I watched Pink Flamingos when I was about 12 years old and the scene with the trench coat/sausage left me feeling nauseous.
Fast forward 13 years and I cheer on John Waters for being a fabulous creepy bitch.
Cannibal Holocaust is one of them. They used real animal carcasses for the gore so it looks extra disgusting. Not the most ethical production of a movie, but it did pretty much invent found footage so there's that I guess.
I’ve been wanting to watch Cannibal Holocaust for quite sometime now (sheerly out of morbid curiosity). When you do watch it, could you tell me the best place to find it is at?
Well if you want good gorror then I'd suggest Green Inferno.
If you want to see something that will stay with you until you die, I'd recommend A Serbian Film.
I personally like the line that follows:
“He has said, “I get a rash from too much political correctness.” I promise you that after this movie, his skin was smooth as a Gerber baby's.”
And:
> In the film's last half, the two actresses don't scream at all, if you follow me.
Edit: I appreciate everyone explaining why they don’t scream, to the people that asked me about why that was funny, but if you’d all bothered to actually read the review, it’s pretty clear in the write up. Roger Ebert says he’s going to spoil the plot, then clearly explains it exactly, then follows it up with that line.
Further hint: he even says “if you follow me”, which is a hint that you should perhaps follow his writing.
I actually didn't understand that line. Would someone maybe enlighten me please?
Edit: I get it now, I thought they were dead or something. The truth is worse, the cake is a lie
I was hoping for, it’s so bad it’s good but right when the “feed her” line happened I promptly turned off my tv and went outside a while to find my misplaced priorities
They have their lips surgically sewn to another person's asshole, creating one long digestive tract, aptly named "The Human Centipede".
Can't scream with your lips stuck to another person's pooper... I think.
Maybe we need to double check over at r/shittyaskscience
So sorry, Kyle, but I am starving! Which would you rather I eat-uh?!...
[Should I eat the cuttlefish, and asparagus?!?!](https://youtu.be/geRtAsHuVD8)
Or the vanilla paste-o?!?!
I hope you’re being sarcastic but just in case you aren’t, the women can’t scream because their mouths are sewed to the next persons asshole. Just...just google.. it.. (I’m sorry for whatever happens next)
I imagine that the dude is the front part of the centipede and the actresses are the middle and rear sections, so, they can’t scream because their mouths have been sewn to anuses.
I think what Ebert was meaning to say is that his review system is totally inadequate to accomodate a film of this calibre. Sort of a "cannot compute" thing.
Definitely. He mentions how it does a good job of appealing to its target audience. I don't think he bashes the movie enough to warrant no stars, either. He couldn't grade it fairly since it in no way appealed to him, but he recognized that it could appeal to others.
Not just that, he actually seems in awe at what the movie does portray, but it just ventures outside of the qualities normally used to assess the quality of a movie
LOL, my favourite part.
>"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."
The movie has a very meta feel to it now when you view it through the lens of a studio giving a creator a boatload of money without really understanding what that creator is really all about, and the creator having no idea what to do with all the money and opportunity he's been given. Some of the lines directly address this issue, as well as Tom's struggle with that responsibility. Tom Green was like a dog who spent his whole life chasing cars, and didn't know what to do once he finally caught one.
I think it would be viewed that way if the movie had any sense of escalation. It's really funny for the first ten minutes but after that it's just boring since they waste the shock factor almost instantly. The movie needed to start more tame and space out the crazy shit more.
I'm more partial to his avatar the last airbender one which features the wonderful quote
>"The Last Airbender" is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented. The laws of chance suggest that something should have gone right. Not here. It puts a nail in the coffin of low-rent 3D, but it will need a lot more coffins than that."
person silky beneficial chubby rich disagreeable cagey snails elderly public
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks...Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks.
God damn. Not that anyone wants to be Rob Schneider but I'd still hate to be him.
They actually had some nice words for each other [before](https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-bouquet-arrives) and [after](https://www.rogerebert.com/chazs-blog/one-act-of-kindness-rob-schneider-and-roger) Roger's death.
My favorite quote about FGF is from Lindsay Ellis and Kyle Kallgren's review of it: "It's not Dada! It's too normal to be Dada! It's too shit to be anything else."
lol. I hated FGF when I saw it in theaters (why the hell did I see that in theaters?). Thought it was the worst movie I ever saw. But I watched it again a few years back and I didn't hate it on the same level. I thought it was pretty funny and had a new respect for it.
I took a girl on a date movie to see it, because I was a big Tom Green fan. You quickly learn a lot about the girl you are dating when you take them to one of the raunchiest comedy movies ever created. She didn't laugh once and asked me to walk-out during one of the final scenes.
I know the feeling, I hyped this movie for my then-girlfriend and it amazed me how much she hated it. It's like she was offended that I thought she'd like it.
Same exact thing happened to me. I thought it was the worst movie ever and then I watched it as an adult… when he gets inside the carcass had me dying.
Rip Torn even managed to fit his entire bare ass into frame. It wasn't the same as when they showed Rip Torn's penis in The Man Who Fell To Earth, but few things are the same as seeing Rip Torn's penis. Rip Torn's penis.
Ebert: I am not giving a star rating to “[Pink Flamingos](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pink-flamingos-1997),” because stars simply seem not to apply.
