quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

I know this is a movie but it is, at best, a straight to dvd movie – christ the first one was on TV (on one of the rare channels that would show it) before it turned up on dvd. So I ask again, why is Empire talking about it? Maybe I am looking at this from personal perspective as I think the first two films are a, to quote your post, “disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie”. So don’t get it. The director himself has openly said he is making these movies just to shock and repulse the audience and the three star review of the second film, I’m sorry again, was bizarre.

I don’t take to critiquing Empire at all; but they constantly destroy directors like Uwe Boll at every opportunity (and rightly so as he is shit), but continue to give this piss pot of an excuse for a director space? Think Empire are a little better than that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

quote:

ORIGINAL: You have a point, and I do agree with you that this is an overly-long article for this film, but I think part of the reason they report it like this is because we all actually want to hear what he's saying. I will never watch any of the "THC" films (being a huge horror fan, that says a lot about them) but I'm always intrigued to read these articles just to see what Tom "Douchebag" Six is saying. It's usually something ridiculous, which gives me an excuse to rant

I don't understand this. How can you pass judgement on the Human Centipede films if you haven't seen them? The fact that you refuse to watch them doesn't say anything about them as films at all.

I quite enjoyed the first two, to be honest, and found them flawed but interesting, so I'm curious to see where a third one would go.

_____________________________

"I've been too honest with myself, I should have lied like everybody else"

My Top 101 Rock Songs - The first Audiophile list to actually get completed!

(in reply to Whistler)

quote:



ORIGINAL: Whistler

You have a point, and I do agree with you that this is an overly-long article for this film, but I think part of the reason they report it like this is because we all actually want to hear what he's saying. I will never watch any of the "THC" films (being a huge horror fan, that says a lot about them) but I'm always intrigued to read these articles just to see what Tom "Douchebag" Six is saying. It's usually something ridiculous, which gives me an excuse to rant

quote:


ORIGINAL: tommyjarvis

I don't understand this. How can you pass judgement on the Human Centipede films if you haven't seen them? The fact that you refuse to watch them doesn't say anything about them as films at all.

I quite enjoyed the first two, to be honest, and found them flawed but interesting, so I'm curious to see where a third one would go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

Because I've read about them and listened to what friends have said. It's rare that I simply won't watch a film based on what people have said, but these just sound horrible and as sickeningly violent as possible just for the sake of it. Am I right in thinking the second is about a guy who jacks off to the first movie with sandpaper around his dingdong? If that's the case, then I have every right not to watch it, and have every right to say it's sick and disgusting. I don't judge you for liking them at all, I'm simply saying I don't want to go near them. To hear Six say the third one will make the second "look like a Disney movie" just proves that he's doing it to spite the BBFC for forcing him to cut the second one, which in turn proves him to be not a filmmaker but a petty wannabe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

Because I've read about them and listened to what friends have said. It's rare that I simply won't watch a film based on what people have said, but these just sound horrible and as sickeningly violent as possible just for the sake of it. Am I right in thinking the second is about a guy who jacks off to the first movie with sandpaper around his dingdong? If that's the case, then I have every right not to watch it, and have every right to say it's sick and disgusting. I don't judge you for liking them at all, I'm simply saying I don't want to go near them. To hear Six say the third one will make the second "look like a Disney movie" just proves that he's doing it to spite the BBFC for forcing him to cut the second one, which in turn proves him to be not a filmmaker but a petty wannabe.

Right so you've never seen the films but you've been told by other people that they're terrible so basically that's formed the basis of your opinion?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

Because I've read about them and listened to what friends have said. It's rare that I simply won't watch a film based on what people have said, but these just sound horrible and as sickeningly violent as possible just for the sake of it. Am I right in thinking the second is about a guy who jacks off to the first movie with sandpaper around his dingdong? If that's the case, then I have every right not to watch it, and have every right to say it's sick and disgusting. I don't judge you for liking them at all, I'm simply saying I don't want to go near them. To hear Six say the third one will make the second "look like a Disney movie" just proves that he's doing it to spite the BBFC for forcing him to cut the second one, which in turn proves him to be not a filmmaker but a petty wannabe.

