix of all places because I was bored, I had heard about it and was a bit curious, and to be honest, Netflix's streaming selection is shit. There's not a lot of gore, nudity, or even cursing for that matter (considering only one of the segments of the centipede is able to talk, and he only speaks Japanese). All the actors in the "centipede" are wearing diapers, and you really only get very brief glimpses of a couple of the actresses' boobs. The movie is more shocking in it's premise than in it's execution. If you're looking for some point to this movie, then you're probably going to be disappointed. I just saw it as more of a character study one one fucked up individual with some very twisted fantasies. Oh and Dieter Laser is creepy as fuck. Any movie that calls for a creepy looking character, Dieter should be your go-to guy. Just kind of makes me feel for the man in his real day to day life.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:36 a.m. CST

    I wish had video of the pitch sessions of some movies.

    by kabong

    Tom Six goes through his spiel, maybe with some storyboards. <p> Producers look at each other. <p> "What? They're surgically joined ass to face. Can you give us a PG on it?"

  • June 7, 2011, 1:09 a.m. CST

    HUH??? Can't believe the majority on here...

    by Nervous Energy

    NO banning of ANY fictional product is acceptable. Those whining about "no artistic merit" are delusional since if that was a criteria than every single commercial or advertisement would then automatically be banned. It's SO simple to just NOT watch something you dont agree with. Dont ever shove your moral standards of entertainment on anybody other than yourself. I'm far more frightened of people telling me what I can and cannot view than the idea of this retarded sounding movie.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Movie of the year for beaks

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

  • June 7, 2011, 1:31 a.m. CST


    by mrlebowski

    Look out! There's a cave painting coming straight for you!

  • June 7, 2011, 2:26 a.m. CST

    The BBFC is now a pretty sensible body

    by snappy

    They only refuse certificates in extreme circumstances or ask for cuts if sexualised violence is promoted by the tone of the film. I'm no fan of censorship, but given the description of the film given, the only people who would want to see it are idiots and kids trying to show how brave they are!

  • June 7, 2011, 2:29 a.m. CST

    What the fuck is going on?

    by Lacloake

    Centipede, A Serbian Movie, Martyrs, what state is society in these days that these shite films are made? Who asked for these movies? Is it the popularity of things like the Saw franchise? Do film-makers and hollywood think that we need more and more fucked up images to get us to watch their crap? This shit really has to stop, kids are becoming more and more desensitised to violence because of films like this and video gaming etc (don't tell me it's ok for an 8 year old to play Call of Duty and not be affected by it) and it is really showing itself in day to day life; rape among minors, serious assaults, drug use and on and on and on... I know I'm going to sound very old here but times were a lot more innocent before the availability of the internet, the ease of accessability to porn and violent media to kids has become a real danger. I genuinely fear for the future.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:29 a.m. CST

    Theater watershed these type of films to after 10:00pm only

    by CeejayNightwing

    kill the studio box office potential and they'll no longer see the value in funding these sick directors. Let those who want to see this kind of crap be forced to buy, download or pirate it, either way it will be less successful for the studio rather than banning it and giving it notoriety and free headlines and advertising in every paper and web page!

  • June 7, 2011, 2:39 a.m. CST

    Ah Blighty...

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    ...the last bastion of good taste. And please do get a grip all of you who say nothing should be banned or censored. What you are encouraging is a free-for-all of self-expression where 'bad' art - and I use the term both pejoratively and qualitatively - gets to circulate unfettered. Censorship is the absolutely essential boundary that keeps artistic expression under a necessary degreee of control. Get rid of censorhsip and you destroy art because if there is no boundary then everything becomes art. And if everything is art, then it stands that nothing is art. Censorship is the begining of a healthy discourse between artist, the work, society, those appointed to act as guardians of taste, etc. Censorship raises pulses, gets people talking and thinking - it rarely ever results in the total removal of a piece of art from public circulation.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:09 a.m. CST

    Depresses me that there's even an audience for this

    by BenBraddock

    For a sequel too :-(

  • June 7, 2011, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Fucking Right it Should Be Banned...

    by Pawprint

    Yes please, let's try and stretch to fucking ridiculous extremes the stupid shit that some twats try and pass off as art or entertainment. How about if I make a film of me shitting onto a black baby's face and rubbing it into it's eyes and mouth? Hey it's art - I'm simply trying to evoke strong emotion in the viewer regarding the way we allow third-world children to be treated. Maybe if I film someone watching it and having a wank, that would also be a jab at the way we sexualise children and violence? Fuck off. The BBFC drew a line and this fucking idiot did all he could to cross it. This isn't free speech - it's deliberate sensationalism in lieu of talent, and if you don't think that freedom of speech should be controlled then you're also a fucking idiot. As for the argument that banning will only make people want to see this more - horseshit. The first one wasn't banned and was allowed to be advertised in film mags and specialist mags (Bizarre, etc), and I do not know a single person who has seen it or even heard of it, because Average Joe rarely reads film sites like this or specialist film mags, on the whole. If this film is effectively banned, then it's going to get even LESS exposure, so it will sink without trace like the flushed turd it is. If a few retards want to hunt it down they can crack on - this film will slide under the radar of the vast majority of the film-going public.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:15 a.m. CST


    by Pawprint

    Fucking beautiful post; missed it first time round or I wouldn't have bothered posting my rant!

  • June 7, 2011, 3:21 a.m. CST

    Doesn't Se7en feature

    by IWantCheese

    a man who rapes a woman with a butcher knife strapped on ?

  • June 7, 2011, 3:31 a.m. CST


    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    Yes, but only in description, similar to Macbeth's description of murdering King Duncan, it is so powerful (yet offstage) that the description begins to form as visualised reality in the mind of the audience. Powerful stuff indeed. I might suggest that this film leaves little to the imagination, therefore condescending to the audience and pandering to baseness. All those who blindly defend such condescension might want to take a long hard look at their beliefs, because they're basically suggesting that they enjoy being treated like an idiot. What troubles me about all of this is that filmmaking is not just art. It is also a business, and businesses need to be regulated. If this guy was showing his film for free, and presenting it in context, then there might be some room for exploring his freedom of expression, but freedom of expression is a responsibility, not simply a right. And pawprint, if you're reading this, there's no need to apologise for an expression like "sensationalism in lieu of talent" - that sums it up perfectly.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:33 a.m. CST


    by Randypan

    Hear hear. Probably the most eloquent and 'to the point' reply in this talkback. Nice work!