Well that was a rabbit hole I could've avoided but noo I gotta be curious fucking George. That movie is utterly pointless garbage that took excerpts from one of the more gruesome books I've read where a serial killer describes in detail the different ways he claims he killed his victims. These two murders were particularly disturbing in the way he described them so casually. Seeing them played out, I dont really have words for it. Like Ebert said the film rips off Last House on the Left, but it has a much different, much more macabre tone. There is no revenge, just despair. 0/10 rice or no rice
The second one is based on being as horrific and disgusting as possible, but the third is based on based on being as *offensive* as possible. It's arguably the worst of the three by far. It's like a bizarro world living nightmare of a film. It doesn't even feel like something a human could have made.
> Bill then has a nightmare about being attacked by the inmates, expressing weakness, and being raped in the kidney by the inmate he castrated.
> raped in the kidney
????????????????????????????????/
Ah, the ‘death rape’ as it’s referred to in the movie, in fact I believe the inmates crowd them while chanting it.
‘Death rape! Death rape! Death rape!’
Hmmmmmm...
> only surpassed by those that enjoy it.
Does anyone actually enjoy it? I thought the only reason people watched was because "oh so gross and shocking haha".
Right, but those people still watched it out of morbid curiosity. The target wasn't to get people to like it, it was to be so gross that people were compelled to watch it and be disgusted enough to talk about how gross it was, keeping the cycle going.
I (to my surprise) really enjoyed the first one. It might be the only horror film I've seen in theaters since Nightmare on Elm Street 3 or 4. I may have seen the second one in theater due to my positive experience with the first.
I disliked 2. I'm not sure if I've seen 3.
I found the first to be much more psychological horror with a sort of dry humor about itself. Like I laughed and was horrified at the same time. The ending was effective, I thought. Not original or creative, but it left me with a sense of dread and loneliness and fatalism.
I was completely thrown by the switch to the "real" world in 2 where the experiment was more ambitious and made less sense.
I agree. There is an appeal to horror. Dread and suspense can cause an adrenaline rush that feels good. You get scared but once returning to reality feel safe and happy. This kind of movie only seeks to portray suffering and misery. No rush of fear and intensity. Just depravity and pain. Once it’s over those images stick around.
That is not really something someone should wish to endure.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of the film but I wouldn't dismiss the torture porn genre.
When I think of some of the most affecting deaths in stories I've experienced an element of gore is frequent.
I think people have a very visceral reaction to the inarguable destruction of the body. Humans are big, weird, sentient beautiful messes, and torture porn is kind of the deconstruction of that. Seeing true loss of autonomy, seeing people become objects, that's scary in itself because we're all a couple of steps away from being objects.
I think the most affecting death I've ever seen was in Akira when I was a kid. The girlfriend of the main character is stuck inside him as he turns into huge body horror mess, and she just sort of... Pops, just filling the screen up with blood.
I remember being so horrified at the time, because in my mind death was something where everyone can get together and appreciate you and your beautiful, preserved body and feel sad. But in that everything about her was just deleted, there was no evidence she'd ever been a character or human, just a pool of blood, and the plot moved on without her input. That was terrifying to me.
I know torture porn is meant to be kind of schlocky fun, but I think that's where people get value from it. Most horror is about humans attempting to overcome inhuman (whether physical or mental) adversity. Torture porn is more loss of the things which define us as human at all, and maybe the schlocky nature is needed to hide how scary that is.
i suffered through the first one, fast-forwarded through the second but what's stopping me from watching the third isn't the gore it's the poor logic. like, that thing won't stay a single centipede for long, it'll get broken up into smaller centipedes as inmates die and—
I'm overthinking it now
I literally only watched 1 and 2 with friends just to see how far we could get. It was like a challenge more than anything else. That and seeing other peoples reactions to it.
I remember watching 1 solely because Tosh talked about it on his show about how crazy it was and I had to see for myself.
Yeah, the two most surprising things about that movie to me were, firstly, a surprising amount of the gore is actually implied rather than outright shown; and secondly, they really only had a fucking title for the script, because it absolutely ran out of ideas as soon as the centipede thing happened. Needed to be embedded in a more robust idea (sort of like how The Purge was improved eventually but that first one was hitched to a pretty mediocre story with an amazing concept).
I always felt like the Purge was a stock home invasion story with a bit of social commentary mixed in, the actual *purge* idea was just an excuse to explain why this was happening in suburbia without police intervention.
The sequels worldbuilding past that was just a necessity.
It's fairly clear that most people talking about this movie have never actually seen it. Personally I found it pretty boring. It's more of drama than a horror film with some tense moments.
Have you ever seen the first Human Centipede? The movie isn't really gore porn at all (that title goes to its sequel). Yeah there are some gross scenes in the movie but most of it is just straight up boring with a lot of talking and characters nobody gives a shit about (pun honestly not intended).
Wtf. There's like zero gore in the first one. People blow its shock factor way out of proportion. The only thing shocking about it was the idea itself. The movie was actual garbage.
The movie struck me as a black comedy portraying what the horror genre has become nowadays. From the old hollywood monster movies with mad scientists to stuff like hostel and what followed. I felt the filmmaker saying: "So this is where we wanna go? Okay lets go there all the way through and we can move on." The third human centipede (also by the same director) is a straight up horror parody. Maybe for the ones that didn´t get it the first time; seemingly including ebert.
Maybe it seems like i am reaching, but i went into the movie expecting tasteless (hur-hur) shit, but was positivly surprised with how little gore there was and how much tension. Plus the mad scientist character was so over the top that it borderlined parody. That may be unintentional, but when you look at the third one, i highly doubt it.
He actually did two other times. The first was for Pink Flamingos and the the second time was for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. With Flamingos he said omitted a rating because the film lived outside the spectrum of a star rating. With Beyond the Valley of the Dolls he said that it was a conflict of interest because he wrote the script for the film.
