It’s been a long time since a movie impacted people sight unseen the way that Human Centipede has. We’re a jaded culture, but Tom Six’s vision of a mad scientist sewing people together ass to mouth has hit a chord of deep disgust and revulsion. The best part, though? It’s a pretty good movie, and even in his cowardly unstarred review, Roger Ebert admits as much. This isn’t some Saw bullshit – Tom Six has made a good, creepy and darkly humorous film.
Now Mondotees has a cool new poster for the film, which is available in limited quantities right now. I like the IFC official poster, but Mondotees wins because it focuses on Dieter Laser, who plays the mad scientist. Love this!
14 comments
You never go ass to mouth.
That's pretty badass. I think I actually like it better than the IFC poster. The little paper-doll thing puts it over the top.
It is hilarious how obsessed the internet "journalists" are with Ebert and hang on ever word he says while claiming him to be "out of touch". Losers.
How much are you guys paid to promote this film? After seeing a few scenes from this… I'll pass.
If you read Ebert's review, he explains why he gave no stars. You pouting and calling him 'cowardly' for it is on par with the Avatards calling you fat for hating on their movie.
How is not giving the film a star rating "cowardly"? Are you defensive that your opinion about the movie isn't being validated?
Ebert has long said that he hates the star rating system. And I think with a film like this he just feels flabbergasted at the very notion of awarding stars to such a thing. It would be like awarding stars to a kick in the testicles. Overall, I think the review is complimentary in a way. He says "no horror film I've seen inflicts more terrible things on its victims than 'The Human Centipede.'" I think he implicates that even this sick piece of work was made with precision and craft. It would have to be, to elicit such a reaction. Things tend to be less offensive when they're crudely made. "And yet within Six, there stirs the soul of a dark artist. He treats his material with utter seriousness." Another bit of praise. Devin, Ebert has a larger responsibility to his readership than you. I mean if he gives it 3-4 stars then maybe all the fragile grandmothers and whatnot that trust him blindly will go see this and have strokes. The same grandmothers are not reading CHUD. By removing the stars he's placing the emphasis on his words, which quite clearly warn against going to see this thing if what's described sounds too gross. My own take on the film is closer to his review than yours, and I do feel the star system is useless for a movie like this. It's utterly effective at what it's trying to do, but it's not something I want on DVD or Blu Ray to watch over and over with the rest of my favorites. Horror is often simply about a singular viewing experience. "I have long attempted to take a generic approach. In other words, is a film true to its genre and does it deliver what its audiences presumably expect? “The Human Centipede” scores high on this scale. It is depraved and disgusting enough to satisfy the most demanding midnight movie fan. And it's not simply an exploitation film." Cowardly? You need to start conducting yourself with a bit more class, Devin. Let Harry Knowles' juvenile defense of KICK ASS (Roger Ebert is dead……. wrong about KICK ASS) serve as a reminder to the internet critic community not to be total fucking ass-hats.
Yeah, what Gwai Lo said!
Yeah, that Ebert. Such a coward. He should award scores like "FUCK YOU OUT OF TEN". That's what big tough brave internet critics do.
Did you seriously use 'cowardly' to describe Ebert's review? What the fuck is wrong with you, Devin? The next time you think of describing what you do for a living as journalism or consider calling yourself a journalist – reread what you you wrote here today. You will never be a journalist… hell, you're barely even a film critic, but you sure as hell are an opinionated blogger, yup a fucking blogger. If you ever want to be taken seriously and given equal standing with the print media you need to cut this amateurish shit out.
When I read most of the comments above they just come out as "I'm jealous"
For a long time, I've been saying that Devin is among the better, more insightful internet film writers. Lately he's really been going out of his way to make a fool out of me.
I've fast-forwarded through this "film" (specifically, camcorder footage shot in someone's backyard, rather than a film), looking for those supposed "horrors" and "breaking the rules" – and it only bored me. Very dull, another example of a somewhat original concept (the "centipede") and really weak execution.
I admire Ebert for having done something he's loved for as long as he has, and even after all of his health issues, but I have never, EVER enjoyed reading his reviews. He freely gives away major plot points and endings, and sometimes I wonder if he was watching the same movie that I was. I guess what I'm trying to say is, good luck with the health issues robert, but I will never be reading anything you write, nor will I care when movie sites try to slight you. (especially movie sites where the verification system (4 tries) actively tries to shut out comments. That's the real FUCK YOU OUT OF TEN)
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.