  • June 7, 2011, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Channel 5's "Who wants to be a Human Centipede ?"

    by Keith Maniac

    You know they'd do it, Davina McCall will host. Cant wait until the fucking Daily Mail readers get wind of this little wheeze.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:43 a.m. CST

    From the sounds of things, I agree with the BBFC

    by photoboy

    A line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise we might as well allow snuff films to be released in the cinemas and for Roman Polanski to film what goes on in his basement. Personally I find Murphy being dismembered in Robocop really hard to watch, so films that sound more gruesome than that are not going to be on my watch list. I enjoy a scary movie, but the "torture porn" genre just leaves me cold.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:57 a.m. CST

    Kudos to the BBFC for sacking up.

    by billyhitchcock1

    They've become a lot more tolerant and progressive in the last decade or so and so i don't doubt for a second that they've got this decision right.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:05 a.m. CST


    by Darth Scourge

    The BBFC have often made some ridiculous decisions. For years they had a problem with nunchuks, then they had a problem with headbutts, cutting the Matrix, Tomb Raider, Attack of the Clones, etc. And don't even get me started about the cuts they forced to Temple of Doom. These days they've calmed down a lot and many previously banned and cut movies are released with all previous cuts waived, such as Dawn of the Dead, Evil Dead and Re-Animator to name just three. As for Human Centipede 2... I really don't give a fuck, as I really don't want to see such a fucked up thing anyway. :)

  • June 7, 2011, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Re: Censorship

    by ArmageddonProductions

    Again, you guys are giving HUMAN CENTIPEDE waaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. There's honestly more gore and gross-out in any given SAW or HOSTEL sequel, and certainly a LOT more in, say, CANNIBAL HOLOCAUST, which I was shocked to discover was being sold at a Blockbuster in Watford when I lived in the UK a few years ago. You'd have never seen that shit in a US Blockbuster. The concept behind HUMAN CENTIPEDE is very disturbing, and there's a sense of dread throughout the first half of the film because you're pretty much expecting the worst to go down ... and once you see it executed, you realize you just jumped on a massive hype wagon with nothing to back it up. The grossest sight in the movie is when one of the chick's facial sutures spits out a little bit of infected pus, and the effect is less gross and graphic than something you'd see on an episode of "Supernatural" (where somebody actually explodes like a blood-filled balloon). There was a lot of horrific stuff that Six could have played up without even showing any more than he did ... but he doesn't. It's a complete, middle-of-the-road waste of time.</p><p> So ... with that in mind, I'll submit that the sequel is probably just as graphic, and that the sandpaper and the barbed wire stuff is most likely implied and never actually shown. It's like when you heard about the first one and somebody says "The Japanese front dude shits in the middle girl's mouth!" and you were horrified ... except it's implied, you never actually see it happen, you just get a couple of throwaway reaction shots and the whole thing really happens in your head. And it's not even executed well! In fact, if you blinked a couple of times, you'd miss it altogether, and since Tom Six has no fucking idea how to pull it off for maximum effect, you might as well have been watching somebody roll up a newspaper. It's just about that meaningful in the context of the movie.</p><p> In other words, the BBFC releases this statement, and everybody's already got this image of The Most Graphic Barbed Wire Ass Rape With Full Penetration Ever Filmed in their minds ... except, I'm almost positive none of this ever happens, or, at least, happens the way you think it does. In fact, basing it on how the first one went down, you'll get to this scene in the movie, brace yourself for something out of a Nazi concentration camp how-to reel, see this dude apply his barbed wire to his ding-ding off screen, walk over to to whatever, kneel down, get a couple of reaction shots, a trick shot that makes it look like he's tooling Centipede Chick in the poop-chute from behind, a couple of squirts of red Karo on the floor, some muffled screams and it's over. Not something you'd show to kids, and I think the description I wrote sounds a lot more elaborate and disturbing than it probably actually is, but the whole thing likely takes place in the course of under a minute and pales in comparison to, say, the "End-To-End"/amputation/Wayan-Brother-vomits-in-mashed-potatoes sequence from REQUIEM FOR A DREAM.</p><p> Again, what I'm sure the BBFC is taking umbrage to is the IDEA behind this scene, and not the actual scene itself, which is gonna wind up disappointing anyone desperate enough to sit through it for some assumed shock value.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:30 a.m. CST

    Well done BBFC

    by Mr_P

    This is just wrong, making it is wrong as is distributing it. So what if those who want to see it find a way (ie downloading) at least there will be no income made from it and therefore less chance of another. I also think the fact that they have given a press release stated exactly why they have refused will help them as what sort of sick b@stard would want to see it based on what is said there? You should automatically go on a watch list if you download that crap - next step strangling kittens for that special type of viewer. The BBFC as stated previously are a lot more measured than they used to be which is all the more commendable after the James Bulger murder and the suggested links with the Chucky movies. There is a case for censorship sensibly applied and a need to protect people. Following the arguement through to its conclusion you wouldn't have age ratings either then would you?

  • We have access to many films and the bbfc are not as draconian as many would believe. In this case they have done what any person with a basic sense of right and wrong would do.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:38 a.m. CST

    It's not a free speech issue

    by maverick2484

    Anyone crying "freedom of speech" is falling for a red herring. The right to say what you want doesn't equate with a right to be listened to by others under all circumstances. Societies are more than a collection of solitary individuals who get to choose what they want to consume. Societies frequently legislate in the area of morality in order to enforce certain collective standards of decency. For example, any laws that ban prostitution may be regarded as laws that ban a form of private enterprise. Likewise, in Canada where I'm from, a woman can't become a surrogate mother for profit. On one hand laws such as these are an afront to individual rights; it's my womb, government, and don't you dare tell me that I can't rent it out. But on the other hand, laws such as these speak to the larger issue of what sort of society you want to live in. In that spirit, based on the description, I'm kiiiinda leaning towards the BBFC on this one. It doesn't sound like it's a true ban, whereby a person could be prosecuted merely for possessing the film. Anyone in the UK who really wants to see this movie can see it in another country, or buy it on DVD from another country, or download it, or attend a private screening of it. What they can't do, however, is head on down to their local multiplex to see it. It's no different than the violent pornography that resides in dark corners of the internet; just because you can't see it in a multiplex doesn't mean you can't see it. Good for the BBFC for enforcing certain standards regarding the kind of content that's allowed to be exhibited publicly; what a person chooses to view privately is another matter.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:48 a.m. CST


    by skeletonjack

    The BBFC does an excellent job in my opinion, and are far more lenient and tolerant than many give them credit for. They've always had a big thing about sexual violence linked with sexual gratification, so this move doesn't come as a shock. From what I've read the film sounds like it is trying to shock for the sake of it, but I'm not going to condemn it as I, like I assume everyone else, have not seen it. Whether I do see it or not is up in the air anyway, but as a reasonably intelligent, responsible human being I do like to decide for myself what I can or can't watch. I've got to take task with the whole Childs Play/ Bulger murder link further up the page though. The Chucky films were only ever mentioned in the press (as one of the boys fathers I believe had once rented Childs Play 3) and from what I can gather was they were never once mentioned in the actual court case.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:48 a.m. CST

    Human Cenetipede has not been banned in UK

    by kusanagiguy

    The BBFC are not a Censorship authority like the MPAA. BBFC stands for the British Board of film Classification. In refusing to give the film its highest certificate it limits its release but does not ban it. The film will be unable to be released on home video (DVD) but it can still be shown theatrically if a cinema gets permission from the local council much like Life of Brian. Many Independant cinemas in the UK are licenced to show uncertificated movies and uncut versions of movies that were refused certificates or edited for release if the patrons sign up as members of the private venue much like the BFI. As the subject above Human Centipede has not been Banned in the UK just refused Certification

  • June 7, 2011, 5:45 a.m. CST

    Didn't know there was even a sequel in the works

    by barnaby jones

    until this story was on the news every hour last night.