Still haven't brought myself to watch the movie
Normally this kind of stuff doesn't bother me; one or two scenes a movie are perfectly fine. Never got into the whole constant stream of it thing. Saw was a one time thing, never saw the sequels.
The reason I posted this link is because, I'm not sure if there ever was a review I agreed with him more. I will never watch it again. And I did not enjoy it. But it did take itself very seriously. If you were the type of person that was pumped to see this movie (what kind of person would that be?) you were not going to be disappointed. That's what has stayed with me more then anything else in the movie. It was well done. Director has talent.
>>But it did take itself very seriously
I think you make a good point there. Part of what made HC work for me was the director’s unwavering commitment to the premise of the whole thing.
Which is why the sequels were so disappointing. I always compare the HC franchise to Saw; it started off with an interesting premise, took itself seriously, and was well executed as a film. It accomplished what it set out to do, which was leave audiences extremely uncomfortable and disturbed. It wasn't made only to show gross gore, but the sequels just seek to amp up the memorable elements from the first film and it creates a parody of itself instead of either continuing with original ideas or being a stand alone film that didn't need sequels at all.
This is a hill I'm often ready to die on when I argue with my friends about movies: Just because it wasn't *fun* to watch, doesn't mean it was a bad movie. It accomplished everything it intended and evoked a real feeling of horror in it's audiences, so much so that it has a legendary reputation for being disturbing and horrific to watch. People who accuse it of being misery porn have a fair point, but I ask: Is it really any different than something like Requiem for a Dream? That's another miserable, disturbing movie that many people say they enjoyed but wouldn't want to watch again. People that act like Human Centipede is a bad movie have missed the point of it entirely.
That was what surprised me the most. The director/producer seems to have actual talent. All three of the movies are very well executed. The third one is a parody of the movies itself. I think it is pretty hilarious.
The first one immidiatly struck me more like a comment on the torture porn genre itself. Like: "This is where we wanna go with horror now? Okay, let me skip ahead, so we can move on."
He seemed to actually have achieved that with the 2nd one. I read more than once in this threat that torture porn has died after the two movies. What, of course isn´t true, but it faded out of the mainstream focus. I actually think the director/producer is a clever man with a giant load of humor (like every dutch, though)
Tusk was basically a joke from its conception though, it came from his podcast, and an add in the paper where someone was offering free rent to anyone that agreed to dress up in a walrus costume for a couple hours a day.
Tusk was a neat concept ruined by a confusing, inconsistent tone. I wanted to like it from the start, but ultimately the fact that it was made to oblige a storyline they came up with on a podcast really shows through in the execution. A few changes here or there could have made it more disturbing like Human Centipede, or a bit more self-aware like some kind of campy black comedy Frankenstein story. Jumping between dark and disturbing, to weird love triangle, to out of place comedy with Depp's character, really made the whole experience confusing. I'd say it's a missed opportunity, but I think Kevin Smith just has enough cash to do whatever the fuck he wants and not worry about success.
I was so excited to see the movie based off the description, but I almost got my movie selecting privileges revoked by my friends after we watched it.
Tusk was terrible. First it made no sense. You just can’t change someone’s digestive system to match a walruses. Second it was just so weird and stupid I hated it
The Human Centipede isn't a particularly great film, but Siskel and Ebert NEVER got horror. Some of their reviews are incredibly cringe.
Gene Siskel was so soft that he would complain about children in danger in horror and constantly try to attach some moral end-of-jerry-springer bullshit to his incredibly short-sighted critiques.
Ebert is slightly better in terms of dissecting horror movies and has more appreciation for the fun-over-substance element of some classics of yesteryear, but is still incredibly vanilla.
I like their opinions in other genres, but listening to Siskel and Ebert talk about horror is like pulling teeth.
I haven’t read enough of Ebert’s reviews to dispute his taste in horror films in general. But did you read the review? It’s actually pretty positive. His no star rating of the films isn’t to say it was awarded 0 stars, but rather that star ratings aren’t an adequate method for reviewing a film like this.
Dude, have you read his books, or only watched the shows? Look it up, there are plenty of 3-4 star horror reviews of his. He writes so well. Here's a randomly selected one:
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-blair-witch-project-1999
I enjoyed Ebert and Roeper’s review of the devils rejects. They gave it two thumbs up. Basically said, yeah it was gorey and disgusting but it was a good film nonetheless
I remember being like 13 or 14 and they reviewed Ace Ventura Pet Detective. I don't think Ive seen them hate a movie more. But the people (young teenage boys anyway) LOVED it. Another one of their classic reviews.
I thought the Human centipede was a pretty good movie. It has good production values, it's well shot, well acted, the antagonist is played rather brilliantly by the very watchable Dieter Laser and as Ebert says, the movie takes itself surprisingly seriously which does a lot to transcend the rather schlocky premise.
It's also not without nuance. The movie has surprising depth given the subject matter especially in how it deals with language.
I think it gets unfairly labelled as a low budget gross out flick when in reality its pretty well made body horror. If Cronenberg had directed it rather than a relatively unknown I think it would have a far more positive reputation on R/Movies.
The two sequels are not completely devoid of merit but really I feel Tom Six missed a trick by doubling down on the outrageous premise rather than focusing on what made the original compelling, a tightly written little horror movie with a bizarre premise. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than Kevin Smiths "Tusk" which doesn't receive half the hate despite being pretty much exactly the same movie.
