I don't know. Are you autistic by any chance?
@307,642 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
I don't get this site's obsession with autism. I think the only posters who are actually autistic are Leonidas and Hamfist.
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I think that she might have been inferring that I am the former, so it's understandable.
@307,644 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
I dont think that most people are.
@307,645 (A)
No, no normal person would have wanted to see that movie more than once.
@previous (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
So why assume autism? Seems rather extreme. Why do you say someone wouldn't want to watch it more than once?
@307,658 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
I'm not saying you do, but wouldn't you agree that this site throws that word around an awful lot? Why is that?
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It's the new internet umbrella term for "retarded". I don't think it's much more than that.
@307,660 (A)
it was horrible, and pointless.
@307,661 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
a lot of the chans do this.
@307,679 (kook !nH6RAuX8mo)
That still doesn't answer the autism accusation. Please explain.
Since this
@previous (A) wasn't answered, I'll continue on with the thread about this film.
I didn't make a review about it when I watched this film the first time, I'll go ahead and write one now since I'm bored. If anyone had any curiosity about the first film then they probably also watched this one... I doubt there were many newcomers who never saw the first film anyway. Anyway...
This film was purely for shock and awe purposes. I agree with kook's assessment that it was "horrible and pointless" but in the sense that it probably didn't need to be made. Horrible not for the sake of being ethically or morally antagonistic, but rather horrible in the sense that it was just very crudely and pathetically done. It is, for the lack of a better word, literally shit because a lot of themes in the film revolve around submission and scat that it would even make Matt Miller blush. Aside from that rather coarsely interested topic, it does a rather awful job at conveying this because it tries to take on the assumption that "more gore/more filth is better for shock and viewer purposes"... The reviews and director's/actors' discussions make no denial of that fact. It intends to appeal to the people who wanted to see more of the things they did not see in Human Centipede 1. That being said, it executes it into such a way that the scenes shot are done to such a nauseatingly predictable way that anyone who has a sense of taste for what shock/awe/gore entails, this is pretty obvious by design. The whole film spends its time setting up for that shock factor that it takes well over an hour... the really dirty stuff not happening until the last 30 minutes of the film.
Even when it climaxes with its badly predictable shock, it barely delivers with even the most un-inspired shock value fans of this kind of genre can think of. The lack of sympathy for the characters only makes it worse. The entire time I was watching the film's characters forcibly shit into each other's mouths because of injected laxative just made me feel worse for the actors who had to spend hours filming themselves being duct-taped to each others' assholes.
I could nit-pick a lot more stupid details but the fact remains that it was shot in color but changed to black and white for the sake of "being more scary" makes me believe that the director just did it so he could make the film seem more grainy and cut down on actual production costs. All of the blood/shit/gore depicted looks absolutely fake and unbelievable... for that it was just predictably bad (yeah yeah I know) and not the kind of stomach upsetting film people make it out to be. Just a bad disappointment of a sequel trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Anyway, that's that. I won't be doing that again any time soon. I thought I might have some bad dreams after watching again but even A Serbian Film seems much more brutal in comparison.
@previous (A)
What happened to the girl in the middle from the first one?
(Edited 34 seconds later.)