Customer Reviews: The Human Centipede 2: Full Sequence
Amazon Vehicles Editors' Picks Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Lindsey Stirling Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Totes Summer-Event-Garden Amazon Cash Back Offer power_s3 power_s3 power_s3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports STEM

Format: DVD|Change
Price:$19.97+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 118 reviews(1 star). Show all reviews
VINE VOICEon May 2, 2016
My first thought when gearing about these movies was that it must be about some mad scientist who wants to genetically engineer a human centipede. Never in a million years would I have imagined the sick depravity that this movie was actually about. Only a very disturbed person could have came come up with such is a disgusting premise for a movie. And even more sick is that is was made into a movie, actors actually wanted to be in it, and people actually watch it. The desensitization and demoralization of humanity continues to reach an all time high.

I unfortunately saw this movie being discussed on social media and decided to look it up online. As I watched the clip, my brain almost couldn't comprehend what I was watching. I felt a horrible feeling of disgust and felt sick to my stomach. I lost my appetite for the rest of the day and felt like I had been traumatized. The images of this movie will now be in my head forever. And to think that this movie is readily available streaming online for pretty much anyone to see. This movie contains scenes of child abuse, child rape, rape with a barb wire, a baby's head being smashed in, teeth being knocked out, oh and just people having diarrhea in each other's mouths with no escape. This movie should have never been made. If you have even a little tiny bit of decency or empathy for other human beings this movie will make you feel sick. I have seen a lot of violent horror movies, and although they are violent they have an actual point. There is a protagonist that overtakes the bad guy, or there is some sort of redeeming point to the movie. They also don't generally involve people being forced to eat feces. This movie has no purpose other than to shock and disgust, and dare I say even desensitize people to these disgusting acts.I can only imagine that Tom Six has some serious issues and a lack of empathy. He is probably proud of people's disgust with this movie, and that says it all.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 23, 2014
I bought this thinking it would be an improvement on the original Human Centipede. It is not. The original HC was almost believable, and that is what made it fun. This film is not believable. In fact, it's hard to believe a professional director actually made it! I think it was an attempt to make a quick buck on folks like me, who thought it would be well done. It is not.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 18, 2011
The first movie was bad enough, but it was actually tasteful compared to this dreck. The main character is a short, fat, creepy security guard. The actor playing that role was top-notch in his depiction of the character, but in this movie, I am not sure if that is actually a good thing, because now people will associate him with this film and I don't know how that might affect his career.

The film is shot in black and white. I suppose Mr. Six wanted to add an artsy feel to it, but it didn't work. This is not art, period. The black and white does have one advantage - blood is now black, so the monochromatic color does take a bit of edge off the gore that is liberally applied through the film.

Is this film a direct sequel to the Human Centipede? Actually no - the main character is a huge fanboy of the film and is shown watching it, and he has a scrapbook as well, so the Human Centipede 1 is a film within the film of the second one. Actually, that makes more sense than if the Human Centipede 1 were a real occurrence within the sequel. Ashlyn Yennie comes back in this film as an actress lured by the prospect of another job.

What follows is nothing short of disgusting, even with the black and white. The human suffering depicted is appalling. Someone in pain doesn't make a movie bad, but it needs to be balanced with other stuff. There is no balancing force here, and the ending was one of the most cliched ones I've ever seen.

Mind you, I do enjoy horror movies. I've seen some pretty great ones, so I don't hate this movie just because it's horror. Keep in mind that before Mr. Six made the first movie, he was not forthcoming with his investors as to what the movie would entail, and this tells you that on at least one level, Mr. Six knew that what he was doing was wrong and that investors would back out if they knew the full story. That in itself is a big warning sign.

There's also an adage - 'just because you can doesn't mean you should'. This movie fits that saying perfectly.

The film is disgusting. The only thing going for it is its shock value - it offers zero artistic merit whatsoever. I cannot help but wonder what filmmakers of the 30's-50's (who made films like 'It's a Wonderful Life' or these Shirley Temple films) would think of such films like the Human Centipede or its sequel. It's a sad day when garbage like this passes for entertainment, and Britain was right to refuse to give it a rating, too bad they went back on their decision because even with the few minutes cut off to qualify for a rating, this movie is still dreck.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on March 2, 2012
I usually don't rate movies at all that I would rate one star (not even that much if I could in this case). They don't deserve the attention. But this one did for the following reason. I read that part of the director's inspiration for the film was Pasolini's movie "Salo, 120 days of Sodom". The only thing that shocks more than the film is that anyone could think that this `product' has any artistic merit or is in any way comparable to Pasolini's work.