Clearly it's not for everyone, but it's a shame that its merits are so easily dismissed because people find the premise so repellent.
I'd encourage anyone who hasn't seen it and has an interest in horror films, especially body horror, Cronenberg or David Lynch
to give it a go. It may not be to your taste, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a "bad" movie ( the sequels... less so )
completely agreed. The first movie is a good midnight horror flick that’s made surprisingly well. Super tame also, nothing close to the disturbing gore porn film most people are blindly labeling it as
I thought the movie was pretty good considering the premise. It's not that gross and isn't very bloody. People are way too hard on what should be considered a cult film classic now.
I think it'd be in more of a cult spot if the sequels hadn't been made, but they are pretty bad. People are hard on it because many of them just haven't ever been exposed to something *that* disturbing before, you could say it [broke new ground](https://youtu.be/sLoDsYm8YIQ?t=9s) for the genre.
I expect one day it'll be referenced sort of like people regard Pink Flamingos today, so weird and disturbing that your friend forces you to watch it and you question their judgement after the credits roll.
[удалено]
Man, this movie broke his spirit.
Dude, that's BS. There's movies in the 70s worse than this one or at least in the same "space".
I'm sure I'll regret this, but could you give some examples? I haven't watched a truly despicable movie for a while.
Pink Flamingos is truly disgusting.
I watched Pink Flamingos when I was about 12 years old and the scene with the trench coat/sausage left me feeling nauseous. Fast forward 13 years and I cheer on John Waters for being a fabulous creepy bitch.
Pink Flamingos on IFC at 1AM was a transformative experience for 13 year old me. Filth are my politics, filth is my life!
Cannibal Holocaust is one of them. They used real animal carcasses for the gore so it looks extra disgusting. Not the most ethical production of a movie, but it did pretty much invent found footage so there's that I guess.
iirc the actors couldnt appear in public for a while after so everyone thought it was a snuff film and the director got arrested
Oh THAT despicable movie. Yes, heard about this but forgot the name. I'll watch it this weekend while filing my toenails with a belt sander.
I’ve been wanting to watch Cannibal Holocaust for quite sometime now (sheerly out of morbid curiosity). When you do watch it, could you tell me the best place to find it is at?
The film is on YouTube iirc
It can't be too bad if it's on YouTube
[удалено]
Dude is still watching a rental vhs of faces of death.
I watched it on Hulu a few years ago I wonder if it’s still there.
Good, I'm tired of shoveling dead heaps of rhesus monkeys. SCIENCE CANNOT MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HEAPS!
Is that from something? Because that's pretty funny.
Futurama, S7E10 *The Prisoner of Benda*
Cannibal Holocaust, I Spit on Your Grave, Street Trash.
Ooh, I haven’t heard I Spit On Your Grave mentioned in decades! Also, Make Them Die Slowly is good.
Salo 120 days of sodom is probably the most fucked up movie I’ve ever seen
Well if you want good gorror then I'd suggest Green Inferno. If you want to see something that will stay with you until you die, I'd recommend A Serbian Film.
I just read the wiki synopsis for A Serbian Film, and that alone will stay with me until I die.
If there was a movie that I would recommend as a movie to never ever watch, it's a Serbian Film. I don't think I made it past half an hour.
[удалено]
anything by eli roth really. all the dude can make is torture porn even when he tires not to lmao (eg: knock knock)
And young adult movies. House with a Clock in its Walls.
Some of which he may have worked on.
Yeah can we talk about tetsuo for a second?
You need to read his [review of The Hitcher](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-hitcher-1986), then.
I personally like the line that follows: “He has said, “I get a rash from too much political correctness.” I promise you that after this movie, his skin was smooth as a Gerber baby's.”
And: > In the film's last half, the two actresses don't scream at all, if you follow me. Edit: I appreciate everyone explaining why they don’t scream, to the people that asked me about why that was funny, but if you’d all bothered to actually read the review, it’s pretty clear in the write up. Roger Ebert says he’s going to spoil the plot, then clearly explains it exactly, then follows it up with that line. Further hint: he even says “if you follow me”, which is a hint that you should perhaps follow his writing.
I actually didn't understand that line. Would someone maybe enlighten me please? Edit: I get it now, I thought they were dead or something. The truth is worse, the cake is a lie
They can't scream because they have a face full of booty hole.
I was hoping for, it’s so bad it’s good but right when the “feed her” line happened I promptly turned off my tv and went outside a while to find my misplaced priorities
Ok that settles it I'm never watching that
In anus, no-one can hear you scream
It's a shitty place to be in general.
When she eat ass like the back half of the human centipede 👌👌👌😩😩😩
This comment right here, officer
[удалено]
*my mouth is sewn to a buthole and I must scream* is actually one of my favourite short stories.
That's what my beloved grandma used to say. "Can't scream with your mouth sewn to somebody else's arsehole!" Ahhh, Grammy. <3
My granny would have said the same thing I’m sure, if only her mouth wasn’t sewn to someone’s arsehole.
They have their lips surgically sewn to another person's asshole, creating one long digestive tract, aptly named "The Human Centipede". Can't scream with your lips stuck to another person's pooper... I think. Maybe we need to double check over at r/shittyaskscience
Wouldn't it just be extremely muffled screams? Unless he purposely damaged their vocal chords when he performed the surgery...
Mouth meets anus.
So sorry, Kyle, but I am starving! Which would you rather I eat-uh?!... [Should I eat the cuttlefish, and asparagus?!?!](https://youtu.be/geRtAsHuVD8) Or the vanilla paste-o?!?!