  • June 7, 2011, 5:51 a.m. CST

    @chickenstu, plus 'the 11'....

    by colinjbooth

    The rape scene in straw dogs irked the bbfc because it portrayed Susan George 'enjoying' the rape a bit too much. That what they had a problem with. The bbfc stated that if the scene was made with a more negative portrayal, they'd be fine with it. They DID NOT ask for it to be made more brutal, just less...happy(?). The bbfc have banned 11 films in their history, 8 of which are now available uncut anyway.

  • June 7, 2011, 5:53 a.m. CST

    As a Brit, I'm with the BBFC on this.

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    Sorry, but we've come a long way since THE EXORCIST and FREAKS as a nation and we tend to be more liberal than the rest of the world nowadays when it comes to film... However, from the description this sounds like the writer's/director's sick fetish more than anything else. I'll be damned if I want to see him get PAID to live out his weird fantasies. Good on the BBFC for having some kind of line in the sand, to be honest.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:12 a.m. CST

    torture porn

    by Jack Burton

    I know afficionados of the genre call it something different but I don't remember what that is so I'm going with "torture porn". I'm not a fan of those kinds of movies. The only ones I liked at all are the Saw movies, at least the first couple of sequels, because the plots were so batshit they were entertaining. Human Centipede 2 sounds like a rip off of Blair Witch 2 mixed with a serial killer's wet dream. The first flick looked revolting and this one seems to be so far outside my wheelhouse it's on a buoy my boat passed a mile back. I'm a fan of horror movies. Monsters, ghosts, really the supernatural in general. Even slasher movies are fine when they are more about goofy over the top gore (Hatchet) than pain and suffering (Wolf Creek) but degradation and brutality is not something I enjoy watching. I really wish this genre would crawl away and die but there appear to be fans of it, much to our society's detriment. I won't begrudge someone for watching it, but it's also not required for it to be displayed in cinemas.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:35 a.m. CST

    You think the wanking is nasty in this ?

    by barnaby jones

    I once jerked off to Britney Spears in Crossroads. The word ashamed just doesn't quite do it justice does it.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:36 a.m. CST


    by niemand13

    You sir, are a genius. Your argument is word for word what was in my mind as well. It is indeed a narrowminded world we live in.

  • ...and I think Alan Greenspan is waaaay scarier than Dieter Laser. That muvver has almost everyone on the planet permanently glued into a 'full sequence'. We eat his shit and die.

  • June 7, 2011, 6:50 a.m. CST

    Oh, and I'm against censorship in any form...

    by workshed '18' certificate would be perfectly reasonable imo. You don't have to look and, being 42, I think I can make my own damn decisions on what I want to watch. I don't need some jumped-up QUANGO telling me what I should be allowed to see. As long as it's fiction made with sfx you can just keep telling yourself 'it's only a movie... it's only a movie...' Apparently, Six is a lovely guy, the cast and crew all had an enjoyable experience making the first film and, basically, everything Tom does is with a twinkle in his eye. I remember when critics and the BBFC were saying the same sort of bollocks about Sam Raimi - and look where he ended up. Watch this space... Six will be directing blockbusters before the decade is out.

  • How? Is it a meta-sequel, in which someone watches the movie and decides to do a mega-human centipede himself? How edgy.

  • And that will make it WAY easier to take.

  • June 7, 2011, 7:27 a.m. CST

    What I want to see

    by In Action Man Reborn Requiem

    is a movie of all the pitch meetings for films like "Human Centipede" and "Serbian Film". Somebody has to give these fuckwits money to make this shit and a distributor has to pick it up. Or is it all just Russian mob money?

  • June 7, 2011, 7:31 a.m. CST

    Banning is always bad

    by smudgewhat

    This film sounds like a steaming pile but once you censor one flick then pretty much anything is open to potential banning if one uptight asshole objects to its existence.

  • June 7, 2011, 7:33 a.m. CST


    by gunnarcannibal

  • June 7, 2011, 7:35 a.m. CST

    the brits destroyed cronenbergs crash..they HATE sex.

    by FleshMachine

    and headbutts in movies..true fact!

  • BULLSHIT.....what harm?? i might try it????

  • June 7, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST

    You only care because you've heard of it

    by PhaseRat

    The BBFC have refused certificates a couple of times recently. Where's your outrage for Grotesque - a Japanese torture-porn film or for Murder Set Pieces?

  • June 7, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST

    BBFC Did Not Ban The Exorcist

    by Lord Ganja

    Correction - the BBFC did not ban The Exorcist cinema release. It was passed uncut with a certificate X - old UK 18 cert - & I remeber watching it on release. The anti-Video Nasty campaign was lead by right-wing newspapers and Conservative Members of Parliment who successfully lobbied for all video films to be re-classified, even though that had already received a cinema classification. In light of this Warner Bros self-banned The Exorcist themselves by not submitting it for Video classification, possibly for artistic integrity or more likely continued cinema shelf-life. Freaks was banned in the 1930's - time to let it go I think:)

  • June 7, 2011, 8:12 a.m. CST


    by SunTzu77

    This sounds like a new low in torture porn. I watched the first one out of pure curiosity. Turns out it was utter shit. This is a definite pass for me.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:16 a.m. CST

    "The Exorcist" was not banned.

    by SunTzu77

    The cinema release was not banned.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Good for Britain.

    by HoboCode

    Fuck this demented shit.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Freedom of speech doesn't apply

    by m_prevette

    When you're such a pathetic excuse for a human being that your rights should be suspended. Come on, this Six character is a no talent psychopath....sociopath at the least. The first film was artless garbage and this sounds like just a pile of shit. Really. The writer/director needs to be stopped. By any means. A: how can sick shit like this be financed and released and B: how can anyone even defend it? Screw this and screw bullshit like A Serbian Film...

