Insofar as I believe in any censorship of film that doesn't actually damage any real human being against their will (clue: I don't) I can more or less see where they're coming from in terms of their comparison of the two in that the first does sound as though it has more dramatic merit. On the other hand, I'm not sure "It's a crappy (!) film by comparison to the original" is justification per se... Otherwise Jurassic Park II shouldn't have been allowed into the country either. On the other other hand, if the film was genuinely just unratable by their guidelines there isn't much they can do about that. Other than, yaknow, change the guidelines.
It does sound even more repugnant than the first (which I didn't see, and have no intention of doing so), but I agree with you on the grounds for censorship.
I've seen the first, and whilst it wasn't exactly pleasant viewing, it contained nothing particularly surprising or shocking for anyone who has seen a lot of low-budget horror films. The worst thing about it was that it was just really, really awful - but such is the way with much low-budget horror. Occasionally a little gem comes along, but for every one of those there are 20 absolutely terrible films.
Judging by the BFBC's comments, the sequel is nothing like the first. Also, it is very rare for a film to be refused a licence nowadays. I just checked and only 1 other film has been "banned" since 1993.
The first one is the first horror film I've ever decided not to see even if I'm totally bored - and I love horror films. But the entire premise just pushes things too far. (Not that I'll sit through anything. I turned off both "Captivity" and "Hostel" about halfway through because I found them so fucking boring.)
To clarify, because commentors on Blastr don't get it: Refusing a certificate doesn't mean 'banning' a film. It means it won't be approved for general release in cinemas or on DVD. It is not illegal to download it (well, y'know, it is, but...) or watch it at all if you go the extra mile to obtain it.
It does mean that you can't wander into your local picture house, say "oh, that looks like an interesting film," and wind up seeing - well, a more disturbing sequel to Human Centipede.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2011-06-07 12:00 pm
no subject
no subject
no subject
Judging by the BFBC's comments, the sequel is nothing like the first. Also, it is very rare for a film to be refused a licence nowadays. I just checked and only 1 other film has been "banned" since 1993.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Refusing a certificate doesn't mean 'banning' a film. It means it won't be approved for general release in cinemas or on DVD. It is not illegal to download it (well, y'know, it is, but...) or watch it at all if you go the extra mile to obtain it.
It does mean that you can't wander into your local picture house, say "oh, that looks like an interesting film," and wind up seeing - well, a more disturbing sequel to Human Centipede.
no subject
Bailey Report
no subject