The Human Centipede: Part 3 (Final Sequence)

[Noodle Lizard]

If a film is attempting to be shit and succeeds at that, does it make it a good or worthwhile film?

Not in my experience (see Sharknado).  Generally I judge films on how enjoyable they are[nb]of course, some films are meant to be depressing/harrowing/disturbing etc., but they're still "enjoyable" in the broadest sense[/nb], and I found THC3 fairly enjoyable.  Moreso than the first one.  That doesn't mean I think it's a great film, just that I think there is stuff to like about it.  I also do appreciate the fact that Tom Six could easily have gone the dull cash-in route with the sequels, but instead decided to make them more deranged and silly as they went along.  I feel a lot of people are very earnest about horror these days, even when the films they're making are laughably silly (the first HC film felt a bit like that), so it is refreshing to see stuff like this every now and then.

I'm also not saying Kermode (or whoever) has to like it, just that I feel his review missed the point a bit and was fairly misleading.  Almost everyone in the comments is just going "Yeah, it's shit, I'm not gonna watch it", when actually they probably haven't seen anything quite like it.  Good or bad, that's worth investigating I think.

[Puce Moment]

Yeah, I think Kermode is increasingly off the mark these days. I think he has been more sophisticated and aware than this, in the past. I agree that Six really does not seem to give many fucks - I think HC2 is testament to that. Kermode is being quite narrow-minded and uncritical in his response to the film, although I can appreciate why anyone would dislike the experience of watching it.

[Noodle Lizard]

Yeah, I think Kermode is increasingly off the mark these days. I think he has been more sophisticated and aware than this, in the past. I agree that Six really does not seem to give many fucks - I think HC2 is testament to that. Kermode is being quite narrow-minded and uncritical in his response to the film, although I can appreciate why anyone would dislike the experience of watching it.

I think Kermode generally writes off anything approaching "torture porn" (which is a term he openly campaigned against in the past, by the way).  So anything which is self-consciously nasty and disgusting is a no-no for him, unless it already has built-in cred like Nekromantik or whatever.  As much as I find A Serbian Film to be mostly rubbish, his review of it still managed to frustrate me.  He always comes off as oddly conservative in those reviews.

[Puce Moment]

Like a lot of middle-aged fans of horror, trash and cult films, Kermode privileges and gives cultural capital to pre-90s cinema, and anything that fits his own romanticised definition of 'exploitation' film. Some of the films Kermode gives kudos to have been made in the same conditions, and with a similar approach, to Six.

[Noodle Lizard]

Like a lot of middle-aged fans of horror, trash and cult films, Kermode privileges and gives cultural capital to pre-90s cinema, and anything that fits his own romanticised definition of 'exploitation' film. Some of the films Kermode gives kudos to have been made in the same conditions, and with a similar approach, to Six.

Exactly.  I think that's why it frustrates me that he doesn't even bother really engaging with any of it.  No, these will not be the next Steven Spielbergs or whatever, but they're (relatively) young filmmakers making stuff completely outside of the movie industry which is (for better or worse) capturing people's attention.  Give it a bit of credit, for fuck's sake, I watched the truly godawful Transcendence based on your judgement[nb]talking to Kermode here[/nb].

[prwc]

Like a lot of middle-aged fans of horror, trash and cult films, Kermode privileges and gives cultural capital to pre-90s cinema, and anything that fits his own romanticised definition of 'exploitation' film.

I generally much prefer pre-90s horror/exploitation myself[nb]I do think the 90s was a very good decade for cinema generally, just not those genres[/nb], and I'm far from middle aged. Just a matter of preference I suppose, certainly not nostalgia, in my case my at least.

As the The Human Centipede, I quite liked the first but didn't really get on with the second one. I will get round to the third though for completions sake, and it does sound pretty intriguing. I met Six at an early screening of the original and liked him very much, he's refreshingly unpretentious and enthusiastic. Definitely a filmmaker I respect a lot.

[Noodle Lizard]

I generally much prefer pre-90s horror/exploitation myself, and I'm far from middle aged. Just a matter of preference I suppose, certainly not nostalgia, in my case my at least.

As the The Human Centipede, I quite liked the first but didn't really get on with the second one. I will get round to the third though for completions sake, and it does sound pretty intriguing. I met Six at an early screening of the original and liked him very much, he's refreshingly unpretentious and enthusiastic. Definitely a filmmaker I respect a lot.

The third is wholly different to the second (and the first, for that matter).  Whether you'll get on with it or not is up for grabs, but it's definitely quite a ... something.  Dieter Laser's proper going for it - imagine drunk Henry Sellers from Father Ted, but for about 90 minutes.  I've only watched it the once but even to this day I find myself mentally repeating a lot of his weird outbursts.

"YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRR'E FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIRRRRRRREEEEEED!"

[prwc]

Well, that sounds fairly promising to me! A lot of films I enjoy are ones people often say things like "I'm sure whether I liked it or not, but it sure was different!" about.

[Puce Moment]

Exactly.  I think that's why it frustrates me that he doesn't even bother really engaging with any of it.  No, these will not be the next Steven Spielbergs or whatever, but they're (relatively) young filmmakers making stuff completely outside of the movie industry which is (for better or worse) capturing people's attention.  Give it a bit of credit, for fuck's sake, I watched the truly godawful Transcendence based on your judgement[nb]talking to Kermode here[/nb].

Whilst Kermode often makes sure that absolutely awful and worthless Hollywood films are given a decent kicking, he also seems to like a whole load of absolute fucking twoddle. The charge of cynicism against Six is particularly galling given his delight in utterly cynical Hollywood fare. His accusation of THC3 being 'unpleasant' and 'nasty' don't make a lot of sense given that he uses these terms as compliments for a whole load of other films. I wish he would just say that he doesn't like them instead of contextualising them as some kind of moral aberration.

I generally much prefer pre-90s horror/exploitation myself[nb]I do think the 90s was a very good decade for cinema generally, just not those genres[/nb], and I'm far from middle aged. Just a matter of preference I suppose, certainly not nostalgia, in my case my at least.

I do too, although I wouldn't necessarily say I was free from nostalgia/romanticisation. I do, however, think I do a decent job of understanding that skewed and biased opinion when watching modern horror, most of which I really dislike. I can't stand A Serbian Film but I would like to think my opinion is based on issues to do with editing, tone and immersion, rather than some moral viewpoint.

[popcorn]

What's wrong with objecting to a film on moral grounds?

If you thought a film was grossly racist, wouldn't that be a moral objection?

[Puce Moment]

What's wrong with objecting to a film on moral grounds?

Nothing, in principle.