  • Which perfectly explains the original purpose of Tom Six bringing his fucking sick-ass twisted perv fantasy to life in the first place... It was his PERSONAL TURN-ON.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:21 a.m. CST

    I liked the first one

    by CptBlood

    Human centipede was a decent little horror flick. It was well shot, original, the main villain was awesomely cast ( who doesn’t want to see more Dieter Laser ? ) it also dealt with it’s premise logically and made some interesting choices and raised some interesting questions regarding communication, experimentation and the relationship between the mad scientist and his creation. It’s not just “torture porn” it’s actually quite a sophisticated low budget horror movie and it deserves it’s cult status. That said, everything I’ve seen of the sequel suggests that “Tom 6” didn’t actually mean to do any of that. He’s latched onto the worst aspects of the original ( that it is shocking / provocative ) and decided that is what the audience want so he’ll turn it up to 11. He doesn’t seem to understand what made the first film good and is instead ramping up the gross out factor. Sadly I suspect that the sequel will not only be a pretty bad film but will also diminish the integrity and effect of the original.

  • Defication time

  • June 7, 2011, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Didn't David Cronenberg sort of predict this....

    by v3d

    "Max Renn: Do you know a show called 'Videodrome'? Masha: Video what? Max Renn: Videodrome. Like video circus, video arena. Do you know it? Masha: No. Max Renn: It's just torture and murder. No plot, no characters. Very, very realistic. I think it's what's next. Masha: Then God help us." Maybe watching these Centipede movies gives you a brain tumor.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Sequel to a horror movie that sounds like shit?!?!?!

    by BlueHawaiiSurfer

    Noooo, that just doesn't happen. :o| Just another step in the downward spiral that is "modern horror". Sad really anyone would want to see this.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:52 a.m. CST

    About Crash......

    by skeletonjack

    Crash was actually released uncut here in the UK. And as for headbutts, headbutts are not banned, only not allowed in lower rated films.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Good for the Brits..well, not really.

    by Stalkeye

    Too much censorshit leads to all sorts of initiatives, next thing you know R-rated films and M-rated VGs will be on the chopping block . I would never invest my time into seeing drivel like the human centerpede and especially A Serbian Film in which GinZilla Harry praised, but at the same time I'm not one to impede others from having free options when the source material is pure fiction. However Snuff, Beastiality and Child Porn should be banned througout the universe. Those are the obvious exceptions to the rule of free options.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:10 a.m. CST

    A few words about The 'pede

    by JackSlater4

    I agree with cptblood, Dieter Laser was great and created the first truly creepy horror icon I've seen in a while. I think it was well shot and acted and loved the irony that the front of the pede who could still speak, spoke a language no one understood. Though I never sandblasted my crank watching the film, it did inspire me to create the twinkie centipede. I enjoy the regulare 'pede references on Tosh.0 that only a small portion of his audience probably catch. Bought the blu ray a few weeks ago for $6 from Amazon and it will probably be a staple every October to get the creepy Halloween vibe going. Not a fan of Wes Craven's New Nightmare and don't like the idea of 'pede II: "Meta" 'pede, the only thing that could save it is if there is absurd comic relief which is a strong possibility.

  • So much of it hinges on the victims doing unbelievably stupid things, that it wasn't really even scary or engaging, just sick. Dieter Laser was great in it, though; he'd make a great Cronenberg character. As far as the sequel is concerned, I don't need or want to see it. The first one said all that could be said about something so nauseating. That said, banning the sequel basically ensures that it's going to make WAY more money than it would otherwise, as now everyone is going to want to see it. Something forbidden instantly creates interest. If Tom Six was smart, he'd lobby to have it banned everywhere, host select "illegal" screenings in major cities, and then sell it directly to consumers.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Here's a crazy idea...

    by Aftertaste

    I'm going to ban this movie from myself, because I'm an adult and can make decisions for myself as to what I do and/or don't want to see. Insane right?

  • June 7, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST

    inside job was one of the best films of the year...

    by emeraldboy

    a truly superb piece of work. brooksey biern should get the noble prize. this woman is a hero as she predicted the fall of the american economy before it happened. warned loudly that derivatives , were unsafe and that they would bring down the entire edifice. and she did her phd on derivatives. her office was destroyed by the clinton administration. she was right and they were all wrong. What I found amazing was that summers and geitner ended up working for obama. unbefucklievable. and the rating agencies are full of shit as they all tied in to the 6 big banks. merryl lynch, bank of america, goldman sachs, chase manhattan, bear sterns, and lehman bros. fitch, moodys and SaP, have some nerve down grading countries credit ratings like Ireland.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST

    is there any point to the BBFC anymore ?

    by CptBlood

    Honestly, all they have done is turned what is probably a sub par sequel into something with cult status. More people will watch it now. They've literally done the opposite of what their ruling is supposed to do. The internet makes censorship bodies like this ridiculous. I understand and accept the need to suggest who a film is appropriate for but really, slapping "18" on a film and expecting that only 18 year olds will see it is just so out of touch with reality. Do we support or need these bodies anymore ?

  • June 7, 2011, 9:45 a.m. CST

    For those thinking the first one was mild....

    by BobLoblaw75

    I have noticed a fair amount of people seemingly surprised at the lack of "gore" and visual shock in the first film, and what they do not realise is that was completely intentional. When I first heard about this film from watching Tosh.0 give a play-by-play comentary, I thought he was joking and decided to do a google search on it. I ended up stumbling across a news article in which Tom Six explained that the overall concept of the film was so vile and gross, that he intentionally kept to a minimum any nudity, gore, or graphic violence, so that he could desensitize viewers enough to the overall concept, enabling him to really ramp up the graphic violence and gore in the sequel. What that means is this second film is premeditated vile filth. I agree with whatever action an organization takes in opposition to this kind of garbage.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:48 a.m. CST

    wait - is this a movie?

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    .......or a peak into the depths of hell. You have to be kidding me with this shit. This film and the first seem to play on that dark, sick, warped, perverted demon that resides in many of us. You know that weird part of you that's curious to see this garbage when every other part of you rejects the notion. I'd rather these movies didn't exist.

  • June 7, 2011, 9:56 a.m. CST

    Re: kusanagiguy - Human Cenetipede has not been banned in UK

    by Johnny_Q_Peabody

    "The BBFC are not a Censorship authority like the MPAA." While I agree with your basic contention that the film has not been "banned", your comparison of the effective powers of the BBFC and the MPAA is pretty far off. I don't want to defend the MPAA, because they do plenty of stupid stuff, but the MPAA has no official governmental authority and rating submission is voluntary. True, if your film is unrated, it's almost certainly not going to play in any mainstream cinema, put there a lots of art house cinemas that play unrated films all the time, and no written permission from local government is needed (generally speaking, there may well be exception in some jurisdiction). More importantly, an MPAA rating has no bearing on home video release, although it may effect who's willing to stock it. From that perspective, the BBFC failure to certify is far more damaging than failure to secure an MPAA rating. So, while neither the BBFC nor the MPAA are able to "ban" films, both bodies are effectively censorship bodies because their ability to limit commercial access to films. It just seems easier, if not any more commercially viable, to go around the MPAA than the BBFC (internet notwithstanding).

