UKC

/ The Human Centipede

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
WaterMonkey - on 06 Feb 2018

I'm not sure the Culture bunker is the right place for this!

Has anyone watched the Human Centipede? It must be one of the most disturbing films I've ever watched.  I even ended up dreaming about it the following night.

It's on Netflix at the moment and there's also a sequel which will no doubt be just as bad/disturbing. I just know I'll end up watching it though!

Post edited at 13:10
Blue Straggler - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

There are two sequels, I think it was planned as a trilogy and the films are all done by the same guy. 

Never seen any but I do own the first one DVD, it sits on my shelf daring me to watch...

allcatsbegrey on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I only know of it through Richard Herring's Youtube shows, where one of his standard questions for guests is "if you had to be in the middle of a human centipede, who would you choose to be in front and behind?".

I have yet to watch the film :D

Dave Garnett - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> I'm not sure the Culture bunker is the right place for this!

> Has anyone watched the Human Centipede? It must be one of the most disturbing films I've ever watched.  I even ended up dreaming about it the following night.

I'd heard about it and then came across it randomly channel surfing late one night.  About 10 minutes was all I needed.  I can't honestly understand why anyone would want to watch it, never mind make it.

Anyway, the biology is all cobblers.  

LastBoyScout on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I've seen it. Pretty poor "by the numbers" attempt at a horror film built around an interesting idea - usual terrible acting and doomed-to-failure escape attempts. Got to the the end thinking "whatever" and haven't really given it a second thought.

I did stumble across the sequel late one night and watched a bit of that out of interest - it was just dire.

1
zebidee - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

According to IMDB's trivia for it http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1467304/trivia?ref_=tt_ql_2 ...

> When approaching investors prior to filming, the filmmakers told them they wanted to make an international horror film that involved stitching people together but did not mention how exactly they would be stitched, fearing the mouth-to-anus aspect would put the investors off.

No ... really?

Stichtplate on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler: 

> Never seen any but I do own the first one DVD, it sits on my shelf daring me to watch...

Don't bother unless you relish the thought of having to bleach your eyeballs immediately after viewing.

WaterMonkey - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

It's not gory or anything, it's more just the thought of it.

My 15 year old daughter watched it first whilst we were out. She's on a quest to find a horror film that will actually scare her. This didn't do that but I don't think she particularly liked it!

1
cb294 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I can understand why films aimed at scaring the viewer have a certain appeal (classic suspension/psycho horror, body horror like the Fly, the Alien series, etc.).

What I do not understand is what a viewer gets from splatter horror or torture porn. Maybe I am just squeamish but I cannot for my life see what enjoyment (even deferred) a viewer gets out of films like the Centipede or Hostel series. 

The trailer and some excerpts in a cinema review on TV (yes, really!) was more than enough for me. The violence and degradation seemed completely gratuitous. 

Seemed utterly perverse to me, and I would not watch such a film in full, ever. 

I do not mind realistic violence in war or crime films, so it is not the violence as such that puts me off. Genuinely interested to hear from people who enjoy such films,

CB

WaterMonkey - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

I can't say I really enjoyed it, it was a rubbish film but still disturbing. I do enjoy horror films and psychological thrillers. I find it fascinating how our bodies and minds can react to something we all know is fake.

Duncan Bourne - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

If you want to watch it (out of curiousity) but don't want to watch it (because it is totally gross and the visual equivalent of necking shit) then the bunnies are here to help.

 

http://www.angryalien.com/aa/thehumancentibuns.asp

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

I agree with you, not scary at all, just trying to gross out which is not something that I find scary.

 

Now the clapping game the children play in the Conjuring. THAT was scary. Later that night, turning out the lights and going to bed behind my wife, I clapped twice. Her reaction and annoyance at me was brilliant

https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Conjuring-Delievers-Creepy-Game-Hide-Seek-WonderCon-2013-36682.html

Post edited at 16:50
Bulls Crack - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Have consciously avoided and will continue to do so!

cb294 - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Thanks for the reply! Adopting a detached view, catching yourself being manipulated could indeed be interesting. It just would not compensate for the unpleasantness for me, so I prefer to forgo this experience. 

CB

estivoautumnal on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I've seen it and although I thought it was direful I didn't particularly find it disturbing. I knew what the storyline was and that the director had set out to 'shock' the audience so there was no surprise at the base scenes. My overriding thought was 'I'm hoping the actors are getting well paid for spending days sniffing each others bums'. 

As for the people who can't or won't watch it, well, it's just a film. Designed to shock, yes, but still just make believe. 

angry pirate - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

At the risk of sounding contrary, I really enjoyed it. Or at least, it was far less shocking, horrifying and gratuitous than I was expecting so I was pleasantly surprised. I wouldn't watch it again but I didn't regret the time I spent on it (unlike the Saw films, Transformers or the Hobbit - all horrifying in their own way)

It is no work of high art but it was compelling once I'd started watching and is quite unlike other films in the genre: it is depressing rather than horrifying.