Right so you've never seen the films but you've been told by other people that they're terrible so basically that's formed the basis of your opinion?

It's formed the basis of my decision: a decision not to watch them because of what I've read and heard about them. They sound grotesque, and I'm almost certain that I won't like them if I do watch them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

I know this is a movie but it is, at best, a straight to dvd movie – christ the first one was on TV (on one of the rare channels that would show it) before it turned up on dvd. So I ask again, why is Empire talking about it? Maybe I am looking at this from personal perspective as I think the first two films are a, to quote your post, “disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie”. So don’t get it. The director himself has openly said he is making these movies just to shock and repulse the audience and the three star review of the second film, I’m sorry again, was bizarre.

I don’t take to critiquing Empire at all; but they constantly destroy directors like Uwe Boll at every opportunity (and rightly so as he is shit), but continue to give this piss pot of an excuse for a director space? Think Empire are a little better than that!

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

I know this is a movie but it is, at best, a straight to dvd movie – christ the first one was on TV (on one of the rare channels that would show it) before it turned up on dvd. So I ask again, why is Empire talking about it? Maybe I am looking at this from personal perspective as I think the first two films are a, to quote your post, “disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie”. So don’t get it. The director himself has openly said he is making these movies just to shock and repulse the audience and the three star review of the second film, I’m sorry again, was bizarre.

I don’t take to critiquing Empire at all; but they constantly destroy directors like Uwe Boll at every opportunity (and rightly so as he is shit), but continue to give this piss pot of an excuse for a director space? Think Empire are a little better than that!

The first two films got theatrical releases, lots of publicity, and decent-ish reviews in Empire and elsewhere. You can say all that about very few (if any?) Uwe Boll films so it stands to reason that because of the above factors this story is going to be more newsworthy. I can never understand why people on the internet find it so hard to grasp the simple fact that some people like stuff they don't. Though I understand Whistler's comments even less - saying a director whose work you've actually seen shouldn't be allowed to make films would be bad enough, but to have such a vociferous opinion ('hate'? Really?) about a couple of movies you haven't seen but simply don't like the look of is frankly bizarre.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

I know this is a movie but it is, at best, a straight to dvd movie – christ the first one was on TV (on one of the rare channels that would show it) before it turned up on dvd. So I ask again, why is Empire talking about it? Maybe I am looking at this from personal perspective as I think the first two films are a, to quote your post, “disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie”. So don’t get it. The director himself has openly said he is making these movies just to shock and repulse the audience and the three star review of the second film, I’m sorry again, was bizarre.

I don’t take to critiquing Empire at all; but they constantly destroy directors like Uwe Boll at every opportunity (and rightly so as he is shit), but continue to give this piss pot of an excuse for a director space? Think Empire are a little better than that!

The first two films got theatrical releases, lots of publicity, and decent-ish reviews in Empire and elsewhere. You can say all that about very few (if any?) Uwe Boll films so it stands to reason that because of the above factors this story is going to be more newsworthy. I can never understand why people on the internet find it so hard to grasp the simple fact that some people like stuff they don't. Though I understand Whistler's comments even less - saying a director whose work you've actually seen shouldn't be allowed to make films would be bad enough, but to have such a vociferous opinion ('hate'? Really?) about a couple of movies you haven't seen but simply don't like the look of is frankly bizarre.

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

I know this is a movie but it is, at best, a straight to dvd movie – christ the first one was on TV (on one of the rare channels that would show it) before it turned up on dvd. So I ask again, why is Empire talking about it? Maybe I am looking at this from personal perspective as I think the first two films are a, to quote your post, “disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie”. So don’t get it. The director himself has openly said he is making these movies just to shock and repulse the audience and the three star review of the second film, I’m sorry again, was bizarre.

I don’t take to critiquing Empire at all; but they constantly destroy directors like Uwe Boll at every opportunity (and rightly so as he is shit), but continue to give this piss pot of an excuse for a director space? Think Empire are a little better than that!