  • June 7, 2011, 10:01 a.m. CST

    BBFC Must Ban the Ban!

    by longloaddropper

    You know its long overdue . . .

  • ...This kind of barbarity should be justified by the story, if it's not, just ban it it, label it porno. At least the first one was about a mad scientist, this one is just about a pervert

  • June 7, 2011, 10:22 a.m. CST

    The Halloween costume for the movie should sell like hotcakes.

    by Christopher Bynum

  • June 7, 2011, 10:31 a.m. CST

    Fucking gut wounds

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    seriously porn is heading to the point, where people will start fucking wounds "I see you have been stabbed, now let me stab you with my "weapon"

  • June 7, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST


    by kusanagiguy

    johnny_q_peabody I must say my knowledge of the MPAA is limited being from the UK. All I know of the system was from what I gained from other people online. I had assumed it was government run thanks for the update.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:49 a.m. CST

    Who wants to fucking watch this?!!

    by Knightsong

    Seriously! Is this entertainment?!! Holy Shit! The feeling I get from the article is that the Brits are a bunch of prissy, spineless, pansies, who can't handle this type of entertainment. I for one applaud the British government for banning this material. Why anyone would want to watch, write, direct or star in something so completely awful sounding defies all logic. People are fucked up!

  • June 7, 2011, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Here's the director's response...

    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    “Thank you BBFC for putting spoilers of my movie on your website and thank you for banning my film in this exceptional way. Apparently I made an horrific horror-film, but shouldn't a good horror film be horrific? My dear people it is a f****cking MOVIE. It is all fictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art. Give people their own choice to watch it or not. If people can't handle or like my movies they just don't watch them. If people like my movies they have to be able to see it any time, anywhere also in the UK.” Hmmm..."it is art". I'm not convinced. According to the BBFC; "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’." Where's the "art" there? I'm sure British women are devastated that Mr Six's artistic vision of rape with the added frisson of barbed wire has been refused certification. And, no, having him rape a man would be no better, have no more artistic merit. Jesus Christ, in a country that has given the world artists like Piet Mondrian and Vermeer is this guy not meek enough to think that maybe, just maybe, his film isn't art. Then again, Bosch was Dutch and his stuff, his art, is waaaaaay out there. In ten years time the world might be falling at the feet of Six and recognising his vision. But for now I don't think censoring it in such a controlled and clearly explained manner (as the BBFC have done) is anything other than a healthy response. Maybe this sort of work needs time... And his whine about the spoilers just smacks of petulance. Even Six must realise, when reading the BBFC's summation of his "work of art", how foolish it makes both him and the film sound. The work may not be real but people have very real responses to it. There has to be some recognition of culpability here...and simply saying don't watch it is risibly disingenuous.

  • June 7, 2011, 11:42 a.m. CST

    BBFC are different these days

    by donkey_lasher

    Even they admit that the bans of the 80's were stupid. The former head even said he liked The Evil Dead. But seriously, why wouldnt anyone want to watch this shit? BBFC have probably done us a favour. cgih8r is right, this is a sign of a rotten culture. It's probably awful anyway, like most of the old snuff films.

  • June 7, 2011, 11:58 a.m. CST

    What if there was no such thing as "Special effects"

    by CptBlood

    My friends and I like to play a game. Imagine a world where there are no special effects, where you have to actually do anything that is potrayed in a movie. That would make "the human centipede" a pretty horrific proposition. But then again, Imagine Starwars, you'd have a scene where you had to blow up an entire planet full of people while one of the protagonists watches! Surely that's equally terrible. My point is, this is fiction. Fiction does things that if real we would consider horrific. Nothing in the human centipede is any more terrible or barbaric than what happens in starwars.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Technically it's not banned

    by Lone Fox

    They've refused to give it a classification for general release. Apparently individual cinemas can still apply for permission to screen it. ...Fuckit, that's as good as banned. I'll see it somehow. Watching this stuff beats sandpapering my cock anyday!

  • June 7, 2011, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Who can watch an unrated film in the US?

    by supertoyslast

    I'm from the UK and over here, generally speaking, there's no such thing as an 'unrated' film. Since certification over here is a legal measure of who can and cannot watch a film (over 15s only, over 18s only etc) I find the concept of unrated films and DVDs confusing. If a film has no rating, who is allowed to see it? Technically speaking, would it be legal for a 10-year-old, for example, to buy or view an unrated DVD in the US?

  • June 7, 2011, 12:35 p.m. CST

    I believe my reaction after seeing the first one was "why?"

    by UltraTron

    I thought the laser guy was great but the end result was pointless. Now if you add a 30 min scene at the end where the middle chick is saved by doctors and plastic surgeons. Then she trains like batman and becomes a vigilante force of unstoppable killing power- then a spinoff vigilante franchise where she hunts down crazy serial maniacs could be good.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:42 p.m. CST

    It's unbelievably stupid...

    by allykatD

    Poorly written, poor concept, poor excecution. What moron gave Six money to make this? It's just... dumb. I was laughing out loud at it because it was so stupid and utterly predictable from the beginning with those two girls with car trouble. I was watching it and narrating what was going to happen and I was so spot on my friend accused me of seeing it before. No, didn't see it, it's just moronic. It doesn't even deserved to be banned because it's just... stupid. Unless, like another talk backer said, we can ban it for being utter trash. So why did I watch it? I have to say that after Tosh.0 utterly mocked it, I was going through my netflix instant watch list and there it was so my friend and I decided to check it out. Tosh.0 didn't mock it enough.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST


    by FitnaTheForbiddenMovie

    I really wanted to see the first and second 'Pede back to back.

  • June 7, 2011, 12:55 p.m. CST

    "What moron gave Six money to make this?"

    by Winston Smith

    A lot of these people are, uh, "independently wealthy." Which means drug sales. No, but really, 95% of extreme shock films or movies made by someone under 30 privately are made because the parents or family of said filmmaker are extremely rich. Sometimes it leads to good things like Brick. Othertimes, well...

