Recently I was talking to a friend of mine who is into movies. He mentioned that there was going to be a second Human centipede. Upon hearing this I was pretty surprised because I thought that the first was a terrible film both in realisation and premiss. Never the less I started to look it up on the internet and what I found shocked me, really shocked me... And I’d like to think that I have a pretty high tolerance for stuff like this.

The director, Tom Six, was quoted to say that “[he] wanted to make the first sequence look like my little pony in comparison” I would argue that just because he’s could make a film infinitely more sickening than the first, he doesn’t need to.  The BBFC refused it classification, and one of their many reasons was the “little attempt to portray any of the victims 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" They went on to suggest that “the film could perhaps be a breach of the obscene publications act”. In defence Tom Six said “[its] f ictional. Not real. It is all make-belief. It is art...” I would say that it is not art, it is just obscene, sickening violence that approaches on masochistic pornography. I read through the plot (linked here if you’d like to read it) and I just don’t understand what would drive someone to write let alone MAKE a film like this. Just to give you an idea the film was only allowed into Britain after 3 minutes of cuts where made which included:

“A man masturbating with sandpaper around his penis; graphic sight of a man's teeth being removed with a hammer; graphic sight of lips being stapled to naked buttocks; graphic sight of forced defecation into and around other victims' mouths; a man with barbed wire wrapped around his penis violently raping a woman; a newborn baby being killed; and graphic sight of injury as staples are torn away from individuals' mouth and buttocks.”

Its just needless, you don’t need to show things like this on film, you can allude to some of them and in some cases the scenes are more effective when you don’t show the

 violence. Especially when making a horror film, which this claims to be, I find that for myself its what I don’t see scares me more than what I do see. The scene that I find most disturbing is the scene where the new born child is killed. I don’t need to explain if you have read the scene why its horrible but suffice to say, its traumatising and very graphic.  

Finally I would say that I do not understand what would drive someone to act in a film like this, the actor that rapes a woman with barbed wire, the woman who births a child and then kills it. Surly at some point something would click in your head and you would say “hang on this is a little too far”. 

In my opinion films like this should not be made. But maybe I am missing a point in this film, maybe there is some sort of clever message behind the violence. Either way I don’t want to give it anymore time than I have to find it. I would suggest you give this film a wide birth. It has just been made because it could be made, and I feel that it is an offence to call this art. Its not “art” its just vile.

What is your opinion on this? Will you watch it?

Have you seen it?

I will be back with another film that I feel may have gone too far later.

-Cpt Chiken