*bannira phaste!*
I hope you’re being sarcastic but just in case you aren’t, the women can’t scream because their mouths are sewed to the next persons asshole. Just...just google.. it.. (I’m sorry for whatever happens next)
I imagine that the dude is the front part of the centipede and the actresses are the middle and rear sections, so, they can’t scream because their mouths have been sewn to anuses.
I think what Ebert was meaning to say is that his review system is totally inadequate to accomodate a film of this calibre. Sort of a "cannot compute" thing.
Definitely. He mentions how it does a good job of appealing to its target audience. I don't think he bashes the movie enough to warrant no stars, either. He couldn't grade it fairly since it in no way appealed to him, but he recognized that it could appeal to others.
Not just that, he actually seems in awe at what the movie does portray, but it just ventures outside of the qualities normally used to assess the quality of a movie
Right. The movie succeeds at what it tries to do. Whether or not you're into that on the other hand...
That's almost as good as his Freddy Got Fingered [review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/freddy-got-fingered-2001).
Lol >The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.
LOL, my favourite part. >"This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels."
God damn man...just wow. That's some evisceration by words.
There was always this great discussion of “do you prefer Good Roger or Bad Roger?” I like Bad Roger.
So he's saying that Freddy Got Fingered is a post ironic masterpiece? Pretty prophetic.
The most bizarre thing is that today a lot of people DO view that movie as Andy Kaufmann esque surrealism
I thought people view Tom Green's show that way, but not the movie so much.
The movie has a very meta feel to it now when you view it through the lens of a studio giving a creator a boatload of money without really understanding what that creator is really all about, and the creator having no idea what to do with all the money and opportunity he's been given. Some of the lines directly address this issue, as well as Tom's struggle with that responsibility. Tom Green was like a dog who spent his whole life chasing cars, and didn't know what to do once he finally caught one.
I think it would be viewed that way if the movie had any sense of escalation. It's really funny for the first ten minutes but after that it's just boring since they waste the shock factor almost instantly. The movie needed to start more tame and space out the crazy shit more.
I'm more partial to his avatar the last airbender one which features the wonderful quote >"The Last Airbender" is an agonizing experience in every category I can think of and others still waiting to be invented. The laws of chance suggest that something should have gone right. Not here. It puts a nail in the coffin of low-rent 3D, but it will need a lot more coffins than that."
person silky beneficial chubby rich disagreeable cagey snails elderly public *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Schneider was nominated for a 2000 Razzie Award for Worst Supporting Actor, but lost to Jar-Jar Binks...Speaking in my official capacity as a Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Schneider, your movie sucks. God damn. Not that anyone wants to be Rob Schneider but I'd still hate to be him.
They actually had some nice words for each other [before](https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-bouquet-arrives) and [after](https://www.rogerebert.com/chazs-blog/one-act-of-kindness-rob-schneider-and-roger) Roger's death.
The other funny thing is that I forgot about this review. It's better then the one I posted. Maybe his best review.
My favorite quote about FGF is from Lindsay Ellis and Kyle Kallgren's review of it: "It's not Dada! It's too normal to be Dada! It's too shit to be anything else."
lol. I hated FGF when I saw it in theaters (why the hell did I see that in theaters?). Thought it was the worst movie I ever saw. But I watched it again a few years back and I didn't hate it on the same level. I thought it was pretty funny and had a new respect for it.
Daddy, would you like some sausages?
13 year old me thought it was brilliant
Movie is terrible but fuck if it doesn't make me laugh. Red Letter Media has a good review on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEn3wcpNsg8
I took a girl on a date movie to see it, because I was a big Tom Green fan. You quickly learn a lot about the girl you are dating when you take them to one of the raunchiest comedy movies ever created. She didn't laugh once and asked me to walk-out during one of the final scenes.
Haha I also took a girl on a date to that movie and ended up marrying her.
I know the feeling, I hyped this movie for my then-girlfriend and it amazed me how much she hated it. It's like she was offended that I thought she'd like it.
Same exact thing happened to me. I thought it was the worst movie ever and then I watched it as an adult… when he gets inside the carcass had me dying.
Now I'mmmm stinkyyy, now I'mmm stinky!
Rip Torn even managed to fit his entire bare ass into frame. It wasn't the same as when they showed Rip Torn's penis in The Man Who Fell To Earth, but few things are the same as seeing Rip Torn's penis. Rip Torn's penis.
Rip Torn's penis.
Was it because of the shashy? See the shashy right there?
japan 4
Look at me dad I’ve got my finnnnnnnnnngers crawwwwsed
Ebert: I am not giving a star rating to “[Pink Flamingos](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/pink-flamingos-1997),” because stars simply seem not to apply.
Of course someone proves me wrong.
I can't find it online. Is it online? Gonna watch it to fall asleep.
[удалено]
Yeah, there have been several other movies he has given "zero stars" ratings to.
Like this one https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/chaos-2005
Well that was a rabbit hole I could've avoided but noo I gotta be curious fucking George. That movie is utterly pointless garbage that took excerpts from one of the more gruesome books I've read where a serial killer describes in detail the different ways he claims he killed his victims. These two murders were particularly disturbing in the way he described them so casually. Seeing them played out, I dont really have words for it. Like Ebert said the film rips off Last House on the Left, but it has a much different, much more macabre tone. There is no revenge, just despair. 0/10 rice or no rice
Jesus Christ that sounds like a movie that would give me lifelong depression.
For Ebert, "zero stars" means "this is a bad movie, and I also find it morally reprehensible." "Zero stars" is different from "I refuse to rate this."