  • June 7, 2011, 12:57 p.m. CST

    "If a film has no rating, who is allowed to see it?"

    by Winston Smith

    I do feel sorry for you guys in the UK. The idea that something literally CANNOT LEGALLY BE SEEN even if it's a fictional film is disturbing. And as I said above, the Internet makes it easy to get anything and fuck these films, but still... yuck... anytime some 'board' or group gets to decide for everyone, it's usually not a good thing.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Oh, how many actual theaters was this going to open in anyway?

    by Sepulchrave

    NOBODY was every going to watch this mouldy little piece of crap anywhere but off a download. The censiors have just given it a huge boost: this is just viral advertising for a movie that wouldn't even have got a DVD release.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    I would be thanking the BBFC

    by v1cious

    Now this shit will sell tenfold due to the controversy.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST

    The BBFC

    by Magic01273

    do have to work within a legal framework in the UK. The film was refused a certificate because there was a serious risk that the what was depicted in the movie potentially contraveined the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964. Now whilst the Act itself is clearly old - and the act is admitedly worded as though watching movies make perverts - the spirit of the act (and its current "interpretation") was to protect vunerable members of society (including children) from being exposed to deliberately depraved and extreme imagery, where said imagery held absolutely NO other discernable artistic merit WHATSOEVER. In fact the Act specifies that it is *illegal to publish* material like this in the UK. Also in the case of films with extreme content, the BBFC can and do apply their classification criteria with additional consideration given to the fact that parents (and society in general) sometimes do not take adequate steps to protect vunerable children from adult-orientated media including access to age-restriced films and DVDs. Which they are absolutely right to do, in my opinion. I believe the BBFC stated that no further consideration would be given to certifying this film - even with cuts or edits - because, taken as a whole, the content and context of the movie make it effectively impossible to put a robust argument forward for its artistic merit or value. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Clearly we cannot, and should not create a society where it is OK to produce films that depict absolutely anything anyone can think of. There should be limits. Most people - even that would count themselves as generally against cencorship - would agree with this (as this talkback shows). Compared to many countries, the UK is pretty liberal these days (we've had our ups and downs, I know). I'm a 33 year old guy - pretty worldly, experienced, mature who is in to horror movies in a big way. Yet, I for one am glad that someone in the BBFC saw this PoS for what it was and threw it out. Does it mean it won't get seen? No. Does it mean that a certain group of people will seek it out more agressively? Almost certainly... ... but that is not a valid reason for the BBFC to suddenly stop doing what they do.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST

    Yeah fuck censorship

    by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies

    I'm an Englander and I don't care if Human Centipede 2 is the worst film of all time, it still should not be banned. I fucking hate the BBFC.

  • June 7, 2011, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Enough with the 'the Brits are sliding into censorship' crap

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    We're actually going the other way. You wouldn't believe what films were 'banned' here in the 80s/90s, just on the basis of fear-mongering and hearsay. We've had eleven films in the past hundred years that we've not given certificates to, so don't act like we're some puritanical Orwellian place.<P> A ban on any film that breaks no laws is wrong, but if the BBFC refuse to pass it then that's another thing. You won't get prosecuted for owning it, or looking to get it, they're just refusing to take the responsibility of passing something that is quite simply out to push the legal boundaries with no other intent in mind. <P> And given the way this particular genre of film is going, where are we going to end up? You don't have to like it, but I see the BBFC's response as someone trying to draw a line in the sand. <P>

  • June 7, 2011, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Doesn't sound like much of a film

    by Shpadoinkle

    ...yet me being so utterly defiant in the face of censorship will feel compelled to see it now. Besides, I liked the first film. It was cold, clinical and creepy but the best part of it all was how much it fired up your imagination without ever needing to be too blatant in it's sicker scenes. It stayed with me and I mulled it over alot despite it not being a fantastic film by any means. The plot for this sounds cack, but it's part of a trilogy so the completist in me will have to sit through it anyway despite the first being pretty self-contained and us getting closure. I hate the idea of banning anything that doesn't directly harm someone.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Sounds Hot!

    by hst666

  • June 7, 2011, 2:07 p.m. CST

    Who are these pathetic fucking people?

    by Lamerz

    The creator of this shit sounds like a fucking sub-human. Seriously ... taking the already disgusting concept of the first one meta and turning it into "real life" torture, brutality and rape is supposed to be art? What a tool. He seems like he may be one deranged freaking loser, and I wouldn't be surprised if he's found pleasing himself in theaters watching people watch the guy watch his first torture porn film. How meta! Better stock up on the barbed wire, Mr. Six! The actors ... how fucking hard up or deranged (or both) are you to take on a role in such an artless piece of crap. What a bunch of losers. These must be the dregs of the acting world. Are they so bad that they can't get commercials or even a bit part in a 3rd rate cable TV show? I'm not an actor, but if I was, I'd take a career flipping burgers at Mickey-D's over a paycheck for degrading myself in schlock like this. Yeah, I'm sure this movie will lead straight to fame and stardom. More like, with this on their resume, no legit producer will want to touch them with a 100-foot pole. At least, I hope. No problem here with the BBFC drawing a line in the sand and refusing to issue a certificate.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:11 p.m. CST

    What is truly disturbing...

    by Grit

    is the way so many people are getting worked up about a film they haven't seen. All we've had is a description of a couple of scenes that may make up about 10 minutes of the whole film. Why would I want to watch this film? It might be good.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:37 p.m. CST

    Further thinking.

    by ihatetalkbacks

    A lot of people (probably American but this is not a name calling) are saying that Britain is highly censored and not free. Firstly the BBFC has been a lot better than it was in the 80s hayday of video nasties. They do not ban for gore these days that they used to. They seem to see that people can decide for themselves if a film is too much for them, and they have lost their paternalistic view of protecting sensitive souls from the horrors of fantasy. In Britain a country that fought against Nazism form the start we as a nation allow free speech but think it has some boundaries. We believe that words can influence. this may be why Centipede2 has been unrated. They say that the film objectifies and promotes the brutalisation of people, and that this could influence people. This is debatable though. Personally I dont think this film should be unrated but I can see the arguement particularly when this seems so artless. Britain has been pushing the boundaries of sexual cinema. I do not see any US film that had a multiracial gay realationship like "My Beautiful Laundrette" made in 1984, or a real life sex scene like "9 Songs" or "Intimacy" Britain also made "Peeping Tom" that seemed to have similar themes to "Centipede2" but explored them in a mature way. While Centipede2 may have been "banned" in Britain we are a country that allows civil partnerships between the same sex and this is not a hot topic as in the US. We all have taboos it just seems that objectification and brutalisation seem to be one here, ratyer than say homosexuality as in the US. Is it true that many US cinema chains will not show X certificate films at all? All British cinemas will show an 18 - our equivelent. Look at the uproar about Janet Jacksons wardrobe malfunction on TV, Britain would never be afraid of a pair of breasts... we might even embrace them!

  • June 7, 2011, 2:45 p.m. CST

    If you want to see a connection to film inciting violence...

    by Spazwankle

    Just show anybody the trailer for Human Centipede 2 and they will punch their monitor through within 30 seconds. A trailer of the director, smirking at the camera while telling everyone how amazing and extreme he is, has meant I will never ever watch any of his films. The premise for the sequel just shows how absurdly inflated his ego is. "My first film was so extreme that I imagine people would kill because of it." Cock.

