Human Centipede: First Sequence (US - BD)
Gabe is less than impressed by Tom Six's recent slick and sick horror film...
Feature
Once a celebrated doctor specializing in conjoined twins, Dr. Heiter (Dieter Laser) grows obsessed with conjoining the unconjoined. Following a semi-successful experiment with dogs, Heiter moves onto human subjects. Just his luck, that a pair of ditzy American tourists wind up on his doorstep, and after a quick trip out the next day he has his three test subjects. Human Centipede came out of the obscurity blocks running, building itself up to full blown cult status without anyone actually seeing the bloody film. Toted as so revolting you simply had to see it, those of us that tend to dabble in the darker, more debaucherous realms of cinema knew it couldn’t have anything on the August Underground, or Guinea Pig series, but anything that catches on with the mainstream that pushes the boundaries of good taste this far deserves a special place in our hearts. That said, there really isn’t a lot of gore on display, rather a really gross idea, so don’t plan any double features with Nekromantik expecting some kind of German grue fest.

Things start slow. Very slow. I felt like I was watching one of those films Lionsgate puts out in a collection since no one would bother buying any of them alone. A car breaks down, two pretty American girls do everything wrong following the break down, and act badly for a pretty long period. I’m thinking writer/director Tom Six is trying to ape the slow-burns of more successful recent films like Hostel II and Wolf Creek, but his characters and their problems are just too familiar. Then the horror starts, and things continue to creep at a somewhat painful pace.

The problem is that the climax is in the title and description. We know the victims won’t escape their nasty fate because then we’d never have The Human Centipede. The film builds some suspense on the idea, and the idea is revolting, but once we get to brass tacks we’re just waiting for the gross stuff, and once that’s over with, well, where do we go? The chase through the house is utter time filler, but should be a series of edge of your seat close calls. If this were a traditional slasher the audience could assume that this was the girl that was going to survive the ordeal and kill the mad man, but as an audience we aren’t given that luxury. A later, post operation chase is much more harrowing, as there’s a chance in Hell the centipede can get away, since the title has already been satisfied

Video
I had no idea what to expect video-wise from this disc. IFC’s track record is pretty good so far, but the film itself isn’t the kind of thing that usually instills confidence. I’d compare it to their semi-recent Dead Snow transfer – super sharp, clean, and more colorful than expected. The sharpness sometimes rolls into the realms of over-sharpness creating minor, thin layers of edge enhancement, and some speckling. Colors are solid, with no blocking or bleeding, though truth be told there isn’t a lot of color in the film. Large sections are simply blue hues with relatively deep blacks and soft white highlights. I could imagine details disappearing on a standard definition disc in these areas. Blood red highlights do stand out nicely in he sickly fluorescent blue sets, and the brown and lush green outdoors are a fine contrast.

Audio
Here we come to the disappointing part of the disc – the audio is only 2.0 Dolby. The lack of surround, LFE and a discreet center channel depletes the production values more than you’d think. The mood music is pushed to a whisper, and almost all the aural emphasis is placed on dialogue. I had to turn my system up pretty loud to even hear the music for much of the film. The missing LFE creates a slim atmosphere. There’s a storm scene that picks the stereo channels a bit, and a couple directional bits of movement, but overall this is a huge disappointment in sound design. At the very least every thing is clear, from vocal performances to the most basic sound effects.

Extras
The extras begin with a commentary track featuring director Tom Six, who sounds nervous right off the bat, and his style is of describing what’s on screen, while offering some technical specs. There’s some interesting behind the scenes stories, but they’re few and far between. Next up is a rather generic collection of behind the scenes (HD, 9:00) footage, just random bug on the wall stuff mixed together with no rhyme or reason. This is followed with a director interview (HD, 5:20), the talking head answering on screen text questions type of interview. You’re going to get most of the same info from the commentary track. A series of casting tapes (SD, 2:00) follows, along with a look at the foley session (SD, 5:00), a deleted scene (HD, 1:30), a trailer, and poster art.

