Originally Posted by Rypro 525

And Britain has banned "Full Sequence" And theyre also looking into seeing if it violates obscenity laws. And the link does contain "spoilers" and some of the fucked up/disturbing shit in this movie
http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/06/...obscenity-laws

Originally Posted by Rypro 525

And Britain has banned "Full Sequence" And theyre also looking into seeing if it violates obscenity laws. And the link does contain "spoilers" and some of the fucked up/disturbing shit in this movie
http://www.badassdigest.com/2011/06/...obscenity-laws

Originally Posted by kd5

Damn, I like horror movies but I can't bring myself to watch the first one let alone a sequel that's supposed to be even sicker. If I tried to show some sick shit like that at my house, not only would the movie not make it to the end credits, my wife probably wouldn't speak to me for a month. No thank you, please. -kd5-

Originally Posted by Dean Kousoulas

And boring.

I watched the last half of the movie on fast-forward.

Originally Posted by /Film

Briefly: You have a month to prepare: on October 7, Tom Six‘s The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence will hit theaters. If that seems like pretty short notice before the release, well, it is. Very short. We haven’t even seen a trailer yet from IFC. (There was that one footage-free teaser many months ago.) That leads me to wonder what the release strategy really is with the film. Is IFC hiding it, or just waiting for the opportune moment to throw a little sandpaper masturbation in our faces?

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel

Everyone goes ass-to-mouth on October 7th.



Source

Yeah, what is IFC's strategy? Because, at this point in time, there's nothing and the film is a month away from release. I'm assuming like the first it'll be an In Theaters + On Demand release. However, with all of the attention the first film got and IFC's failure to capture it during any sort of a theatrical run, will they actually release it on a wider scale?

Originally Posted by Terrell

How pathetic is it that Kevin Smith can't get a film released in theaters, as Red State went straight to DVD, yet this film will get a theater release?

I'm not sticking up for Smith. Just pointing how big of a joke and parody of himself that he's become. Not even Hollywood takes him seriously. That's kind of said. I never liked Smith, but he has more ability than Tom Six, whose only talent is to shock and gross people out.

Originally Posted by Rypro 525

(and i read a tweet that the paramedics were called as someone needed medical assistance during the screening

Originally Posted by Nordling, Ain't It Cool News

Tom Six's original film is a model of restraint in comparison to the sequel, which has Martin (Lawrence Harvey) as a barely functional human being who is so taken by the original film that he decides to reenact it, but on a much bigger scale. The movie has logic flaws all over the place (Martin's Crowbar of Anesthesia + 4 seems to just knock out every person it touches when they should be feasibly dead) but obviously you're not looking for logic in a film where 10+ people are connected ass-to-mouth.

Is it good? I don't think words like good or bad really apply here. I laughed a lot, but mostly at how much the film tried to shock. I get the feeling that Six responded to critics of the first film by upping the ante on every level - on gore, on horror, and on the ridiculousness of the premise. I'd like to think that Six's film is a take on the moral police who judged the first film without really seeing it, in that he pretty much made the film that they imagined the first one to be. It has no morality in it at all, and even though the film suggests that much of the action is taking place in Martin's head, which may provide an out for some in the audience, the imagery is pretty much what you'd expect - explosive bowels, gore (although again, here's more suggested than shown - it just shows a lot as well), clearly insane characters, and while the first film is antiseptic and even clean in its way, HUMAN CENTIPEDE 2 is about as filthy as it gets.

The first film, curiously, was asexual, but not this one, boy. There's rape, sexual mutilation, and suggested incest and pedophilia. Tom Six didn't hold back with this one, and the idea that Six suggested in the Q&A afterwards that the inevitable third film has something of a happy ending may be enough for "fans" of this series to give this a go. As a film, it's a bit exasperating, but as an experience, especially with that crowd, I couldn't deny that it was... fun? I'm glad I wasn't alone in witnessing it, at least.

Originally Posted by Rod Lott, OK Gazette

"THC II" begins with Martin (newcomer Laurence R. Harvey), a sweaty, bug-eyed, obese parking garage attendant in London, watching the tail end of the first "THC" on his laptop at work. When it's over, he watches it again. He's obsessed with it, to the point that he keeps a scrapbook of the film hidden underneath his bed, as if it were porn.

Martin doesn't utter a word. He doesn't need to. His story is so simple — a lifetime of abuse and ridicule — that he doesn't have to. The gist of "THC II" is that he begins to wonder about testing the movie's "100% Medically Accurate" advertising claim, so he seeks out some unwilling test subjects from the labyrinthian parking garage. Whereas the movie's Dr. Heiter had but three victims, Martin seeks a dirty dozen.

Whereas the first film was clean and antiseptic in look and design, this sequel is bleak and grimy. Whereas the first film was in color, this sequel is in black-and-white — except for one scene, à la the girl in the red dress from Steven Spielberg's "Schindler's List," but I leave it to your imagination. Whereas the first film showed next to nothing, this sequel shows everything. I do think it goes too far, and from a guy like me who has a strong tolerance for horror, that's saying something. (However, I should note that most of the audience members were more troubled by a pre-show short of a medical education film about the vasectomy procedure, step by scissoring step.)

I'm still processing "THC II." Six has made the darkest of black comedies, set in "Eraserhead"-type surroundings of societal misery, and then stitched on a Grand Guignol grand finale that had many unsure whether to laugh or recoil, so they did both. Harvey gives a remarkably brave performance; we alternately feel sorry for him and want to kill him. I think I liked the movie — it's arty, clever and unique — but so much of its third act crosses the line that the angel on my shoulder tells me I shouldn't. You'll never look at sandpaper the same way again.

Actually, the afterward appearance of Six, Harvey and four lovely centipede segments onstage took some of the sting out of it. There's a reason why they call it "special effects." Those butts sure looked real to me.

The highlight of the Q-and-A was when League asked Six about how he found Harvey, who resembles Alfred Hitchcock by way of Batman comics' The Penguin. Six said Harvey walked into auditions, "and then I asked him to rape a chair. He went at it full-force." And the rest is cinema history.

Originally Posted by Matthew Chmiel

IFC handed out t-shirts with the tagline with "The Deuce is Loose."