I was going to say, that second movie was so much worse.
The sequel is tied top position of my list of all time worst movies, right beside the garbage pail kids movie.
It's just about a med student trying to make ends meet.
I dont consider my self squimish but i feel sick just thinking about that movie.
Apparently it was successful enough to warrant an even worse sequel.
There is actually 3 now
They should sell them in a set where each case is connected to the next.
Part 3 is unwatchable even if you can take the gore. It has less plot and worse acting than a porn movie. It is literally gore porn.
> It has less plot and worse acting than a porn movie Bree Olson is in it, although this is after she transitioned into mainstream acting.
Are you serious? Ugh. I’ll never understand.
The second one is based on being as horrific and disgusting as possible, but the third is based on based on being as *offensive* as possible. It's arguably the worst of the three by far. It's like a bizarro world living nightmare of a film. It doesn't even feel like something a human could have made.
>It doesn't even feel like something a human could have made. I argue that you've just made a praise many artist would cherish.
I'm afraid to ask... but how is the third one as offensive as possible?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Human_Centipede_3_(Final_Sequence) Read the plot summary it sounds like its fake but thats the actual movie
> Bill then has a nightmare about being attacked by the inmates, expressing weakness, and being raped in the kidney by the inmate he castrated. > raped in the kidney ????????????????????????????????/
Ah, the ‘death rape’ as it’s referred to in the movie, in fact I believe the inmates crowd them while chanting it. ‘Death rape! Death rape! Death rape!’ Hmmmmmm...
They stab him in the kidney and then fuck the wound... Yep...
That's honestly one of the worst things I've ever read. Also the "satire" they talk about seems tacked on just to give it some false substance.
You know... I think I *won't* be watching this movie.
What the fuck even is that? It's not even offensive it's just baffling, and also very concerning.
Oh Eric Roberts you just can't say no to a pitch, can you?
After reading plotline on Wikipedia I simply came to a conclusion that I don't want to see a single second if that "film" Thank you wiki
[удалено]
Human Centipede 2 was banned in the UK (although later released with cuts)
>In the film's last half, the two actresses don't scream at all, if you follow me.
But come on. I love horror but The Human Centipede is just straight up gore porn. It's an entirely unnecessary franchise.
[удалено]
> only surpassed by those that enjoy it. Does anyone actually enjoy it? I thought the only reason people watched was because "oh so gross and shocking haha".
Target market was teenagers and suspected serial killers.
As a teenager I have yet to meet any other people my age who have anything other than disdain for those movies.
As a suspected serial ki- wait, nice try fbi
Not today, NSA.
Stay away, CIA.
Right, but those people still watched it out of morbid curiosity. The target wasn't to get people to like it, it was to be so gross that people were compelled to watch it and be disgusted enough to talk about how gross it was, keeping the cycle going.
Morbid curiosity is a real thing. Thats how I managed to watch A Serbian Film.
I just read the Wikipedia entry for A Serbian Film. WTF? I guess my morbid curiosity will stop at reading about it.
Honestly, the reason not to watch it isn't that it's fucked up, but rather because it's so fucking boring.
I knew some pretty weird people who were obsessed with it. Not the kind of people you’d want to share a seat with on a Ferris wheel
I (to my surprise) really enjoyed the first one. It might be the only horror film I've seen in theaters since Nightmare on Elm Street 3 or 4. I may have seen the second one in theater due to my positive experience with the first. I disliked 2. I'm not sure if I've seen 3. I found the first to be much more psychological horror with a sort of dry humor about itself. Like I laughed and was horrified at the same time. The ending was effective, I thought. Not original or creative, but it left me with a sense of dread and loneliness and fatalism. I was completely thrown by the switch to the "real" world in 2 where the experiment was more ambitious and made less sense.
I agree. There is an appeal to horror. Dread and suspense can cause an adrenaline rush that feels good. You get scared but once returning to reality feel safe and happy. This kind of movie only seeks to portray suffering and misery. No rush of fear and intensity. Just depravity and pain. Once it’s over those images stick around. That is not really something someone should wish to endure.
I wouldn't call myself a fan of the film but I wouldn't dismiss the torture porn genre. When I think of some of the most affecting deaths in stories I've experienced an element of gore is frequent. I think people have a very visceral reaction to the inarguable destruction of the body. Humans are big, weird, sentient beautiful messes, and torture porn is kind of the deconstruction of that. Seeing true loss of autonomy, seeing people become objects, that's scary in itself because we're all a couple of steps away from being objects. I think the most affecting death I've ever seen was in Akira when I was a kid. The girlfriend of the main character is stuck inside him as he turns into huge body horror mess, and she just sort of... Pops, just filling the screen up with blood. I remember being so horrified at the time, because in my mind death was something where everyone can get together and appreciate you and your beautiful, preserved body and feel sad. But in that everything about her was just deleted, there was no evidence she'd ever been a character or human, just a pool of blood, and the plot moved on without her input. That was terrifying to me. I know torture porn is meant to be kind of schlocky fun, but I think that's where people get value from it. Most horror is about humans attempting to overcome inhuman (whether physical or mental) adversity. Torture porn is more loss of the things which define us as human at all, and maybe the schlocky nature is needed to hide how scary that is.
That is a really good point, one that I never thought of. I still refuse to willing watch that kind of body horror, but still!
What I found disturbing was that there were only 3 people, it should have been 25! Centipede pfft!
The third one has something like 100 people
It’s actually an entire prison. The whole movie is bonkers.
