Thursday, 13 May 2010

"The Human Centipede: First Sequence" - Review

Oh, my God.



I have...


I've wanted to see this film for some sick reason for months. Since I first saw mention of it, since I first saw some promo images. I've been chasing the internet down to find some way to view it, and now I can... 'happily'... say I have done. And what did I think?


Human Centipede, the first of a proposed two-piece film series (ohhhh God), has claimed to be '100% Surgically Accurate'. Okay. That's... something. There was surgery, horrifying surgery, well researched surgery... and I don't think that this was a good film. No. I'm getting straight to the point. It was unnecessary. I don't understand it. It was porn. If you've read my other reviews, you know I detest the term "gore porn", but this... I don't... I just think it wasn't necessary. Who wants to see two women and an angry Japanese dude sown together arse-to-mouth. I don't know. I don't. It was such an aggravating film because it was so weak and flimsy. The main character... Doctor... Heller? Keller? See, I don't even know, it was so weak. The plot follows thusly: Doctor makes a Sweet Three Dog. Sweet Three Dog dies. Doctor wants Human Centipede. Kidnaps people. Makes Human Centipede. Stuff happens. Rectum blood, shitting in mouths, face pus, I just... seriously, I don't know why this was made.

The story telling was shit, and the characters flat. I don't understand why anyone would care about the female victims because they were so damn shrill and irritating. They feel entitled. They're ignorant to the country they're travelling through and don't understand that you can drive on a flat tire (it's just not advisable). There was one moment of character development, without context, that cost me a lot of my caring, right near the end when the film needed it the most. An ill-advised speech that came from nowhere that lead to a very selfish act that made me feel very betrayed by such a shoddy technique. I won't ruin it, because I think you should see it so you can share my anger, but really... why?

The main character of the Doctor was played by a German freak of nature that was actually scary, but I can't remember his name.

See? See my problem? You remember the horror of it. And it's not horrible horror it's visceral, bloody, sticky, I-don't-know-why-anyone-would-want-to-make-this-film horror. I've seen "Saw". I like the story around it. I don't care for the torture. I don't. But I like the story, so I can watch. This had no story. It was flat and flimsy, I can only remember the name of the writer/director (Tom Six?) because I want to punch him in the balls for being a sick freak, and it was not a good horror film. Unless...

...Right. Change of subject time. I hate films where the protagonists don't stand a chance. "Hostel" seems like that, and I don't like the "Hostel" films. People always need to be able to fight back. And this film... when you're sown arse-to-mouth what chance do you have? You're trapped. You're being tortured. And that's it. So if that scares you, then this works as a concept, but it was stupid, it was pantomime, and I could care less.

So, the characters were idiots. I didn't care. The concept is disgusting, and there were maybe one or two moments of strained "Oh. Ha."s that maybe alleviated the overall crushing depression of the film. "You'll be Part B!" caused a bit of a laugh out loud moment, but meh. The characters were idiots. I didn't care. Not going to buy it on DVD (unless it has deleted scenes and a commentary explaining why why oh God why).

So that's my opinion on that. Wow.


No comments:

Post a Comment