Overall
So The Human Centipede doesn’t live up to the hype, but it’s not because it’s a badly made movie, it’s because the concept doesn’t fill a feature length runtime. It would make a great short, much like Nacho Cereda’s Aftermath (which blows this film away in perverse grotesquery), or maybe even a series of paintings. It’s still worth seeing for genre fans, but with tempered hope. The HD video looks great, with only minor blemishes, but the 2.0 surround is a disappointment.
Review by Gabriel Powers
Advertisements
Existing Posts
Sorry guys, I should take a break while I'm doing this stuff and just flood the reviews next month.
Glad that this whole matter about typos in reviews has been cleared up. We're all human and we all make the odd mistake now again.
We are occasionally guilty of not proof-reading our own work, but that's mainly because we slave away at it for so long that by the time we're finished, a kind of word-blindness occurs! Lol!
We don't get paid to write reviews for this site - it'd be the perfect job if we could - we all do it because we love movies and we want to share our passion for them with others. We're sure that the odd mistake along the way can be forgiven!
All the best!
Kevin & Nick W
We are occasionally guilty of not proof-reading our own work, but that's mainly because we slave away at it for so long that by the time we're finished, a kind of word-blindness occurs! Lol!
We don't get paid to write reviews for this site - it'd be the perfect job if we could - we all do it because we love movies and we want to share our passion for them with others. We're sure that the odd mistake along the way can be forgiven!

All the best!
Kevin & Nick W
Can't see myself watching this film. Gabe's views echo what I've heard from my friends; interesting idea, but there's no tension as the front cover on the DVD shows you how it ends up (excuse the pun). If they'd changed the title and kept the actual human centipede bit as a shocking twist, there might have been more in it as a horror film. That's just my thoughts, but not something we're likely to know. Probably not in the probably predictable planned sequel either. Just hope this doesn't go on for loads of sequels like most other horror films that make more than $1,000 seem to do these days.
hogaburger wrote: If someone doesn't cook your pizza right, do you get in their face and go on a sarcastic tirade about every detail you don't like?
2manydvds wrote: Yep.
At least you yourself see it.
As for me, I guess I expect anonymous online commentators to be total self-righteous, long-winded douchebags who complain about the slightest inconsistencies within their peripheral field of vision, boiling over instead of contributing anything in a thoughtful manner. That's just exactly what I think.
2manydvds wrote: Yep.
At least you yourself see it.
As for me, I guess I expect anonymous online commentators to be total self-righteous, long-winded douchebags who complain about the slightest inconsistencies within their peripheral field of vision, boiling over instead of contributing anything in a thoughtful manner. That's just exactly what I think.
Yep.
If someone doesn't cook your pizza right, do you get in their face and go on a sarcastic tirade about every detail you don't like?
OK, fine. I'm a dick. Is that what you want to hear? I guess expecting a guy who writes articles to be able to write, a surgeon to be able to perform a surgery, and the guy who makes my pizza to make it taste good is being a dick. Fine. I'm the biggest dick in the world, because that's exactly what I think.
I agree with hogaburger, there was no need for anybody to be such a dick about the grammar issues in the earlier version of the review. None of the reviewers on this site get paid for any of this stuff, they do it to appease to us and they get nothing in return but our gratitude (apart from people like 2manydvds, obviously). If you spotted a load of grammatical errors in something written by Barry Norman or Jonathan Ross then that's different.
Brad Stoker's contemporaries probably thought he was sick. I have no intention of seeing this film, but here we all are talking about it. Sick or not, they've made one hell of an impact in a genre that gets more and more diluted and ineffectual with each passing year/remake.
I think the people who wrote and made this movie has a very sick mind
Mal wrote: Comments noted, corrections made.
that would explain how i didn't notice any mistakes. lol
as for the movie, yeah its on netflix and im doing the free trial so i may give it a shot but it hasn't "caught me" so i may not. but the reviews make it sound like the exact thing i am expecting so no rush.
that would explain how i didn't notice any mistakes. lol
as for the movie, yeah its on netflix and im doing the free trial so i may give it a shot but it hasn't "caught me" so i may not. but the reviews make it sound like the exact thing i am expecting so no rush.
Slight misspelling on Nacho Cerdà's last name...
Comments noted, corrections made.
I would understand the harsh grammar criticism if this were something Gabe is paid to do, but its not. It's a humble DVD review site run by people who love movies and do it for free. It is not the New York Times. Regardless, you could be a whole lot less of a dick about it.
Oh, I'm sorry. I mean Mr. Powers up there.
I heard so many people going on about it, I went and bought it, Good job I did not pay to much, I now feel like a t**t, One of the worse films I have ever seen,I put film on ebay right after I watched it. I was even going to let it go for £1:00 and that would have been 99p to much.......
I agree with 2manyDVDs too. Mr. Gould, please write a review when you are ready or in the good-enough-mood-to-write condition. You know well that your review is an official article, right? The spelling/grammar mistakes here are quite distracting for an article written by English-speaking-country native.
This is just a healthy criticism from me. I'm not native so don't sue me, okay.
This is just a healthy criticism from me. I'm not native so don't sue me, okay.
I'm sorry, but I have to agree with 2manydvds. This review is incredibly poorly written. Even the very last line is bad. "...but the 2.0 surround is a disappointed." Come on, man.
Meh. I'm not trying to be a dick. It's just reached a boiling point for me. The internet has allowed everyone to be a critic and an expert, but not everyone has the skill sets to do that in writing. It's tiresome when it would only take a bit more care to correct.
In addition, I didn't make a mistake. "The King's English" is acceptable, as it is how the term was coined originally. Everyone knows you have a queen. She's an immortal.
In addition, I didn't make a mistake. "The King's English" is acceptable, as it is how the term was coined originally. Everyone knows you have a queen. She's an immortal.
toonloon wrote: Actually, our current monarch happens to be a lady, so it's "Queen's English", not "King's English".
This is why I try my best to avoid pedantry on forums... you almost always make a mistake when trying to point out other people's.
But you have to agree that making a mistake in a comment is completely different from making tons of mistakes in the main article/story. I'm glad the mistakes were pointed out. I was surprised by how many I was noticing while reading.
This is why I try my best to avoid pedantry on forums... you almost always make a mistake when trying to point out other people's.