  • June 7, 2011, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Good for the BBFC.

    by fitzcarraldo2

    As someone else said, there has to be a line somewhere. You can argue it should be a bit more this way or a bit more that way but there must be a line. And I think the vast majority of people would agree that this vile piece of crap is way over the line. It's aimed at adolescents who haven't developed empathy yet and so is doubly dangerous. Yeah, they'll just download it but I don't care, a stand must be made at some point. At least the filth who made it won't get any profit from the British market.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:05 p.m. CST


    by Jayeskimo

    Who; working on, acting in, and associated with this film, is honestly going to look back with pride and say 'I was part of that.' Would you really want a 'film' like this on your CV?? I just cant help but think about all the people working on this getting up in the morning, doing the make-up, making the lunches, setting up the lighting etc etc. What are these people thinking??? 'oh today we shoot the barbed wire cock raping scene. Lets hope its a productive day.' sicko's.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:39 p.m. CST

    The next sequel will be an actual documentary.


    I hear Faraci is going to put up the money and star. Thus spake CHOPPAH-thustra.

  • June 7, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    also from my house

    by taff

    This movie has also been banned from my house. Sounds like a waste of film...

  • June 7, 2011, 3:50 p.m. CST

    It's the whole "Madonna" thing.

    by kdoc13

    If you can't be talented, be shocking. The first movie sucked, but it was shocking. So, they are doing the same thing with this one, pushing the limits. The only problem is that eventually you run out of limits, and have to rely on talent. Thank you British Censors, you just guaranteed a few extra million, as people flock to see the movie that was "too horrifying to be shown in Brittian." That said, I'm all for free speech and a lack of censorship, but even in art, at some point you have to step back and say "is this worth it?" I don't think so. But I still wouldn't ban it.

  • June 7, 2011, 4 p.m. CST

    FUCK THE BBFC !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Candy ass monkey suit


  • June 7, 2011, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Freedom of Speech

    by Teddy Artery

    Hey, I won't get within a hundred miles of this visual clutter, but banning one man's idea of "art" is only going to drive traffic to it. I did see "Martyrs" and was shocked and horrified like I've never been in a movie before. THAT is a movie that I will never, ever recommend.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:53 p.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    much as I really dislike the idea of this film and the original, and I really do dislike it. It sounds like complete and utter garbage. But I'm still against censorship. It shouldn't be banned. Banning it only gives it some form of perceived credibility it doesn't deserve. Governments all the time end up causing more harm through their good intentions.

  • June 7, 2011, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Another "+1" from me

    by Phil Black

    It must be truly depraved for them to go this far as they almost never refuse a films a rating (I can think of only once before in recent years). I don't particularly believe in censorship but they have the right to not approve something that clearly goes to far. Remember it's not banned or illegal it just now can't be given a broad cinema release. Those who really want to see it will be able to without repurcusions - other than those inflicted on them by the movie itself.

  • June 7, 2011, 5:13 p.m. CST

    Walk into a gallery and do a crap on the floor...

    by Smerph

    ...and some douchebags will call it a masterpiece that deserves to be seen by a wider audience. This particular piece of shit shouldn't have been made in the first place. Would have saved banning it.

  • June 7, 2011, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Funny you felt the need to put a "Spoiler Alert" on this...

    by Coughlins Laws

    Anyway, saw the first one. Never scared but sickened alot. Don't know if I want to see this one. For some reason, as long as you don't actually have to look at the Poo, it doesn't seem as gross...

  • Oh, and Six is still a hacksilly shockhole who could only remain true to his vision for a third film if he took 6 months of yoga, went to an all-you-can-eat buffet, and then filmed a documentary where he had his lips sewn around his brown starfish and then had to sit that way for a week. That would be art, no?

  • June 7, 2011, 7:17 p.m. CST

    can the mpaa get involved and retroactively ban Your Highness?

    by jules windex

    That movie was WAY worse than HC. HC was not a good film but it kinda worked as a black comedy.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:36 p.m. CST

    censorship = stupid + pointless

    by frank

    Maybe the UK thinks that if they act more like China they can become a superpower again.

  • June 7, 2011, 8:49 p.m. CST

    So what's the difference between this and let's say...A Serbian Film?

    by Bartleby T. Scrivener

    Listen, I'm no prude, but there's got to be point to making these kind of films besides wrapping it around some kind of drudged down political rant. Exercise your film making freedom all you want, but there is something to be said about having a boundary. Barbed-wire rape scene?! You've got to be kidding.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Frank's Television

    by IWasInJuniorHighDickhead

    Bit of a dickhead comment there. I could make fun of the US cause some people went apeshit over a 'wardrobe malfunction'. Wouldn't have happened here.

  • June 7, 2011, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Let me just say...

    by clever

  • June 7, 2011, 11:21 p.m. CST

    Not getting classified does NOT mean it's BANNED

    by jazzdownunder

    The BBFC is a CLASSIFICATION body. They have refused to give this film a CLASSIFICATION. The only office that can outright BAN a movie is the Home Secretary. Cinema's in the meantime can show whatever they like - they are not limited to only showing CLASSIFIED works. I don't know what paper shuffling has to go on to screen a movie that isn't classified, but it is possible and has been done in the past. They do however risk then falling under the less well defined obscenity laws in the UK, especially given the reasons the BBFC gave for not giving a classification. What the BBFC decision means is that the movie won't be simply rolled out across all or even most cinemas across the country. Only those cinemas who think they can find an audience for it will make the effort. I'm not sure that's necessarily a bad thing in this case.

  • June 8, 2011, 12:24 a.m. CST

    What kind of person gets off on or makes these movies

    by FrodoFraggins

  • June 8, 2011, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Uh, someone lock this guy up!

    by IEatHippies


  • Awkward..............

  • June 8, 2011, 1:45 a.m. CST


    by IEatHippies

    Flawless. That was hilarious.

  • June 8, 2011, 1:46 a.m. CST


    by WavingFlagsInSpace

    Your post states: "What makes you - or the BBFC - the arbitors of what is and isn't ok to watch." I'm not sure anyone here, nor the BBFC, is offering themselves as arbiters of what is and isn't ok to watch – the BBFC is an advisory body and is the most responsible way of dealing with the fact that people themselves are not always entirely responsible. You go on to state that, "Yes, there has to be a line somewhere and that line should be to protect people from illegality" so I am guessing you accept that some sort of advisory code needs to be enforced. It's the next bit that gets me, "Other than that I dont see how anyone should have the right to stop me - an adult, a tax payer and a responsible parent - from seeing what I chose to see as long as it is legal and does not harm people" – you're missing the point. If you want to go and see this, pay your local cinema to screen the film – it can still be screened, it's only local councils that can ban the film, not the BBFC. And though you might well be a responsible parent I think you and I know that there are plenty who aren't, and who would gladly stick their child in front of this film just to get some peace and quiet. You finish by saying, "If you are offended just dont go to the cinema to see this film. I dont want to see it myself but I'd like to have the fucking option rather than being stopped by people like you." Fine – but you do have the option. Pay to screen this film. And though you might be well informed enough to read up on a film and its director before you see it this places you in the minority of cinemagoers. And am I denigrating the majority of cinemagoers here? Maybe, but look at the sort of rubbish popular opinion rewards financially.