The first two films got theatrical releases, lots of publicity, and decent-ish reviews in Empire and elsewhere. You can say all that about very few (if any?) Uwe Boll films so it stands to reason that because of the above factors this story is going to be more newsworthy. I can never understand why people on the internet find it so hard to grasp the simple fact that some people like stuff they don't. Though I understand Whistler's comments even less - saying a director whose work you've actually seen shouldn't be allowed to make films would be bad enough, but to have such a vociferous opinion ('hate'? Really?) about a couple of movies you haven't seen but simply don't like the look of is frankly bizarre.

Actually I would point out that the first film was straight to TV and DVD and never made it to the cinema; the second was banned (although was later released with cuts) and cinema's refused to show it. At no point have I said that other people cannot like stuff I don't; I just struggle to understand why Empire would give any credence to a film that has a scene in it where a man wraps his penis in barbed wire and rapes someone. Am I the only one that finds that disgusting and in bad taste?! Additionally finds it appalling that the guy who wrote and directed it openly says he did it to 'see if it would get banned' and, in one interview I read, thought that it was 'funny'.

I'm all for pushing the boundaries of cinema and I'm no Daily Mail reader but when the fuck did that become entertainment?? As for the above post it also "doesn't surprise me most people didn't get the humor and the satire of the sequel" because I am a father and I don't want to raise my two children in a world where rape is amusing. This is not art, the director openly says he is just trying to disgust people; what worries me most is that people seem to actually defend this stuff like he is making some sort of statement?! Think if anything it makes a statement about our current society where shit like this is actually given the time of day.

AND before anyone asks I have seen both films - including the un-cut second film so I can actually comment on these from a personal point of view.

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler

"Not to worry, principle photography starts this year" - does he really think anyone is worrying that this inevitably disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie won't be made? Does he really think anyone is waiting in anticipation for it? He's got severe delusions if he does. I just hate him, he shouldn't be allowed to make films.

As for why Empire are reporting this story, well, it's because they're a movie magazine and this is a movie.

I know this is a movie but it is, at best, a straight to dvd movie – christ the first one was on TV (on one of the rare channels that would show it) before it turned up on dvd. So I ask again, why is Empire talking about it? Maybe I am looking at this from personal perspective as I think the first two films are a, to quote your post, “disgusting, vile, cynical, stupidly violent mess of a movie”. So don’t get it. The director himself has openly said he is making these movies just to shock and repulse the audience and the three star review of the second film, I’m sorry again, was bizarre.

I don’t take to critiquing Empire at all; but they constantly destroy directors like Uwe Boll at every opportunity (and rightly so as he is shit), but continue to give this piss pot of an excuse for a director space? Think Empire are a little better than that!

The first two films got theatrical releases, lots of publicity, and decent-ish reviews in Empire and elsewhere. You can say all that about very few (if any?) Uwe Boll films so it stands to reason that because of the above factors this story is going to be more newsworthy. I can never understand why people on the internet find it so hard to grasp the simple fact that some people like stuff they don't. Though I understand Whistler's comments even less - saying a director whose work you've actually seen shouldn't be allowed to make films would be bad enough, but to have such a vociferous opinion ('hate'? Really?) about a couple of movies you haven't seen but simply don't like the look of is frankly bizarre.

Actually I would point out that the first film was straight to TV and DVD and never made it to the cinema; the second was banned (although was later released with cuts) and cinema's refused to show it. At no point have I said that other people cannot like stuff I don't; I just struggle to understand why Empire would give any credence to a film that has a scene in it where a man wraps his penis in barbed wire and rapes someone. Am I the only one that finds that disgusting and in bad taste?! Additionally finds it appalling that the guy who wrote and directed it openly says he did it to 'see if it would get banned' and, in one interview I read, thought that it was 'funny'.

