Entertainment For Lively Minds
Human Centipede
Posted by Iainso on 11 August 2010 - 10:22am.
Am I alone in thinking I could probably have got through life without knowing that a movie like "Human Centipede" ever existed.
I'm not one for censorship, me, but I really found the fact that this was reviewed in the magazine rather tasteless.
Do I now have to start hiding the mag along with my "Discerning Gentleman's Monthly"?
- More from Iainso.
- Login or register to post comments
-
As far as I can tell...
...films like this are made purely for the playground market, by which I mean they're for teenagers to boast that they've seen. Hostel's much the same.
I've no interest in seeing a film built around some idiot trying to work out how gross he can be.
Well that's...
... Tarantino's entire oeuvre dismissed, then!
not all
just everything since Jackie Brown ie when he went off the boil.
Let's be honest...
Reservoir Dogs was an average idea given great credence by a terrific cast, Pulp Fiction was an accidental masterpiece, and everything else has been lacklustre - trading off a reputation rather than a true talent.
Harsh!
I don't think Tarantino is just trying to shock, is he? I generally really enjoy his films: at least the dialogue is usually pretty entertaining, even when he's heavily stylising, like in Kill Bill (which for my money is nowhere near as bad as people make out).
No, I'm talking about the film-makers whose ONLY concern is to make teenagers snigger and text OMG! to each other.
Personally
I'm dying to see this.
Yep, I could have done without knowing about it
not as if there's a shortage of films to review.
The very thought of it
turns my stomach. I worry about this kind of thing more than is healthy.
Lighten up guys!
While the film is definitely one I don't want to see, suggesting that The Word shouldn't review it is a bit OTT. The article was really about a current trend in films (since it was a dual review with something else in a similar style) and that's what I'd expect the film section in the magazine to cover.
What next - no reviews of albums that contain sweary words? Books that contain sex scenes? Tipper Gore (surely a porn star name if I ever heard one) replacing Kate M on the reviews page?
Current trends
That's precisely it. This kind of schlock-horror B-Movie has a long tradition in underground film circles, but the fact that such projects are now getting mainstream distribution and funding is news, and worthy of brief examination. It doesn't mean the magazine is going to turn into Bizarre Surgical Procedure Monthly.
I hate that whole "Lighten up" business
if you ever suggest you don't like something your made out to be some sort of book burning prude. I genuinely could have gotten through life not knowing someone had made a film where someone is depicted having their mouth attached to someone elses' anus. It difficult to avoid these things sometime even if you would rather not.
Also part of these films etc becoming a "trend" is that every magazine website covers them even if it's to illustrate a trend!. Anyway must be going these books and films won't burn themselves.
My problem with it was...
...the fact that it was in as a "straight" review, rather than say, an article about the trend. At least in article form, it would have come across as something controversial (which it undoubtedly is) rather than mainstream, which it patently is not.
Also, if it had been an article on "gross out movies", I would probably have avoided reading it, as I have no interest in the genre.
Have to disagree
You're entitled to your opinion, but if a film is getting distributed in the UK, then it's a mainstream film and you should expect it to be covered by the mainstream media. It's only a review; no one's forcing you to watch it.
Some of us, believe it or not, quite enjoy gross, offensive films.
@Fraser
I don't agree this is a new phenomenon. It's more of a case that there's been something of a resurgence in the horror genre in the last few years, following a long period when not many films were getting made. Body horror is an entire genre and I could give several examples.
Careful now
This has reinforced something I already believed
Namely, that being the back end of a pantomime horse is a really shit job.
Must we throw
these arthropods at our pop kids?
At first, I was intrigued
thinking it might be quite surreal and H R Giger-ish. But then I found out it was inspired by a drunken gag about sewing the mouths of paeodophiles to the arses of fat truckers, and I became less intrigued. And then I read a description of a particular scene where... well, I won't go into detail, but you know the expression 'eat shit and die'? And I decided I'd rather stick to my Hammer box set.