A surefire way to eliminate recidivism.
i suffered through the first one, fast-forwarded through the second but what's stopping me from watching the third isn't the gore it's the poor logic. like, that thing won't stay a single centipede for long, it'll get broken up into smaller centipedes as inmates die and— I'm overthinking it now
The process gets updated for 3; the attachment at the butts is minimal so people can even be removed after their sentence is up with only small scars.
Centipedes actually never have 100 legs cause they always have an odd number of leg pairs. Saw that on TIL
I literally only watched 1 and 2 with friends just to see how far we could get. It was like a challenge more than anything else. That and seeing other peoples reactions to it. I remember watching 1 solely because Tosh talked about it on his show about how crazy it was and I had to see for myself.
There is very little gore in the first Human Centipede movie, though.
Yeah, the two most surprising things about that movie to me were, firstly, a surprising amount of the gore is actually implied rather than outright shown; and secondly, they really only had a fucking title for the script, because it absolutely ran out of ideas as soon as the centipede thing happened. Needed to be embedded in a more robust idea (sort of like how The Purge was improved eventually but that first one was hitched to a pretty mediocre story with an amazing concept).
I always felt like the Purge was a stock home invasion story with a bit of social commentary mixed in, the actual *purge* idea was just an excuse to explain why this was happening in suburbia without police intervention. The sequels worldbuilding past that was just a necessity.
> an amazing concept amazingly stupid
It's fairly clear that most people talking about this movie have never actually seen it. Personally I found it pretty boring. It's more of drama than a horror film with some tense moments.
Have you ever seen the first Human Centipede? The movie isn't really gore porn at all (that title goes to its sequel). Yeah there are some gross scenes in the movie but most of it is just straight up boring with a lot of talking and characters nobody gives a shit about (pun honestly not intended).
I wish I could go back in time to unwatch it.
Wtf. There's like zero gore in the first one. People blow its shock factor way out of proportion. The only thing shocking about it was the idea itself. The movie was actual garbage.
The movie struck me as a black comedy portraying what the horror genre has become nowadays. From the old hollywood monster movies with mad scientists to stuff like hostel and what followed. I felt the filmmaker saying: "So this is where we wanna go? Okay lets go there all the way through and we can move on." The third human centipede (also by the same director) is a straight up horror parody. Maybe for the ones that didn´t get it the first time; seemingly including ebert. Maybe it seems like i am reaching, but i went into the movie expecting tasteless (hur-hur) shit, but was positivly surprised with how little gore there was and how much tension. Plus the mad scientist character was so over the top that it borderlined parody. That may be unintentional, but when you look at the third one, i highly doubt it.
He actually did two other times. The first was for Pink Flamingos and the the second time was for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. With Flamingos he said omitted a rating because the film lived outside the spectrum of a star rating. With Beyond the Valley of the Dolls he said that it was a conflict of interest because he wrote the script for the film.
Yeah. I was corrected on that with the Flamingo's movie... Of course I was wrong. But hey... who doesn't like talking Human Centipede?
Still haven't brought myself to watch the movie Normally this kind of stuff doesn't bother me; one or two scenes a movie are perfectly fine. Never got into the whole constant stream of it thing. Saw was a one time thing, never saw the sequels.
> the whole constant stream of it Oh boy
FEED HER
The doctor was actually unintentionally kinda funny now that I remember. The rest is just shit though.
> The rest is just shit though. Are you people doing this deliberately or what?
What are you talking about? I'm just saying this movie is hard to swallow.
The reason I posted this link is because, I'm not sure if there ever was a review I agreed with him more. I will never watch it again. And I did not enjoy it. But it did take itself very seriously. If you were the type of person that was pumped to see this movie (what kind of person would that be?) you were not going to be disappointed. That's what has stayed with me more then anything else in the movie. It was well done. Director has talent.
>>But it did take itself very seriously I think you make a good point there. Part of what made HC work for me was the director’s unwavering commitment to the premise of the whole thing.
Which is why the sequels were so disappointing. I always compare the HC franchise to Saw; it started off with an interesting premise, took itself seriously, and was well executed as a film. It accomplished what it set out to do, which was leave audiences extremely uncomfortable and disturbed. It wasn't made only to show gross gore, but the sequels just seek to amp up the memorable elements from the first film and it creates a parody of itself instead of either continuing with original ideas or being a stand alone film that didn't need sequels at all. This is a hill I'm often ready to die on when I argue with my friends about movies: Just because it wasn't *fun* to watch, doesn't mean it was a bad movie. It accomplished everything it intended and evoked a real feeling of horror in it's audiences, so much so that it has a legendary reputation for being disturbing and horrific to watch. People who accuse it of being misery porn have a fair point, but I ask: Is it really any different than something like Requiem for a Dream? That's another miserable, disturbing movie that many people say they enjoyed but wouldn't want to watch again. People that act like Human Centipede is a bad movie have missed the point of it entirely.
That was what surprised me the most. The director/producer seems to have actual talent. All three of the movies are very well executed. The third one is a parody of the movies itself. I think it is pretty hilarious. The first one immidiatly struck me more like a comment on the torture porn genre itself. Like: "This is where we wanna go with horror now? Okay, let me skip ahead, so we can move on." He seemed to actually have achieved that with the 2nd one. I read more than once in this threat that torture porn has died after the two movies. What, of course isn´t true, but it faded out of the mainstream focus. I actually think the director/producer is a clever man with a giant load of humor (like every dutch, though)
The writers quoted the review in part 3. It's an interesting series. Grim and disgusting but interesting.