I'm all for pushing the boundaries of cinema and I'm no Daily Mail reader but when the fuck did that become entertainment?? As for the above post it also "doesn't surprise me most people didn't get the humor and the satire of the sequel" because I am a father and I don't want to raise my two children in a world where rape is amusing. This is not art, the director openly says he is just trying to disgust people; what worries me most is that people seem to actually defend this stuff like he is making some sort of statement?! Think if anything it makes a statement about our current society where shit like this is actually given the time of day.

AND before anyone asks I have seen both films - including the un-cut second film so I can actually comment on these from a personal point of view.

Because several writers at Empire liked both films and didn't have a problem with a movie featuring such a scene. And even if they did, it's a news story about a controversial film that most movie fans have heard of - of course they're gonna report it.
Oh and it's not really relevent (my point was that in comparison to Uwe Boll's films, The Human Centipede had a much higher profile) but the first one did get a theatrical release.

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

How can anyone 'like' a film like this?

quote:

Let alone find it ammusing or humerous

quote:

is kind of the point I'm trying to make. You are missing my point...the only reason Uwe Boll films have a lower profile is that Empire don't give them the time of day;

quote:

yet give The Human Centipede. Having looked into this you are correct though, The Human Centipede was given a UK cinema release on the 20th August but most cinema's refused to show it and subsequently was released on DVD less than two months later.

quote:

Interestingly Empire described the first film as "an extremely repulsive concept". Well quite. Personally I prefer the view of Robert Edbert's review of the first film:

"I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."

quote:

I would never tell someone what they can and cannot like;

quote:

but as I said in my previous posts I do not understand why Empire would lower and debase themselves by putting information about these films as 'news'.

quote:

With any luck, sooner or later Tom Six will disappear into obscurity.

quote:

Every comment he makes seems to be lapped up by people and for some reason, god knows why (and what a shocking indictment of the level of people's tastes these days)

quote:

people seem to be hailing him as some sort of cult visionary

quote:

when, by even his admission, he finds his films funny and is openly just trying to shock and disgust people?!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

quote:

ORIGINAL: waltham1979

How can anyone 'like' a film like this?

Quite easily in fact.

quote:

Let alone find it ammusing or humerous

I find both films amusing and humorous, especially the sequel, its mental.

quote:

is kind of the point I'm trying to make. You are missing my point...the only reason Uwe Boll films have a lower profile is that Empire don't give them the time of day;

No its because Uwe Boll films are beyond dreadful, and as an Empire reader for nearly 10 years I can tell you that Empire have given plenty of space to him over the years, they even gave him a 4 page feature about 5 years ago.

quote:

yet give The Human Centipede. Having looked into this you are correct though, The Human Centipede was given a UK cinema release on the 20th August but most cinema's refused to show it and subsequently was released on DVD less than two months later.

It was never going to get a big release though, due to it being a small budget shocker with a limited audience (that eventually grew due to the notoriety).

quote:

Interestingly Empire described the first film as "an extremely repulsive concept". Well quite. Personally I prefer the view of Robert Edbert's review of the first film:

"I am required to award stars to movies I review. This time, I refuse to do it. The star rating system is unsuited to this film. Is the movie good? Is it bad? Does it matter? It is what it is and occupies a world where the stars don't shine."

Who gives a toss what that old fart says. Ebert has slated many decent films over the years.

quote:

I would never tell someone what they can and cannot like;

You kind of are though.

quote:

but as I said in my previous posts I do not understand why Empire would lower and debase themselves by putting information about these films as 'news'.

Why don't you write an email to Empire to complain?

quote:

With any luck, sooner or later Tom Six will disappear into obscurity.

Who knows, the movie business is fickle.

quote:

Every comment he makes seems to be lapped up by people and for some reason, god knows why (and what a shocking indictment of the level of people's tastes these days)

You're right, people shouldn't pay any attention to what a director of a film has to say about his new film on a film website.

quote:

people seem to be hailing him as some sort of cult visionary

Who?

quote:

when, by even his admission, he finds his films funny and is openly just trying to shock and disgust people?!

Exactly, you've just discovered the secret to the Human Centipede films, congratulations.