  • June 8, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    Cannabal Holocaust? Wait I was thinking Cannabal Ferrox..

    by darthSaul666

    Ohh the long since forgotten exploitation genre.....

  • June 8, 2011, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Censorship is not the answer

    by Timothy_Olyphants_Oliphaunt

    Anyone who gets off this revolting trash is already messed up, and censoring always backfires anyway - it just helps promote the film. These movies are not the cause of problems with our society, they're a symptom. "Filmmakers" of stuff like this are just Internet trolls with cameras - it's their way of screaming for attention - the attention they never got as children. So parents, please pick up your babies when they cry - they do it for a reason.

  • June 8, 2011, 2:59 a.m. CST

    Those "fanciful" risks scare me more, actually.

    by MoffatBabies

    But that's just me.

  • June 8, 2011, 6:11 a.m. CST

    franks_television - great insight...

    by ihatetalkbacks

    so what's the best way to help the Arab Spring or bring democracy to Burma? Should Britain join the Euro? IS the US entering economic stagnation due to its loss of manufacturing?

  • June 8, 2011, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Censorship is the answer.

    by Arafel

    The BBFC did everyone a service by banning this horrific film. The only problem I see here is that they didn't go far enough. They should send out the British military to round up all DVD copies of THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE II (FULL SEQUENCE) and burn them. Obviously, Tom Six should be immeaditely arrested and jailed for obscenity crimes. The actual making of this film should be considered a crime against humanity. All of the actors, actresses and technicians who worked on this film should be jailed too. Tom Six should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. His partners in crime should be given lighter sentences, but only if they agree to testify against Tom Six and publicly denounce him as a monster. If it is determined that Tom Six should be publicly executed for his crimes, then I would not oppose it.

  • June 8, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Tough call

    by Papa Lazaru

    I don’t know where I stand on this to be honest . You can argue that its all make believe and nobody got hurt . Its consenting adults making a film with special effects ,using sound and editing techniques to heighten to intensity of the film . In using that argument its hard to justify a ban . However , surely there has to be a line on what can be shown. Lets say ,just for arguments sake , a film is released depicting full on child abuse. Nothing is held back . No cut away’s ,no let up . However its all CGI. Never mind consenting adults , no real people at all were involved in the acting of the scenes . Nobody so much as broke a sweat . Yet at the same time its flat out horrific depravity . A film which it could be argued only exists to excite the warped minds among us despite whatever the story line is trying to tell us and despite whatever “art “ it is trying to impart . Would you be so quick to defend such a film ? I’m very curious to know people’s thoughts on such an admittedly unlikely but nonetheless valid ( as I see it ) example . Anybody ?

  • June 8, 2011, 11:18 a.m. CST


    by Shaner Jedi

    but the question you really think these movies are causing the violence, or are they merely a reflection? I submit it's society and the films are a reflection. All you have to do is look at Martyrs and Serbian film. Those films reflect some truly awful things that happened and continue to happen. So are kids desensitised to violence? yes. But it's a societal thing. Movies are just showing it. They're not promoting it. And banning it only increases people's interest in seeing it.

  • June 8, 2011, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Pass, I like my Horror Films Scary

    by Jack Desmondi

    Tom Six has his head up his ass (no pun intended) if he thinks this shit (again, no pun intended) or his original film pass as good Horror films. It's just a more extreme extension of Torture Porn. No suspense. No shock. Just revulsion, followed by sadness and eventually boredom.

  • June 8, 2011, 1:48 p.m. CST


    by Timothy_Olyphants_Oliphaunt

    Wow. It's attitudes like that that lead to police states. Maybe you're just trolling, but I'll answer seriously. You call Tom Six a monster, and I can't argue with that - but try and set your emotions aside for a moment, and ask yourself: what makes a monster? Why would someone want to make a movie like this, or to watch it? The roots of this kind of sickness start early - very early. I guarantee Tom Six was abused as a child - probably sexually. What he needs is psychiatric help, but sadly, it's very difficult or impossible to help an adult with this deep of a problem. We'll never get anywhere as a society if we just keep trying to deal with the effects, rather than the cause.

  • June 8, 2011, 2:33 p.m. CST

    myphdisdoom is spot on!

    by The Gipper

    myphdisdoom: "Just reading that I kept going: 'No way'. I mean how does that movie even get made? I mean there must be so many movies out there that need cash and this gets made? That is crazy." -- EXACTLY! This wasn't just one sick fucker making the original movie and now the sequel. This was him, cast, crew, studios, distributors, etc. all doing this. I'm disappointed that "South Park" gave the original film any publicity at all with their episode about the Human Cent-iPad. I thought that was really gross and then I saw Best Buy actually had a DVD at the front of their racks of the original film and couldn't believe that such a piece of shit was actually made. Take the cash from this crap and make "The Last Starfighter II," "Rocketeer II" and other stuff that there is actually an audience for.

  • June 9, 2011, 1:51 a.m. CST

    Funny, at one point I wanted to send this very premise...

    by Gremlin517

    To Chuck Palahniuk as a sequel idea for Fight Club, as I thought that would be an excellent idea. But sadly, his page on Facebook doesn't have a way to write privately so I never did it. Anyway, if someone has access to Chuck--give him the idea, because I still think it would work marvelously as a sequel.

  • June 9, 2011, 2:47 a.m. CST

    A Serbian Film is banned in Spain

    by CuervoJones

  • Since the film is now banned in Britain, I propose created a sting operation. Put up a sign in front of a movie threater that says the film will be showing at a certain time, let's say Midnight. Then, as the sick, depraved, immoral people buy tickets and go into the theater, they are surprised to find the police waiting for to immeaditely arrest them. If they put up even 1 second of resistance, they should be beaten with billy clubs until they stop resisting. Am I trolling? Maybe. Am I right? Yes! Our society is slowing sinking into Hell! Someone with some kind of authority needs to stand up and take a stand! The British Board of Film Classification has made a good start by banning this sick, depraved pile of excrement called "The Human Centipede II". Now we must go a step fruther and make it illegal to make or watch this sort of film. We must do the hard work now, so the next generation won't have to!