There is no artistic merit in either Centipede film. It has no value as any kind of social commentary whatsoever. It is pure and simple torture, and the emphasizing of the helplessness of the victims. The connection between the suffering individuals is not a glimpse of humanity, it just emphasizes the helplessness in order to magnify the suffering. I'm sure someone out there will try to call it art, but remember the guy who defecated in a jar and put it up as an art exhibit? Remember Piss Christ? These are things people do because creating real art is hard work, and they've no idea how to create art. A film like this is an indication of the sterility and lack of ideas in the culture we've created.

The doctor in the first Centipede was obviously a sociopath. The man in this film is probably sociopathic and psychotic. The "I've been bullied so I'm going to make you suffer" motif doesn't lend anything to the film at all. I'm not recommending "I Spit on Your Grave", but at least the character development lent some believability to the revenge-torture in that film. But what also strikes the audience in that film is the emptiness of the revenge. You don't even get those feelings here. It's like fishing people off the street and ripping them to shreds. All it has going is the shock value. Once it wears off, you wish you hadn't watched this at all. Perhaps the idea of being shocked can be likened to the fact that heightened arousal leads us often to sleep with someone we normally wouldn't touch, and getting the feeling after that you'll never be able to wash the taste out of your mouth. We want to be shocked, so we watch it.

There's not enough character development for any real connections to be made with the people involved. It's just a pure torture flick that is attempting to make money off of the pure depiction of suffering with a gimmick. So, don't expect any character development or any kind of real human interaction in this film. It's pure torture. The assailant doesn't speak a line in the film.

Don't pay money for this film; I don't recommend watching it at all. Spare yourself.
22 comments| 22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 13, 2013
At least the 1st one was original. It had a "cult classic" shock value to it. This one was just pure disgusting and sick. It was like a internet snuff film.

Spoilers (As if it really matters)
One of the most sickest things about the film had nothing to do with the visuals. The voices in the background from the past.... An INFANT'S cries then a older man saying "don't cry it only makes daddy's w*llie harder." I almost turned the film off when I 1st heard that. It was so unnecessarily sick. Most of the time in the snuff films disguised as movies children are left alone. But not here, at the end we even get to see a newborn's head smashed in.

Spoilers Over:
I feel like taking a shower. Never in my life I have seen anything like this, and I love horror movies.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 12, 2014
This movie should be burned and forgotten. Expected it to be graphic like the first of the series but this one went over the boundries of a horror flick to a low budget derranged porno flick. As repulsive as the human centipede was, at least it had a better storyline, visuals and it didnt cross the line with rape and sexual torture as the second movie did. Dont buy this crap.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 14, 2013
Curiosity killed the cat but in this film we take sick to a new level. I started watching this and decided about 10 minutes in to do some research since I did not see the first one. After research I decided this was not a film for me. I would not recommend this to anyone. By the way they are making a third one, why oh why?
0Comment| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on October 22, 2012
I love horror films. This is not a horror film.
The only way I can really describe it is if they were to give a pad of paper and pen to John Wayne Gacy and told him to write a story line for a film. This is not entertainment for the average person who enjoys a horror film. This (In my opinion) is for people who may become turned on by the sight of human suffering. Though it's not real, it really doesn't matter. It's the mind that thought this up that is more frightening. The fact that a film company would even allow a budget to produce this. This pushes the envelope so far into the realm of bad taste that it actually reaches a point of being pure evil.
It's disgusting, disturbing, and just flat out wrong on every level. Try to avoid this. You have been warned.
0Comment| 18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
VINE VOICEon June 18, 2012
Let's go over the standard arguments.

1. You know what this movie is about. It's about a maniac attaching people in a line from mouth to rear. A large portion of the world would give that sentence zero stars, let alone choose to watch and review a movie about it. Therefore, if you have a moral or just biological aversion to that sort of thing, quit reading these reviews and move on. It's not fair to give a movie zero stars just because you find the premise repellant.

2. It's not supposed to be art. Six does a competent directing job, and he's adept at creating suspense and unease. The main character, Martin, is so ably played by newcomer Laurence Harvey that it seems odd to believe the actor didn't inspire the script. The black and white and the focus of the story contrast cleverly with the first film, which was downright clinical compared to this. The point (part of it) seems to be that the depravity experienced by the victims is nothing compared to that of the villain. But all of this is really just a footnote to the main point, which is graphic torture, gore, and people eating a lot of "down there desserts." This is hammered home by the inclusion of only one color to the film's palette, and it ain't turquoise. The point being, you can't give the film zero stars just because it is artless, pointless, and base if that's what it aspires to be. You can't complain that your hot dog doesn't taste enough like a steak.