But you have to agree that making a mistake in a comment is completely different from making tons of mistakes in the main article/story. I'm glad the mistakes were pointed out. I was surprised by how many I was noticing while reading.
anyways...film was weird...a good punishment for paedos tho which is how the film came about...god knows whats happening in the sequel!
I noticed the spelling/grammar issues too, doesn't mean I had to be a dick about it.
Actually, our current monarch happens to be a lady, so it's "Queen's English", not "King's English".
This is why I try my best to avoid pedantry on forums... you almost always make a mistake when trying to point out other people's.
Good review Gabe. I've made my mind up about this film now... I don't want to see it.
This is why I try my best to avoid pedantry on forums... you almost always make a mistake when trying to point out other people's.

Good review Gabe. I've made my mind up about this film now... I don't want to see it.
^ 2manydvds = TOOmanydvds
I pretty much agree your analysis Gabe. The movie's biggest problem was that it was just criminally boring.
I'm of the opinion that if you are making an exploitation movie, you should go all out with the grotesque material and milk your concept for all its worth. They definitely could have taken it further, but the movie seemed quite satisfied with fulfilling the titular procedure and letting the horror stop there.
I pretty much agree your analysis Gabe. The movie's biggest problem was that it was just criminally boring.
I'm of the opinion that if you are making an exploitation movie, you should go all out with the grotesque material and milk your concept for all its worth. They definitely could have taken it further, but the movie seemed quite satisfied with fulfilling the titular procedure and letting the horror stop there.
This review is so full of typos and poor grammar it isn't funny. You may not think it a big deal, but if you are trying to be an authority in a journalistic setting, please do your homework.
debaucheries = debaucherous
so don’t planning any double features = you figure it out
Things start slow. Very slow. = You mean slowly?
their problems are just to familiar. = too?
once we get to brass tax = Brass tacks. Brass TACKS.
If this were a tradition slasher = traditionAL
but as and audience = duh
on a stand definition disc = This isn't Facebook or Twitter. Standard.
and his style is of the describing what’s on screen, while offering some technical specs. = This is not a complete thought.
Your spelling of the word color as colour indicates that you are British, so there is no excuse for your blatant execution of the King's English. Please go back to school and spare us your poorly structured reviews. Don't they have spell check in England?
debaucheries = debaucherous
so don’t planning any double features = you figure it out
Things start slow. Very slow. = You mean slowly?
their problems are just to familiar. = too?
once we get to brass tax = Brass tacks. Brass TACKS.
If this were a tradition slasher = traditionAL
but as and audience = duh
on a stand definition disc = This isn't Facebook or Twitter. Standard.
and his style is of the describing what’s on screen, while offering some technical specs. = This is not a complete thought.
Your spelling of the word color as colour indicates that you are British, so there is no excuse for your blatant execution of the King's English. Please go back to school and spare us your poorly structured reviews. Don't they have spell check in England?


This product has not been rated
Disc Details
Release Date:
5th October 2010
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Blu-ray Disc
RCE:
No
Video:
1080p
Aspect:
1.85:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Surround 2.0 English/German/Korean
Subtitles:
English
Extras:
Director's Commentary, Behind the Scenes, Director's Interview, casting tapes, foley session, deleted scene, trailer, poster gallery
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
Tom Six
Cast:
Ashley C. Williams, Dieter Laser
Genre:
Horror
Length:
92 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
New Easter Eggs





Hot Interviews





Thrilling Reviews





Most Talked About




