A Centopéia Humana 2

A segunda Centopéia Humana do extremista Tom Six preenche um pouco um buraco na história cinematográfica. Ele quebra tabus (grávida, bebé) e leva a notável ideia do primeiro filme a um tal extremo que só o ignorante (e ignorante do subgénero «splatter») não apreciará a sua capacidade de introduzir sem elementos de humor uma fusão de elementos de horror e violência e repugnância suprema numa forma tão surrealista e cómica. Ele não é um jovem Peter Jackson; em comparação, ele não consegue levar coisas com calma. Mas como o seu produto está longe dos parâmetros de trash na sua forma profissional e o personagem principal parece ser realista, o seu arrepio e a sua malícia vão perturbá-lo em lugares sensíveis e anteriormente intocados da mente. Mas é claro que tem de ser o público alvo certo. Já na adolescência, filmes como Holocausto Canibal, Pink Flamingos e NEKROmantik deixaram-me curioso sobre as mentes dos seus realizadores — o que faziam, porquê e como. E na constante inundação de Hollywood, eu estava entretido pela sua alteridade. Gostei igualmente da segunda Centopéia Humana, mais madura na realização de filmes e na representação do que a primeira parte, não aborrecida por um momento e cheia de ideias que se mantêm unidas e se formam para o «grande final». (27/10/2014)

Martin is not a sophisticated idiot like Dr. Heiter. He is just a small, fat little man who struggles with his victims dying, cannot perform surgeries, is frustrated because of it, and his peers do not help him much. In the end, however, he succeeds, he manages to do it. So what is different about the new part? Better? Firstly, the centipede is significantly longer as it now has ten segments. Secondly, it points out, at least initially, how much the media can influence us. Is this what the film is trying to tell us? Or is it all just in the filth that tries to shock us? (09/12/2013)

If the first episode was an innocent first date with a slightly peculiar partner, I would call the second one an outright fuckfest with the most disgusting sexual deviant imaginable. And if the first film – intimate, psychologically believable and emotionally quite intense – gave me the impression that Tom Six can weave stories, the second convincingly disabused me of that belief. The Second Human Centipede is admittedly brilliantly atmospheric, optimally morbid in its setting and main characters, even in the scenes free of physical violence, and boasts an extremely realistic psychopath whose daily life alone would make for quite a few horror films. But all the promising themes merge into a mindless carnage of such a disgusting and exaggerated nature that the only real emotion that remains is utter disgust, not at the actions of the "hero" (which was clearly the purpose), but at the actions of the director, who has the audacity to serve us civilized people such cheap and mindless filth. In addition to being supremely ugly, the film is also unimaginably nonsensical in terms of narrative logic – even a film primarily built on brutality shouldn’t have so many flaws and logical holes – and even Six's hilarious attempt to enrich the narrative with a noble twist fails to cover those flaws up. I finished watching it out of pure curiosity as to how far the filmmakers were willing to go in their visual openness, and I can honestly say that they went so far as to make the film worthy of being banned. This is not normal, really. (11/11/2014)

Has Tom Six made a filthy meta horror film about how harmless perverts can become dangerous psychopaths after watching a filthy horror film? Probably not, because the last scene (i.e. the most cliché twist ever) allows for a completely opposite interpretation. I’d probably be one of the few who liked more the first and tighter part. It was more about the victims, I was able to relate to them and was mentally tramped by their sad fate. The second part, in contrast, moves only around the perverted protagonists and we don’t get to know anything about the victims. The first part is better as horror with a story, the second is more a probe into perverted thoughts, and I’m not saying that this is bad, it’s just that personally it doesn’t suit me. Martin (the protagonist) is portrayed very convincingly repulsive, which is one of the things that both parts have in common – Tom Six has a good nose for proper perverts. The rest of the actors, on the other hand, aren’t that good, and the film is not particularly well made, either, though the way it relies on brutality and nastiness it’s effective. So, four stars, but not as certain as the first part. PS: If the third part is to be even more meta, maybe some outraged film critic will sew together director Tom Six, Dieter Laser (Dr. Helter from the first part) and Laurence R. Harvey (Martin from the second part). I will give it five stars if it’s shot even worse :-D Edit: I’m reducing the rating to 3 stars, the memories of the film fizzled out surprisingly quickly. (30/10/2011)

This is the inevitable consequence of the great success that followed the release of the first movie. Tom Six unleashed his perverted imagination and gave fans what they wanted. A severely harsh and faecal piggy bank without any real story was created, which many people will probably enjoy, and a large number of other people will completely condemn with undisguised disgust. For me, this is exactly the kind of fringe movie entertainment I am not really into, and I do not need to watch it ever again. (16/11/2019)