Print Topic

SimplyScripts Screenwriting Discussion Board  /  Movie, Television and DVD Reviews  /  The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence
Posted by: James McClung, November 10th, 2011, 11:14am
Hi everyone. I bring great news. Your script is marketable! That's right! Yours, yours and, yes, even yours! If you can conceive it, someone will give you money to make it.

...because if Tom Six can get financing for The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence, anyone can.

In the teaser trailer, Tom Six said that the sequel would make The Human Centipede look like My Little Pony and who'd have thought? Turns out he wasn't lying. Those who said the first film wasn't gory enough get will get not so much their fix as an overdose of blood and diarrhea. The Human Centipede 2 is as sick, disgusting and over the top as any review you'll read says and completely devoid of moral content. The only shred of decency in the film is that Six made the girl from the first film the head of the centipede. How he convinced eleven other actors to get involved in this beyond me. Maybe he convinced them all they were auditioning for a Tarantino film, like the main character, Martin, does in the film.

That's about it though. Whatever shreds of storytelling, suspense, even entertainment from the first film are gone here. Pretty much every aesthetic choice in the film seems intended to make it as nasty as possible, even the good bits. It's shot in a terrific high contrast black and white handheld reminiscent on Man Bites Dog and the lead actor, Lawrence R. Harvey, is more than sufficiently creepy and repugnant yet surprisingly emotive (and surprisingly not creepy and repugnant in real life). But as much as these things work, they only serve to reinforce that Six wants to make you feel ill, ideally without you having a good time along the way. The meta-angle (a fan of the Human Centipede attempts to create his own) is clever but self indulgent and carries no real weight, overall. Bottom line, the film is cruel, sadistic, and un-apologetically one-dimensional.

While the sheer excess is astounding, if you've got a strong stomach, you'll probably find yourself very bored by the end and possibly asking yourself what the point was? It's not a film about a man who makes his own human centipede, it's a film in which a man makes his own human centipede. Well, the point is simple. Tom Six, whose all time favorite film is Salo: 120 Days of Sodom, had an idea that was utterly insane and wanted to claim the exploitation high score. And indeed, no one's going to forget about The Human Centipede anytime soon.

So with that said, don't worry so much. If there's a market for twelve people sewn ass to mouth ingesting each other's laxative-induced feces with no plot, you can make it in this business.

Happy writing, everyone!  :)
Posted by: bert, November 10th, 2011, 11:29am; Reply: 1
I hate myself in advance because I know I am going to watch it.

Did everyone see David Spade's Halloween costume this year?



How fun it must have been to explain to the "uninitiated" exactly what he was supposed to be.
Posted by: Heretic, November 10th, 2011, 12:00pm; Reply: 2
We shall anticipate, then, the hyper-meta Human Centipede 3: Bert's Sequence.
Posted by: DarrenJamesSeeley, November 11th, 2011, 11:55pm; Reply: 3
Whatever earns you a dirty dollar.

Now, in the third film, Six must get his head out of his own arse...and call it Human Centepeed Off.
Posted by: dogglebe (Guest), November 13th, 2011, 8:18am; Reply: 4

Quoted from bert
How fun it must have been to explain to the "uninitiated" exactly what he was supposed to be.


Makes you wonder about how he was able to get child-size inflatable love dolls.


Phil

Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), April 10th, 2012, 4:04pm; Reply: 5
James, as usual, you give a great review.  I pretty much agree with you here.

It really is shocking how dark and repugnant this thing is.  There really isn't a single redeeming quality or semi-happy moment to be had within the film or watching the film.

But, somehow, I gave it 3 stars on Netflix streaming.  Why?  Did I actually like it?  Did I think it was a good film?  No and no, but I do think it was well done for what it was and it also achieved exactly what it set out to.

And as James said, that appears to be disgust and upset its audience in every way conceivable.

I kept waiting for something different to happen.  For someone to have a chance.  For anything other than the constant beating everyone took.  But no, the end came very suddenly, as the entire movie was spent abducting the 12 pieces of the centipede, along with showing what a completely and shockingly disgusting human being, the Antag, Martin is.