That said, I've avoided the sequel like the plague as that does sound like gore and shock for the sake of it.

WaterMonkey - on 06 Feb 2018
In reply to angry pirate:

You’ve summed it up well. I think that’s what I got out of it, it was depressing and the thought of being held captive, anesthetised and operated on in such a way was horrific to imagine but compelling all the same.

Nevis-the-cat - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

The film was ok, but I didn't enjoy the musical. 

planetmarshall on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to cb294:

> I do not mind realistic violence in war or crime films, so it is not the violence as such that puts me off.

It's not often you really get "realistic" violence in any films. If you find yourself cheering on one side or the other, chances are it's not realistic. If you find yourself turning away or leaving the cinema in revulsion, it may be (unless you have sociopathic tendencies). The only film I've ever seen that portrayed truly realistic, horrifying violence was "Irreversible".

 

ThunderCat - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

> My 15 year old daughter watched it first whilst we were out. She's on a quest to find a horror film that will actually scare her. This didn't do that but I don't think she particularly liked it!

Try "Eraserhead".  I watched that at a WAY too early age and it got under my skin a little bit.  Not shocking or horrific in any way (well, not really)...but it stays in your thoughts a little bit.

TheDrunkenBakers - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

> It's not often you really get "realistic" violence in any films. If you find yourself cheering on one side or the other, chances are it's not realistic. If you find yourself turning away or leaving the cinema in revulsion, it may be (unless you have sociopathic tendencies). The only film I've ever seen that portrayed truly realistic, horrifying violence was "Irreversible".

I dunno, Saving Private Ryan seemed realistic and is always cited as being the most realistic of any film, especially the opening scene showing the landings.  Not a horror film in any sense but horrifying nonetheless.

cb294 - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

I agree. I could not finish Come and See. Tried first just closing my eyes, but eventuall had to leave the cinema. 


CB

Jack - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

> The film was ok, but I didn't enjoy the musical. 

But that final reprise of "cheek to cheek" was a tour de force of inventive choreography.

 
Blue Straggler - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to ThunderCat:

I see your Eraserhead and raise you a Tetsuo: Iron Man, which has the vibe of Eraserhead remade by David Cronenberg. 

aln - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Is it like the Hungry Caterpillar? 

alan moore - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> and raise you a Tetsuo: Iron Man,

is that the B&W one? Saw it ages ago and quite liked it. Although I did have to read a review to follow the plot!

 

stp - on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> I see your Eraserhead and raise you a Tetsuo: Iron Man, which has the vibe of Eraserhead remade by David Cronenberg. 


That certainly looks erm, different. Just watched a clip on Youtube - the subway chase. The whole film is on there in 720p too. I think it's the kind of thing to watch at the right moment - if there is a right moment for stuff like that.

Stichtplate on 07 Feb 2018
In reply to stp:

On the subject of gross out films, I watched Bone Tomahawk a couple of weeks ago on the recommendation of someone on here. 

....I still haven't uncrossed my legs.

 

Euge - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I've watched all three... 

Part 1. is not that gross and very interesting albeit with bad acting.

Part 2. greatly ups the acting and the gross , but is by far the best

Part 3. Goes for all out gross and feck-all acting and is actually a great big pile of rubbish!!! Just made for shock value...

Just my 2p

Euge

 

Euge - on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

Irreversible is on my list of films to watch.. but just haven't found the right mood yet!!!

Euge

planetmarshall on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to Euge:

I think it's an extremely powerful film in that you really feel the violence and cruelty in it. It's the exact opposite of glamourisation of violence.

I think David Ebert described it well (He gave it 3/4) - 

"a movie so violent and cruel that most people will find it unwatchable"

Stichtplate on 09 Feb 2018
In reply to planetmarshall:

> "a movie so violent and cruel that most people will find it unwatchable"

Pretty fair discription of a well made film. I found Nocturnal Animals harder to watch despite it being far less graphic. Something about the ineffectual helplessness of the main protagonist just left me squirming in my seat. Powerful stuff, but wouldn’t want to revisit it.

andyman666999 - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

I laughed throughout this film. The premise is utterly ridiculous. Current Tissue transplants don’t always work despite cutting edge immunosuppressants and antigen matching. The idea that 3 randoms could be stitched together and it working is laughable. I think the oldies are scarier such as psycho or the wicker man! 

That said, given trends in current horror film story lines, at least it was imaginative. 

Offwidth - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

"Tetsuo: Iron Man, which has the vibe of Eraserhead remade by David Cronenberg."   That's a bad thing??...

Not likely to be watching HC any time soon... sound like almost the opposite of the horror films I've enjoyed.

