The Human Centipede 2
Movie Review
The Human Centipede 2
by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D
Released: October 7, 2011
Directed by:
Cast:
To give credit where it's due, Tom Six, the demented Dutchman behind the notorious "Human Centipede" movie, didn't take the easy way out on the sequel. Once you've established the gross premise of a mad scientist surgically attaching three people so they share one long digestive tract, the obvious follow-up would be to have the mad scientist do it again, only this time with more people. And maybe this time it could also be personal.
But Six has not done this! "The Human Centipede 2" does increase the number of victims, but the evil doctor has not returned, nor has another like-minded brilliant-but-insane scientist taken his place. The perpetrator this time is a mouth-breathing imbecile with no medical training or scientific knowledge. How has he happened upon the idea of creating a human centipede? By watching the film "The Human Centipede" over and over again and taking it as an instruction manual.
Ah, yes. The old "turn the tables and indict the audience for loving the thing you're giving them" routine. Does the devoted "Human Centipede" fan depicted here -- a grunting, porcine loser who lives with his mother -- represent Six's view of the average "Human Centipede" fan? It would seem so. But if Six's goal is to make the people who enjoyed "Human Centipede" do some soul-searching, he has overlooked a crucial point, which is that nobody enjoyed "Human Centipede." Some viewers found it macabrely fascinating; some admired the creativity involved; some defended it as a well-made entry in the horror genre. But nobody LOVED it. Six is indicting an audience that doesn't exist.
That's if I've understood his point correctly, however, which may not be the case. We must allow for the possibility that he does not have a point, other than to wallow in depravity and filth and poop.
Our protagonist is Martin, played by a man named Laurence R. Harvey who does not have any previous acting credits. I don't know where this spherical, bug-eyed dwarf came from, or what he will do next, but his performance here is never anything less than 100 percent committed, I'll give him that. Martin, a lowly parking-garage attendant, whiles away the hours watching "Human Centipede" on his laptop and reveling in its obscenity. He has accumulated a scrapbook documenting his devotion to the film, which he hides under the mattress in his squalid bedroom so that his harpy mother (Vivien Bridson) won't find it. Martin does not speak discernible words, might be mentally handicapped, and was sexually abused as a child by his father. A psychiatrist (Bill Hutchens) visits the home every week to help him work through his issues, but the shrink has sexual desires for Martin himself (which might be the single weirdest thing about the movie).
Desiring to emulate what he has seen in the film, Martin sets out to acquire not three but twelve victims to be sewn mouth-to-butt. He uses a crowbar to smash parking-garage customers in the head, then takes them to a warehouse, where they writhe naked on the floor, bound and gagged. One of them is a pregnant woman. One is Martin's upstairs neighbor. Martin eventually gets around to connecting his victims, but lacking any surgical tools or common sense all he can do is jury-rig them using staples and duct tape.
You're probably thinking that it would be fairly easy to escape from such a predicament. Yes, your mouth is stapled to the butt of the person in front of you, but at least it hasn't been stitched there, like in the first movie. Just yank it free. Those staples will come right out. It'll hurt like a mofo, but you'll be free.
But the only reason you're thinking about the logistics of the situation is that you're not actually watching it. While in the act of viewing the film, one's mind is occupied by other things: how senselessly unpleasant it is, for example; how curiously tedious the obscenity becomes after a while; how genuinely humorous some of Martin's behavior is; how vile it is to realize that the film is entirely in black-and-white except for a few instances of color being used for particular materials. (The color is brown. I'll leave it at that.)
Reviewing a movie usually boils down to a question of what the film was trying to achieve and whether or not it succeeded. Well, I don't doubt that "HC 2" is exactly the movie Tom Six wanted to make, and it is approximately as grotesque and miserable as you would expect it to be. No bait and switch here!
But there's another question, too. Whatever the filmmaker was trying to accomplish, and regardless of how well he did it, was it even worth doing? Here the answer is easier: no. To the extent that Six has anything to say at all, what he's saying isn't very interesting, and he doesn't say it very well. Moreover, even if he had said it well, I doubt it would be worth wading through such an unreasonable amount of garbage to find that small nugget of artistic merit or entertainment value.
Grade: D
Not rated, probably NC-17 for abundant graphic violence, nudity, rape, torture, and unorthodox medical procedures
1 hr., 30 min.
This item has 10 comments
-
aaron says:
October 5, 2011 at 10:48 amI feel dirtier after just reading the review. I feel sorry for someone who actually had to watch this abomination.
Why a D instead of an F, though?
-
Andy says:
October 7, 2011 at 7:34 amI quote the MST3K "Amazing Colossal Episode Guide," (originally referring to the movie "The Hellcats," but just as applicable here): "with movie making being such a formidable task, requiring so much drive and vision, how could an individual choose to put so much ugliness up on screen?"
I'm sorry you had to endure watching such depravity for the good of movie-reviewer diligence, and I feel sorry for anyone who CHOOSES to watch this instead of spending their time doing something more valuable, like watching paint dry or baking cookies.
-
Mike Lep says:
October 7, 2011 at 9:06 amI enjoyed the first Human Centipede - the performance by the German mad scientist was terrific, and the film did an admirable job of implying all kinds of depravity while showing very little on screen. Seriously: The concept was thoroughly disgusting but the film itself wasn't particularly graphic.