I have to say that Laurence Harvey really put himself out there for this role.  He didn't speak a single line of dialogue, but he's quite effective, and he's most likely the most disgusting human I've ever seen in my life.  But, come to think about it, Tom Six made everyone and everything out to be as disgusting as possible.

To think that an idiot like Martin could pull this off is absurd, but by the time he actually gets around to it, there's only 15 minutes left in the short, but seemingly long 88 minute runtime.

I've got to comment on the ending, as I'm really not sure whether or not it was meant to come off as "it was all a dream" or not.  But if it was intended to be real, I'm speechless on what to say and think about the "pregnant" victim who escapes.  It's just beyond belief what she does, and what Six shows in this scene.  I've personally never seen anythign like it and hope I never do again.

I can guarantee you I'll never sit through this again, but I'll also tell you I'm glad I did watch it.  I will not, however, in any way, recommend this to literally anyone else.

WATCH AT YOUR OWN RISK
Posted by: Forgive, April 10th, 2012, 4:16pm; Reply: 6

Quoted from dogglebe


Makes you wonder about how he was able to get child-size inflatable love dolls.



Exactly what I thought too - isn't that a bit scary???

Posted by: Grandma Bear, April 10th, 2012, 4:49pm; Reply: 7
I watched this the other night and I won't say it was good, but it held my attention throughout and I honestly liked it better than the first one. Which I thought was REALLY boring.  :)
Posted by: Dreamscale (Guest), April 10th, 2012, 7:39pm; Reply: 8

Quoted from Grandma Bear
I watched this the other night and I won't say it was good, but it held my attention throughout and I honestly liked it better than the first one. Which I thought was REALLY boring.  :)


I agree completely, Angry Bear!!!!
Posted by: michel, July 24th, 2013, 8:00am; Reply: 9

Quoted from Dreamscale
I have to say that Laurence Harvey really put himself out there for this role.  He didn't speak a single line of dialogue, but he's quite effective, and he's most likely the most disgusting human I've ever seen in my life


His performance made me think of Peter Lorre's in M.
Posted by: dogglebe (Guest), July 24th, 2013, 12:47pm; Reply: 10
In many ways, I found the sequel better than the original.  It was more realistic, IMHO.

Here you have an idiot (in every fuckin' sense) who sees a movie and thinks he can copy it.  Of course he fails miserably.  The laxative scene was incredibly gross/hysterically funny.

You can't ask for more than that.


Phil
Posted by: Colkurtz8, August 7th, 2014, 6:24pm; Reply: 11
I've only watched this and the first one recently.

While the first film had its moments of squeamishness and an utterly pretence-less antagonist (the Doctor doesn’t make any attempt whatsoever to lure them into a fall sense of security, he’s totally unhinged right from the moment he answers the door, got a laugh out of that at least) it did exactly what it said on the tin. Some dodgy directing at times, the cheapness showing through but a great central location and solid performances. I mean, it was what it was. I don't understand people getting indignant over it, they have no grounds. What were they expecting? The title is pretty self explanatory.

The Human Centipede II: Full Sequence however…wow, this film really pushed it to the max in every regard. There wasn't one glimmer or moment of anything other than perversity, depravity, sadism, etc. A totally dark, nihilistic world. Which is not a criticism by the way, I was just taken aback by how unrelentingly nasty it was, a nastiness it kept looking to trump with every subsequent scene

Whatever about the central "goal" of the main character in creating a twelve person centipede (why twelve by the way?) it was everything going on around that, pure hell. The mental retardation of the main character, the cramped, drab apartment he lived in, being sexually abused by his father now in jail, the contemptuous mother who blames him instead of taking his side and tries to stab in his bed no less, the perverted psychiatrist, that prick of a neighbour playing his horrible music, the solitary nature of his job. Then there was the persistent rain, the black and white cinematography (although this was to lessen the impact of the gore) the sheer bleakness of the city, its buildings, its inhabitants.