3. Is it done well? Ah. The most important question. You can argue story, characters, setting and dialogue all you want, but if a movie doesn't want to have those things, or if it seeks to be a cartoon of them, then so be it. You judge a film by its own goals, not your preferences. And in that respect, this film fails.

You heard me.

Look. This is all fake. We all know that. The power of a film -- good or bad -- is to draw you into its world so firmly and deeply that, even if you loathe what you are seeing, you still invest part of yourself into the reality. It's called suspension of disbelief, and gory movies have used the natural human aversion for pain as a way to skip the tough work that usually a plot or characters do to slowly pull a viewer in and hold them fast to the film. You see something graphic, and an instinctive part of you is jolted into that reality, happily or not-so. As tech has improved, films have found more and more envelopes to push, sometimes for no other reason than to say, "Look at how convincing this is!"

This film is not convincing. The gore is so overboard, that it becomes a parody of itself. The movie seems to hint that it is supposed to be a comedy. There is more than one obvious ploy for humor as Martin interacts (silently) with his psychotic mother, ludicrously lecherous psychiatrist, malicious and thick-necked upstairs neighbor, a whole host of drunk, obnoxious, or unfortunate people with cars, and even an actress from the first film who is lured into his clutches because she thinks he's involved with a Quentin Tarantino film. Ha ha ha ha ha! Hilarious! Now let's kill them all!

Wait a minute. The horror wave of exploitative torture isn't funny, nor is it meant to be. Or maybe I didn't get a memo or something. At any rate, say what you will about the film just being goofy or playing tongue-in-cheek or just being a lampoon of the first, this kind of dismissiveness is one kind too many in a film where the thrills are meant to be a more visceral kind of voyeurism. As a result, you cannot help but be pulled out of the reality of the film and into a world where people who are wide awake, of above average build, and bound by a single strip of duct tape politely lie almost perfectly still while someone knocks out their teeth or cuts up their knees. They wriggle and grimace and scream to show you it hurts, of course, but they don't appear to have enough energy to, say, turn over or thrash violently or even slip their hands out of the loose and blood-slicked tape.

That's just one example. I could listen dozens and dozens of more where the scene, moment, or very idea is so outlandish that it's very ludicrousness robs it of any power it could have. As a result, I spent most of the movie wondering how each special effect was achieved, or how these actors felt midway through filming, or what the conversations were like in between takes. And please don't think I'm saying this to say how tough I am. There were at least two moments where I was pulled into the film's sickness, where it was looking for an effect and it pulled it off. Overall, however, the movie was so excessive that it became redundant and stupid, and both of those things are bad no matter WHAT kind of film you're trying to make.

But does that mean I get to give it zero stars? Maybe the film WANTED to be an over-the-top parody, a farce, a redundant, relentless, uninspired hate letter to its audience. Even if this were true, I finally chose to give the film this website's lowest rating because...


...the whole thing is just a dream. Yup! It was all in Martin's head. I say boo and hiss to that. Sorry, movie. The only film that I will ever accept that ending for is The Wizard of Oz. It gets a pass because I like the Lollipop Guild. Beyond that, "it was all a dream" is a conceit that robs every film of its very purpose. If you don't believe me, try to think of the last time you actually were glad to hear someone say, "You gotta hear about this dream I had!" If you're not in the dream, you don't care, and I feel the same about stories found in books, plays, TV shows and films. "It was all a dream" is one of fiction's lamest cop outs, and it is used here to lazily explain every single one of the film's plot holes as the consequence of being in the head of a lunatic.

Ultimately, the film is insulting but not in the gut-wrenching way it wants to be, which means this movie fails to achieve even its own meager goal. Zero stars.
0Comment| 11 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 29, 2014
I am usually entertained by horror films....Art films....Horror (slash) Art films...*no pun intended. But this film has NO redeeming quality's.....AT ALL. It would need to have ANY level of quality, to have (at a minimum), any redeeming quality. It is an insult to the film industry, to call this a film. I'd rather watch toenail FUNGUS spread, than watch this "movie" ever again.

I would NEVER recommend this to ANYONE... EVER!
Don't watch this movie.... Don't ask anyone to watch this movie.... Don't THINK about watching this movie..... Don't ask anyone IF they have watched this movie..... Don't let your pets view this movie...... Don't watch it under threat (or if asked nicely)..... Don't watch it by accident..... on purpose....... as a joke..... Never watch this film EVER!!!!!.... Just don't....don't do it.

Eraserhead - disturbing...but WAY better than this. Iron Man (The Japanese horror version) ...gross...but WAY better than this.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Need customer service? Click here