The Human Centipede (First Sequence) - No Stars

Here is a movie that is almost impossible to give a star rating to because depending on whether you're someone who goes to movies to be entertained and touched or are a 13 year-old goth kid, your take on this movie will be very different. I will say this right now- any amount of social satire or parody thought about in this movie is simply what the viewer assigns and is not what the writer/director intended. I know this because this is a movie that keeps its focus on the rebelliously disgusting premise without any other focus whatsoever. It is a horror/thriller that is designed to make you feel nauseated, nothing more. I give the movie no stars because I can't possibly recommend a movie that is not entertaining or enlightening. As I said in my first blog entry, critics serve the role of stating what is and isn't art, and I'm saying this right now: "The Human Centipede" is not art.

This isn't really a spoiler since everything I say is revealed in the trailer, but I will not reveal what happens in the final half hour. The movie is about a mad scientist who spent his career separating conjoined twins and decides, now that he's crazy, to join three people into a human centipede, connected mouth to anus. The back two cannot eat since their mouths are surgically attached to the ass of the person in front of them, so all of their nutrients will be taken when they eat said person in front's excrement. This is all the movie is about.

Now that I've said what the movie is, I'd like to take most of the rest of my review to say what it is not, based on claims many people have made.

It is not a parody of pornography because the focus is simply on the surgery (with several shots showing such images as the doctor ripping out teeth of the back two parts of the centipede since they don't need them to consume their new diet) and not on sex at all. As a matter of fact, I believe the only nudity shown would be the one in the middle's breasts every now and then, although I wasn't watching the movie with attention to nudity. I never felt sexual tension, and, quite frankly, sex was the last thing on my mind during the movie. As a matter of fact, "The Human Centipede" isn't a parody of any kind. It has no comedic edge of its genre like "Scream" or "Drag Me to Hell" had.

It's not a dark comedy. Although there are comedic moments early on, the general focus is much too grisly for us to get a laugh out of gore or situation. Even in my favorite film, "Fargo," the Coens knew that there were parts that should not be viewed in a comedic lens for the necessity of storytelling, so the violent parts were not meant to be funny. Dark comedy can take many mediums, but if the writer/director intended a dark comedy, he failed miserably. Because of that, I do not believe that that is the kind of movie that was intended. Surely a writer/director knows when a moment is meant to be funny, and this movie had none of those after the initial capture. Furthermore, there is no possible way that many of the scenes could be viewed as funny. If you laughed, it was out of an uncomfortableness and not because of intended humor.

It is not enlightening. There is a part in the end where we're supposed to think that the people in the centipede didn't value their bodies enough to deserve having them to themselves, but that simply isn't true. What a person is born with is what every human being deserves at the very least, and to say that some don't deserve their skin is ridiculous. Not a single human being has ever committed a crime so horrible (not even the villain of this film) that they don't deserve their body. I also would like to say that the last sentence is not an indictment of the death penalty. If you have philosophical objections, then rephrase the statement in a way that you find most pleasing.

It is not believable. The three characters all make unbelievably stupid decisions (or lack thereof) that seem to transcend logic to such an extreme that it goes into the fact that none of the characters could possibly be portrayed by any actor as they were in the film. The villain is also one-note, and it seemed that Dr. Heiter (yes, I'm aware that it sounds like "hater" and is almost "Hitler") is basically just a crazy sociopath. Obviously, you aren't meant to know why he wanted to create a human centipede, but there is no possible motivation. Crazy people have reasons for their actions. Also, It felt like his character was written to shadow Buffalo Bill from "The Silence of the Lambs," never recognizing his victims as humans, but there was nothing else there. I always use the following though when I'm questioning characters' dimensionality- What would he/she do in a context that is not within the film? For instance, what would Dr. Heiter do if he was pulled over for speeding? I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

The movie is not logical. Its tagline is '100% medically accurate,' but that's not the point. I'm not a medical student, and I haven't asked one if this is possible. To be completely honest, I truly don't care- I'm not that curious. What I'm talking about is the fact that as I mentioned before, the three victims make illogically stupid choices, and the characters couldn't be played by anyone. They are two-dimensional, and no matter how stupid they are, they simply aren't believable. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but that's a point that I simply can't let slip by. I could pick apart the rest of the movie with simple logic, there's no point. Every single character is incredibly stupidly written.

The movie is nothing deeper than what you find in most horror films. I read a response that compared the movie to a Shakespearean tragedy, and I'm here to say that Shakespeare had character depth, dialogue that made sense, and endings where you not only feel for the circumstances but also for the characters. To compare "The Human Centipede" to anything by Shakespeare is to compare "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" to "Casablanca." It just can't be done. *SPOILER* Also remember that Shakespeare didn't invent the tragedy, so if a movie has a tragic ending that is left to be open-ended, then comparing it to Shakespeare is no better than comparing anyone who kills someone to Hannibal Lecter. *NO SPOILER*

Reader, here is what we are left with: the writer/director thought about the concept of a human centipede then made it into something of a surgical torture-porn film by having it performed by a crazy surgeon. Satire would come from some amount of subtlety and make us aware of its exterior focus through imagery or other references. "The Human Centipede" has none of these qualities and instead shows us graphic surgery as well as images that are supposed to hit on the "what you don't see disgusts you more than what you do" motif when the guy in front responds to a call of nature. We don't see the excrement, but based on the reaction of the middle girl, we know what's happening underneath those bandages.

I choose to not throw in my personal morals into this review for two reasons. The first reason is that this movie was designed to isolate its audience and seems to thrive on deplorable/genius reviews about its morals. The second reason is because my morals aren't yours, and I have no reason to force them on you. I watched this movie because a friend recommended it, and I can tell you that I was not enlightened, entertained, intrigued, or even effectively grossed out like I felt at the end of "A Clockwork Orange." I have watched a lot of movie gore, and I have effectively desensitized myself from it (not exactly something I am proud of), and the surgical gore didn't phase me. Yes, I felt disgusted at times, but it didn't last. On my list of fears, being placed in a human centipede or forced to eat feces aren't exactly high up, but what "The Human Centipede" tries to exploit is most everyone's fear of not being able to effectively control your own body.

Every single published review of this movie is either glowing or mad as hell. I didn't feel either feeling because as far as I'm concerned, I just watched a sophomoric exploitation film that tries to be an indie/art-house masterpiece. I think the movie could have possibly been decent if it didn't try to be something it's not. If it stuck with simply being a horror/thriller, it could have been quite a disturbing one. If it wanted to be a satire, parody, or grisly dark comedy, it could have been something to consider. There is nothing in this movie to admire in any way, and my advice is to stay clear of this black hole. I'd wish it to be considered for a Razzie Award, but I'm afraid that that would give it some amount of publicity.

No MPAA Rating. This movie is intended only for those above 18 as it would have most likely received an NC-17 rating.
Indie release- most likely only at indie theaters and independent film festivals.