I thought the premise of this obsessive fan watching the first film over and over was a great concept. Also, the director did warn he was going to show everything here that the first one omitted and he was true to his word; the severing of the knee ligaments, the cutting of the mouth, the cutting of the anus, it’s all there on screen in excruciating explicitness. There's the force feeding, the laxative...then he fu?ks the last link of the centipede! Not to mention the heavily pregnant woman who gets away…but not before squashing her just born baby under the accelerator pedal. Oh the horror!

The inclusion of Ashlynn Yennie from the first film was another interesting touch although the lure of a Tarantino film audition was pushing the suspension of disbelief factor. As was believing this guy could actually achieve his obsession, knocking people out with a crowbar, not the most reliable way to go about it. No questions were asked about the blood stains on the car park floor either or the landlord of the building he used. He just kills him and leaves his car parked out front, how come no one came around looking for him? In the first film you could see how the doctor would be able to pull it off, the secluded location of his house, his medical know-how to carry out the procedure, being able to sedate and shackle his victims, etc.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm talking about practicalities and plausibility in relation to this film. For what it’s worth, it again was what it was, mission accomplished. I won't be watching it again but I will check out the third installment to see what kind of twist he puts on the narrative.

Oh and I wish Laurence R. Harvey and Ashling Wienne in particular the best in their careers, fair play to them, takes a lot of guts to take on roles like this. I hope they get rewarded with more work in the future for their bravery.

Roger Ebert famously gave the first installment a no-star review. He was quoted as saying:

"I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."

Well if that’s the case, The Human Centipede 11: Full Sequence exists in the depths of a black hole in some obscure, distant, dead corner of the universe where stars not only don’t shine, they are knocked out, mutilated and attached a?s to mouth!
Posted by: rendevous, August 7th, 2014, 6:34pm; Reply: 12
I read a bit about this and its predecessor. After reading your review, Col, I think I will continue to give it the very wide berth it firmly deserves.

R
Posted by: AlexanderLimberg (Guest), August 10th, 2014, 4:04pm; Reply: 13
I haven't seen the second one, but I saw the first one and can imagine that your review is spot on - because my review of HC 1 would read very similiar to this.

The first part, for me, builds on a great horror idea and has some genius bits and pieces, but overall it could have been so much better. Probably still a recommendation though.
Posted by: stevie, August 10th, 2014, 4:37pm; Reply: 14
What was the tag line for this film - 'Eat shit and die'?   Lol
Posted by: Guest, August 10th, 2014, 5:16pm; Reply: 15
Boring.  I found myself fast forwarding through the first one to get to the good stuff, and even then I was like, 'eh, this is it?'

Posted by: rendevous, August 10th, 2014, 9:14pm; Reply: 16

Quoted from Deadite
I found myself fast forwarding through the first one to get to the good stuff, and even then I was like, 'eh, this is it?'


Which good stuff? Do you mean the arse face sewing together? Or when it's time for lunch?

We obviously move in very different circles.

R
Posted by: DustinBowcot (Guest), August 11th, 2014, 8:19am; Reply: 17
The first one was so sickening I would never watch the second. I found the first one disturbing enough that some of the images still stick with me today. A friend told us about the film, found it available on Netflix, and I'll forever regret watching it.
Posted by: Colkurtz8, August 11th, 2014, 11:20am; Reply: 18

Quoted from DustinBowcot
The first one was so sickening I would never watch the second. I found the first one disturbing enough that some of the images still stick with me today. A friend told us about the film, found it available on Netflix, and I'll forever regret watching it.


- Ha, if that was your reaction to the first one, which most found relatively tame and I'd agree, stay as far away from this as possible. I mean, even if you pass it on display in a store window, cross the road!
Posted by: INTS, August 11th, 2014, 7:40pm; Reply: 19
I watched the movie and it was kind of funny.
Posted by: DustinBowcot (Guest), August 12th, 2014, 2:46am; Reply: 20

Quoted from Colkurtz8


- Ha, if that was your reaction to the first one, which most found relatively tame and I'd agree, stay as far away from this as possible. I mean, even if you pass it on display in a store window, cross the road!


It's on Netflix. I already know to avoid it. I didn't like the first one.
Print page generated: April 29th, 2024, 10:18am