It sounds like Six went the opposite route with this entry by 1) showing as much as possible and 2) taking this ludicrous material seriously. I'll probably watch it anyway but I have a feeling it will be a disappointment.
-
The Cotton Floozy says:
October 8, 2011 at 8:23 amIt's too bad that the mad scientist didn't use dogs instead of people. From what I have observed, most dogs would be more than okay with the centipede configuration.
-
Kathleen says:
October 8, 2011 at 11:00 pmCotton Floozy: He did! If I recall correctly, In the first movie, the mad scientist's prototype for the human centipede was his "three-dog". The dogs died before the main events of the movie, but if at first you don't succeed, try try again, as they say.
-
The Cotton Floozy says:
October 9, 2011 at 3:34 pm@Kathleen Apparently, I didn't give this mad scientist guy enough credit! But dogs! Gross! I had to yell at my one dog this morning as he was clearly expecting something straight from the tap of the other dog. "We do not allow human centipeding in this home!"
-
Vishnu S says:
October 27, 2011 at 12:56 amI rarely ever chime in because I don't think anyone particularly cares about my opinion, lol. That said, I've never been so starkly opposed to the critical analysis of a film. Typically critics are scathing and hard to please; however, they tend to be accurate and erudite in their assessments. In the case of Human Centipede 2 (HC 2), critics couldn't be more wrong about the value of this film. But, the mere fact that Ebert called it "an affront to any notion, however remote, of human decency", should inspire true horror fans to check this one out. In reality, the film is quite artful, original, taboo-breaking and is surely going to be a cult classic. Here's why ...
First of all, Tom Six shoots most of the film on 20MM wide lenses to achieve a disturbing look and feel, almost voyeuristic; this is similar to Clockwork Orange. Secondly, the choice of a Black and White as a pallete in conjunction with the naturally freakish appearance of the lead is reminiscent of "Eraserhead" or "Freaks". This choice is even more compelling when you consider that HC 1 is in color. Since HC 2 is about a "film fan" copy cat, who exists in the real world, it makes sense that he inhabits a cold Black and White reality. This is in contrast with the usual cliche Hollywood filmmakers choice where the film world is muted and the real world is colorful. Sure, perhaps it's just the directors private joke, but if you think about it ... it's really quite cool and artful, plus Tom Six is sort of toying with us a-la Andy Kaufman. Furthermore, though I'm a fan of HC 1, it's sort of like a comedian with one joke. The concept is innovative and it's execution is seamless, but it doesn't have much of an arc, just one note. In HC 2 the main concept is still present, but it's meta-drama, and this allows it to become a character study of a seriously disturbed film super-fan. Six is aware that people show up for the "carny" aspect of creating a human centipede, and once again, he doesn't disappoint you one bit. In fact, he takes it to the next level ,and maybe even overdoes it. The gore, carnage, and mayhem is unparalleled by any movie ... ever. This is what critics are reacting to. The aren't comfortable with these raw unpolished images. Six doesn't cheat audiences and cutaway on the mortifying parts; he forces you to watch every livid detail and assaults your eyes constantly. Six is the real mad genius here, forget the doctor. The audience I viewed it with, at the IFC in NYC, was visibly shaken, too mortified to watch it all. Now if that's not the essence of horror then I don't know what is. Filmmakers like Luis Bunuel assaulted viewers with images of disturbing cinematic surrealism and he's hailed as a vanguard of his era. Six has done the genre justice and makes Eli Roth look like Catholic school girl preparing for confirmation. In my mind, no one has produced a more disturbing gore-fest horror film to date. Perhaps the only thing I agree with Mr. Snider on is that it wouldn't be too hard to tear your mouth away from the staples; however, this is the same problem I had with the stitches. If someone was actually excreting in your mouth you'd do anything possibly to tear yourself away from the event; unless your actually into that sort of thing and maybe starred in "Two Girls One Cup", lol. In summary, if you want to see a horror film that actually makes you feel something other than "I was robbed" and "that movie was Hollywood predictable", then see this. Just don't eat anything before, during or after this one ... MUAAAHHHH!
-
Santos Santeria says:
October 30, 2011 at 8:34 pm@Vishu S...you're so right, I loved your analyization. I just watched the movie yesterday and I thought it was fantastic, real disgusted and horrific. However, I was laughing the most times because it was so sic, but that's why I love these kind of movies and people should stop watching them if they don't like horror. I personally like these kind of movies because they don't show real humiliation. I move I couldn't stomach was "The Girl Next Door" based on the Jack Ketchum novel, that was waaaay sicker then HC2, that movie disturbed me for days and I will never watch it again.
-
dddrum says:
November 29, 2011 at 4:22 pmWell, well. Looks like you've been pwned by the analyization of a true film buff. Let that be a lesson to you.
-
petery says:
November 29, 2011 at 8:09 pmI won't be rushing to see this film or pay to see it anyway. It has just been banned here in australia, but no doubt bits of it will leak onto Facebook,no pun intended.
Is analysisatipn different from analysis? or is it
Like navel gazing, only where you stare up the anal passage of thereon you are stapled to in front of you.
sounds like some fans of the films are doing too much of this.Maybe the next film will be about them.Get a life.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
Notes:
I also wrote this: "A Proper Gentleman from 19th Century England Reacts to Seeing 'Human Centipede 2.'"