1
 Reply

Tobes on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Euge:

> Irreversible is on my list of films to watch.. but just haven't found the right mood yet!!!

> Euge

I got it from a rental shop (shows how long ago I saw it) and selected it based on the reviews on the back. I had little idea about it before watching.

i stuck with it but from early on (the notorious Rectum club scene) it was obvious the film was on another level.

its a fairly clever film starting back to front and the ending (the beginning) is quite graceful, however personally I’m unlikely to watch it again but do think it’s worth considering. It’s not a film that could be enjoyed but as a piece of cinema it could be appreciated. 

Blue Straggler - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> On the subject of gross out films, I watched Bone Tomahawk a couple of weeks ago on the recommendation of someone on here. 

> ....I still haven't uncrossed my legs.

That might have been my fault. I’ve seen it twice and look forward to seeing it again. 

Blue Straggler - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Offwidth:

> "Tetsuo: Iron Man, which has the vibe of Eraserhead remade by David Cronenberg."   That's a bad thing??...

No

 

Badgers - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to ThunderCat:

> Try "Eraserhead".  I watched that at a WAY too early age and it got under my skin a little bit.  Not shocking or horrific in any way (well, not really)...but it stays in your thoughts a little bit.

Yeah, that stuck with me for years. Was really quite disturbing. Great film.

Blue Straggler - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Stichtplate:

> Pretty fair discription of a well made film. I found Nocturnal Animals harder to watch despite it being far less graphic. Something about the ineffectual helplessness of the main protagonist just left me squirming in my seat. Powerful stuff, but wouldn’t want to revisit it.

Do you mean Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the novel within the film?

Stichtplate on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> That might have been my fault. I’ve seen it twice and look forward to seeing it again. 

Kurt Russell was brilliant and Lili Simmons will always hold a place in my heart after performing one of the greatest ever pieces of romantic dialogue in True Detective....but what they did to that poor deputy was unforgivable.

Stichtplate on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> Do you mean Jake Gyllenhaal’s character in the novel within the film?

Yeah, seriously. Found it quite disturbing.

ben b - on 10 Feb 2018
In reply to WaterMonkey:

Over the years I feel the level of violence and gore has increased, as the level of suspense and plotting has often fallen. Now admittedly that's a tired old trope ('you young people it's all bigger/better/faster!') but even something as simple as comparing Star Wars IV (A New Hope) with VII (The Force Awakens) - essentially the same plot lines - demonstrates how much more there is going on in the latter than the longer, slow periods of the former. Just as the tempo has increased in many action movies, so has the level of violence and gore. 

I watched "Bright" on Netflix last night, and while some of the plot features were really interesting the latter half of the film was pretty much continuous and fairly graphic violence. To the point where it was easier to hold up a hand to stop me having to see the screen at times. I'm not sure that this is helpful for society - certainly I'm aware of the effects of, say, a baseball bat beating to the head because I have seen the aftermath and looked after the consequent brain injury in ICU, or what actually happens in car vs telegraph pole at 70mph without a seatbelt - as opposed to what happens in the movies.

The level of gun violence in  movies - and particularly the ratio of shots to injury, and killed:injured, is extraordinary. It is well described that in open firefights the ratio is usually between 1:4 and 1:12, while in confined spaces and especially in cases where the Geneva Conventions are ignored the ratio is often around 1:1 or worse (Breivik shot 69 but non-fatally wounded just a couple more) . Compare this to movie or TV depictions, and ponder the gun death stats from the US in particular - where on average more than 10 people below the age of 18 are killed by guns a day. We need to grow up - even relatively fun family films (as we all toddle off to the cinema to see the Last Jedi), when examined with even the most faintly critical eye, no way for kids to learn about risk and danger.

My personal feeling is that there will always be a conflict between artistic expression and censorship, but perhaps we need as a society to get fewer kicks from screen violence and horror. Though the genie was out the bottle with the invention of VHS, keeping kids with developing, plastic and forming brains away from violence seems a reasonable start - and the internet has no current reliable way to allow this.

b

trouserburp - on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to ben b:

They're just good fun gross-out movies, you old fuddy-duddies

planetmarshall on 11 Feb 2018
In reply to Tobes:

> its a fairly clever film starting back to front and the ending (the beginning) is quite graceful, however personally I’m unlikely to watch it again but do think it’s worth considering. It’s not a film that could be enjoyed but as a piece of cinema it could be appreciated. 

I think that's very much the point of it. If someone told me they actually enjoyed Irreversible, I might politely recommend they make an appointment with a therapist. Most cinema is not really art, imho. That which is might be entertaining, but it doesn't have to be (and on a side note it takes something special to make Monica Bellucci and Vincent Cassel unwatchable).

I'd like to see more films make an attempt to show the consequences of violence, but there's not much commercial imperative. Imagine a Marvel adaption where Captain America suffered from PTSD, or the Hulk flattened a school full of children.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.