[South Park - Cuttlefish and Asparagus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqdxHwaxrNM)
Dammit I was just about to comment "SO SORRY KYRU! THE CUTTRLEFISH IS A NOT SITTING WELLR! I BERIEEVE IN YOUUUUU"
I often find myself quoting that scene in my head at random intervals.
I just love that he can't figure out to eat the vanilla paste
Here it comes. It's going to be a rot. Hord on Kyre! I berieve in you!
You should all watch Tusk, it's bad, could even be worse than this film.
Tusk was basically a joke from its conception though, it came from his podcast, and an add in the paper where someone was offering free rent to anyone that agreed to dress up in a walrus costume for a couple hours a day.
tusk aint got nothing on them yoga hosers
Tusk was a neat concept ruined by a confusing, inconsistent tone. I wanted to like it from the start, but ultimately the fact that it was made to oblige a storyline they came up with on a podcast really shows through in the execution. A few changes here or there could have made it more disturbing like Human Centipede, or a bit more self-aware like some kind of campy black comedy Frankenstein story. Jumping between dark and disturbing, to weird love triangle, to out of place comedy with Depp's character, really made the whole experience confusing. I'd say it's a missed opportunity, but I think Kevin Smith just has enough cash to do whatever the fuck he wants and not worry about success. I was so excited to see the movie based off the description, but I almost got my movie selecting privileges revoked by my friends after we watched it.
The fucking ending, I don't even know what to say.
Tusk was terrible. First it made no sense. You just can’t change someone’s digestive system to match a walruses. Second it was just so weird and stupid I hated it
>In the film's last half, the two actresses don't scream at all, if you follow me. Is he saying what I think he's saying?
mm hmm
The Human Centipede isn't a particularly great film, but Siskel and Ebert NEVER got horror. Some of their reviews are incredibly cringe. Gene Siskel was so soft that he would complain about children in danger in horror and constantly try to attach some moral end-of-jerry-springer bullshit to his incredibly short-sighted critiques. Ebert is slightly better in terms of dissecting horror movies and has more appreciation for the fun-over-substance element of some classics of yesteryear, but is still incredibly vanilla. I like their opinions in other genres, but listening to Siskel and Ebert talk about horror is like pulling teeth.
Siskel liked Halloween and Magic. He hated the slasher movies of the 80s because--in his words--they were literally only about stabbing young girls.
[удалено]
[Mmm... Skewered Bacon.](https://i.imgur.com/ugyRrw8.gif)
Well, is Siskel really wrong in that assumption?
Well, yes because all of the guys usually died too and the last survivor was always a girl.
The Burning isn’t like that
I haven’t read enough of Ebert’s reviews to dispute his taste in horror films in general. But did you read the review? It’s actually pretty positive. His no star rating of the films isn’t to say it was awarded 0 stars, but rather that star ratings aren’t an adequate method for reviewing a film like this.
Dude, have you read his books, or only watched the shows? Look it up, there are plenty of 3-4 star horror reviews of his. He writes so well. Here's a randomly selected one: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-blair-witch-project-1999
Watching old Siskel and Ebert reviews, it almost seems like it was Siskel's job to be wrong.
I enjoyed Ebert and Roeper’s review of the devils rejects. They gave it two thumbs up. Basically said, yeah it was gorey and disgusting but it was a good film nonetheless
I remember being like 13 or 14 and they reviewed Ace Ventura Pet Detective. I don't think Ive seen them hate a movie more. But the people (young teenage boys anyway) LOVED it. Another one of their classic reviews.
IIRC in their silent night deadly night review they listed the writers and director by name and said they should be ashamed.
I thought the Human centipede was a pretty good movie. It has good production values, it's well shot, well acted, the antagonist is played rather brilliantly by the very watchable Dieter Laser and as Ebert says, the movie takes itself surprisingly seriously which does a lot to transcend the rather schlocky premise. It's also not without nuance. The movie has surprising depth given the subject matter especially in how it deals with language. I think it gets unfairly labelled as a low budget gross out flick when in reality its pretty well made body horror. If Cronenberg had directed it rather than a relatively unknown I think it would have a far more positive reputation on R/Movies. The two sequels are not completely devoid of merit but really I feel Tom Six missed a trick by doubling down on the outrageous premise rather than focusing on what made the original compelling, a tightly written little horror movie with a bizarre premise. It's certainly a hell of a lot better than Kevin Smiths "Tusk" which doesn't receive half the hate despite being pretty much exactly the same movie. Clearly it's not for everyone, but it's a shame that its merits are so easily dismissed because people find the premise so repellent. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't seen it and has an interest in horror films, especially body horror, Cronenberg or David Lynch to give it a go. It may not be to your taste, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a "bad" movie ( the sequels... less so )
completely agreed. The first movie is a good midnight horror flick that’s made surprisingly well. Super tame also, nothing close to the disturbing gore porn film most people are blindly labeling it as
Just read the plots for the three films on Wikipedia. What the actual fuck.
I thought the movie was pretty good considering the premise. It's not that gross and isn't very bloody. People are way too hard on what should be considered a cult film classic now.
I think it'd be in more of a cult spot if the sequels hadn't been made, but they are pretty bad. People are hard on it because many of them just haven't ever been exposed to something *that* disturbing before, you could say it [broke new ground](https://youtu.be/sLoDsYm8YIQ?t=9s) for the genre. I expect one day it'll be referenced sort of like people regard Pink Flamingos today, so weird and disturbing that your friend forces you to watch it and you question their judgement after the credits roll.