On edit: I've just read Ebert's review (hilariously, he includes a diagram, and it features the line "You don't want to be part of the Human Centipede at all, but you most certainly don't want to be in the middle.") and now I'm intrigued again. Gah!
The sincerest form of flattery
The centipede is a majestic apex predator, bearing a multitude of legs, a lightly armoured segmented body, and venom glands which it uses to dispatch it’s prey (typically Lions and Great White Sharks).
The human centipede sports a paltry six pairs of limbs and is an ungainly creation, apparently horrified by its own existence, limited in flexibility and capable only of arthritic shuffling.
If this film has a message it’s: Be yourself; don’t let mad a German vivisectionist turn you into something you’re not. I’m reading it as an allegory for manufactured Euro-pop groups.
I'm a little baffled by the fuss
This is a film with a mainstream distribution deal and mainstream marketing; it's not attempting to aim solely at a tiny minority but at the mass teen audiences who propelled the likes of Saw and Hostel to the top of the box office.
Sure, this is a pretty unpleasant idea for a film, but that's kind of the point isn't it? This is bodyshock stuff, not a Merchant Ivory period piece. I don't really understand why someone might think it can only be mentioned in the magazine if it's part of a larger 'think piece' on this type of film. It's a slippery slope : should Word not review Kill Your Friends because of the graphic sex, drugs and violence; should Eminem's CDs not be reviewed because of his misogyny; should Stereophonics albums not be reviewed because they're unremittingly awful?
Just because you don't like the subject, doesn't mean it shouldn't be reviewed.
Having now read the review
I could certainly have done without knowing about it. I would prefer Word used its limited pages to expose art and culture which is interesting and enriching rather that a bad review of a disgusting sounding film. As The Word cannot review everything, someone made a decision to cover this rather than something else, and that someone got it wrong, IMHO. Weren't there any other films available to review? People who like that sort of thing presumably already know where to find it.
But Twango,
Just because a movie is bad, or morally questionable, doesn't mean you shouldn't write about it. I thought Ali's review was excellent and actually pretty much the only thing I needed to read about this daft-sounding movie.
Word has to cover the stuff that's being talked about as well catering to its little corner of the garden. We review a lot of records that we know the readers will never buy, but we think they might want to read about. A mag that never strayed from a narrow menu of approved topics would be rather dull, no?
But Andrew....
...Word is (mercifully) far from being a niche publication, and whilst I have no beef with the style, or prosaic quality of Ali's review, I do have an issue with the content of the movie, and to be quite blunt, I think the magazine is above it. There, I've said it, and I stand ready to be accused of prudish snobbery.
I agree
I'm not saying it shouldn't be reviewed, rather that it is a waste of valuable Word space. It sounds like the sort of thing they feature in "Bizzare", and fine, if that's what you want. But it is hardly an over breakfast topic, in fact the whole concept is so disgusting to most people you couldn't bring it up at all. I refuse to believe there weren't films more interesting to the Word demographic than that which you could have reviewed in its place. Please tell me we aren't going to be regularly featuring "torture porn"?
Torture Porn
You'll be delighted to hear that we have no plans to introduce a regular "torture porn" section. As for the "Word demographic", it likes many different things, and some of it likes this kind of film, as shown by this thread.
Normally Word magazine
is fairly sneery about modern horror films and it's been particularly sniffy about the torture porn cycle in the past, so I was pleased to see a piece that redressed the balance somewhat. I can honestly say that I'm more interested in the Human Centipede than I am in Richard Thompson.
I had to look up the movie on...
... Wikipedia to see what all the fuss was about. I don't think I want my lunch anymore.
Well if you were in the human centipede
you might not want lunch but its coming whether you likes it or not
I think theres a thread in this
you know.
If the Human Centipede got on a bus
would it have to pay for three tickets, or just the one?
This is one of the questions The Word's review made me ponder, so regardless of the rights and wrongs of reviewing that film, at least it made me think. And that's exactly the reaction I want to get from a magazine, so job done.