http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/07...om-six-spoilers

 

Human Centipede 2 has become the latest victim of the British Board of Film Classification. Basically, they've banned it....

 

But, my question is, what's the point...? We live in a digital age where we can download any film we like.. We also have literally millions of Internet markets out there - Amazon, Play.com, Ebay, etc, etc, etc, where you can buy just about anything you want legally...

 

The BBFC may have had a purpose in the 1980s, when they pretty much had, and exercised, the power to ban and to cut just about anything they liked. But, then came the Internet, and lo and behold, the stuff that I wanted to see, but had been banned or in a form that was so mangled and cut-up that it wasn't really worth seeing, suddenly became available to me... In all it's wide-screen, 5.1 surround sound/DTS, uncut GLORY... Zombie Flesh Eaters, Cannibal Holocaust, The Beyond, Tenebre, The New York Ripper, Cannibal Ferox, Suspiria, and literally LOADS more.... And there wasn't a bloody thing the BBFC could realistically do about it...

 

So, by all means BBFC, ban Human Centipede 2, all you'll really guarantee is people who would normally not really bother about a film like this, will actually likely have their interests piqued by your self-righteous, pointless moralising......

 

The BBFC's job should be to classify and to give guidance, but to restrict in this global internet market, is ultimately pointless, in my opinion.... At best, all that will be denied the director Tom Six is a cinema release, he wont be denied ANY future DVD revenue whatsoever, and the publicity he'll get from having a film of his banned, wont exactly hurt the "Bad Boy of Horror" image he is trying to cultivate......

to be fair if they don't ban something that features someone raping a human centipede with barbed wire around their dick they might aswell cease to exsist.

 

do they still have the power to stop films being watched in the internet age? of course not but that doesn't mean they should stop doing their job. maybe they should create a new certificate "only for the sick and twisted"?

Yes, but they also have legislation they've also got to keep in mind, specifically the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964. And good, if people want to see it, they can watch it on the internet, but I can see where they are coming from: decisions like this are rare, and from the description, it does seem to go above and beyond decency, and fair play to them that they don't want to jusitfy it. They did classify A Serbian Film with cuts, so this must have been something extreme for them to take such a decision. Also, they didn't submit if for a cinematic release anyway, just for DVD.

I do agree that banning a film in this day and age is more of a publicity coup rather than the death knell for commercial success it used to be up until the 90s. However, in this case I think they were right to ban the film. Some of the things I've read about the film in the BBFC statement (including using sandpaper for pleasure, using barbed wire as a condom) are pretty horrific, even for the horror genre. I had heard sbout the film in advance, and whilst I did have an interest in seeing the film, after reading the description I am unlikely to watch it. In the torture-porn stakes, it makes Saw look like Barbie's Rapunzel.

 

I should mention that some, if not all of the films you mentioned are now available uncut in the UK. A lot of the 'video nasties' were re-rated in the early 00s (just as the internet was picking up power). I believe in the past 5 years there have only been 3 films refused a rating by the BBFC, so they would not take this step unless they found it really screwed up.

I do agree that banning a film in this day and age is more of a publicity coup rather than the death knell for commercial success it used to be up until the 90s. However, in this case I think they were right to ban the film. Some of the things I've read about the film in the BBFC statement (including using sandpaper for pleasure, using barbed wire as a condom) are pretty horrific, even for the horror genre.

 

So, basically you're just going by things you've read about the film rather than having actually seen it yourself....? Sorry, but I dont think really anyone can make a judgement call like that unless they've got a first-hand knowledge of the film... It's easy for the tabloids to exaggerate.. For example, if I had believed everything I read about Driller Killer, I would've expected to see a gory, ultra-violent horror film with a nasty killing every minute, instead of the dull, tedious, boring piece of crap I actually finally did see... Taking the first Human Centipede as a barometer here, it is an absolute snorefest tbh, and has more than the faint whiff of the absolutely ludicrous about it, with some seriously dodgy ham-fisted over-acting...

 

Human Centipede 1 was released on DVD only in this country as far as I know, and quickly became forgotten about... Hyping the sequel up into something it's more than likely not is just going to lead to what is likely basically just a bad film (and I'm going by my knowledge of the first film here and admittedly making an assumption, but I reckon given the fact that it's the same writer/director doing it, it's a fairly safe assumption...) will give it a cult status it likely doesn't deserve... A lot of the 80s "Video Nasties" have cult status purely by virtue of the fact that they got banned, but a good 90-odd% of them are just utterly laughable and are really not good films at all, even by 70s and 80s standards...

 

Banning films is a ridiculous and reductive thing to do IMO, especially in the internet age.... The whole "video nasties" scaremongering never really stopped anyone who wanted to obtain an illegal copy of these films, but now there's no need to even go scouring car-boot sales for second-gen copies or taking a trip to Amsterdam to pick up what you want......

The BBFC recently gave Human Centipede 2 an 18 cert following a full 2.32 minutes worth of cuts. Having watched the film I can say the cuts don't take anything away from the story (what there is) and it'll still be plenty strong enough for most people to be disgusted/amused by.

 

Is it a good film? Not really. Has a couple of decent moments and despite trying to make an interesting point about gorefans the film comes across as self reverential and a bit of an ego w***.

 

Do the cuts benefit the film? Yes. I'm not saying the BBFC should have insisted on them but much of what was cut was clearly done purely for shock value and taking some of it out helps to bring the focus back to the narrative. Tom Six always said he'd be happy to make cuts if necessary.

 

In summation, maybe it is pointless trying stop people from seeing the uncut version BUT by taking parts out they've made it a more cohesive film and now more people will actually see it. The gorehounds will see the full version anyway and the casual horror fan can see the film. In this case everyone wins.

Not really got anything to add but Human Centipede 2 is f***ing AWFUL. Just trying to be shocking for the sake of shocking, there's nothing to it at all ... some of it is taking it far too far as well

for example the scene where the babyslips under the brake in the car and the woman crushes it, vile

and isn't really necessary.