The film is reprehensible, dismaying, ugly, artless and an affront to any notion, however remote, of human decency.
was waiting for this review. I didn't think he would watch since he hated the first one. movie looks gross
Oct 8 - 03:29 PM
He obviously only watched it to trash it.
Oct 8 - 04:15 PM
That's like saying he only drank the swill out of the garbage dumpster so he could throw up.
Oct 9 - 10:22 AM
He didn't hate the first one, or at least, he endorsed it as a well made horror film. He refused to give it any star rating (as opposed to zero stars), as "stars don't shine" in that movie's universe.
Nov 4 - 11:05 AM
indeed.. he said it was a movie in it's own universe :D
Nov 10 - 06:25 AM
sounds about right
Oct 8 - 03:32 PM
Yep, trash is as trash does.
Oct 8 - 06:46 PM
Glad he watched it. Maybe it will sway a few people from giving money to the director and he'll stop making stupid shit.
Oct 9 - 01:03 AM
OK Roger, guy who wrote a movie where a lesbian has a gun inserted in her mouth and fired. Guy who gave 3 1/2 stars to a movie that shows 2 girls getting gang raped for about a half hour (Last House on the Left).
If this exact movie was made in France or Japan, Ebert would probably give it 3 stars and praise its audacity.
Oct 9 - 06:33 AM
Technically that rape scene only lasted 5 minutes, on a separate note that movie is one of the better horror remakes to come out today.
Oct 9 - 02:35 PM
So apparently context and tone don't matter. And apparently a guy with barbed wire on his penis raping one end of a 12 person anus-to-mouth assemblage is not further beyond the pale than a realistic rape scene in which you're supposed to feel empathy for the victim, and a violent scene in a campy over-the-top sex comedy in which nothing can be taken seriously.
Good to know these things.
Oct 9 - 04:55 PM
And part one of this movie did not have context and tone? You aren't supposed to feel empathy for the two main characters? Did you bother to watch the first one that Ebert felt was not even worth rating?
Oct 10 - 03:17 PM
Again, realism. Ebert will praise a violent movie in the violence has real-world application. Ebert liked Last House on the Left because he felt for the female characters, and many people have been raped before. Whereas in First Sequence, the female characters are stitched ass to mouth, and not many people have been stitched ass-to-mouth. Also, Craven made a statement with his film. Six makes these films for the sole purpose of being disgusting, which Ebert doesn't consider art.
It's like comparing Dali to neosurrealist artists. Dali labored on his paintings and they meant something. Any nobody off the street can shit on a canvas and call it "art," but it's up to the critics whether or not it actually means shit.
Oct 18 - 06:44 PM
I'm so confused that people are saying the violence has no context! This film is a (disgusting as it may be) parody of the concept that violent films cause violence. It has one of the best developed "monsters" I've ever seen in a film. They explain the reasons for his psychological break and in the end *******spoiler alert******* leave it completely open that NONE of the film happened.... it could (and I feel it was suggested by the ending) be entirely set in Martin's fantasy world where finally he has the power. First clue is the psychiatrist's un natural intrest in Martin (since he was raped by his father he would see all male authority figures as potential aggressors). Also, it seems too well laid out to just ignore the plot holes of a warehouse full of bodies and two escaped victims, not to mention the child that has apparently been sitting in a bloody car littered with bullet holes for days unnoticed. By the third film I think we will find out that the 2nd and 3rd films are a look into the mind of a deranged fan and never happened.
Mar 28 - 04:06 PM
a horrible attempt at criticism... I give you 1 star sir
Sarcasm not even contained within
Nov 10 - 06:26 AM
Who cares what Ebert rated some other movie? As if that somehow doesn't make this a piece of $hit? I mean, go ahead and criticize Ebert all you want, but at the same time just realize that this movie still is what it is, no matter what he says from one movie to the next.
Oct 9 - 08:25 PM
It does matter what Ebert's ratings history is, since he deemed part one of this movie to be so vile it did not merit even a rating. That calls his whole rating output into question. He also pontificated all through the 80s about how demeaning and offensive the horror films were, yet he praised one of the most exploitative films ever (Last house was marketed essentially as a snuff movie promising plenty of human agony...have a look at some of the original posters for it...it was the Human Centipede of its day).
Oct 10 - 03:11 PM
Ebert's review of First Sequence had the same statement that this one has...the film didn't even deserve to be called a film (hence it was in "it's own universe"). However, the first film was bad joke...to repeat it is just vulgar, and doesn't deserve the sarcasm that Ebert gave to the first one.
Nov 16 - 12:58 PM
This kind of movies are what make current filmmaking so disgusting. Mr. Roger Eber is a martir if he watched this limitless visage of degeneration.
Oct 10 - 03:50 PM
Put the thesaurus up.
Oct 22 - 12:17 AM
Oct 22 - 11:46 AM
My god... You're trying so hard to sound smart when you can't even spell "Martyr".
Apr 7 - 09:44 PM
One of Roger Eberts quotes about the first film is on the first movies DVD box. He didn't like it?
Oct 14 - 04:09 PM
I did watch the first sequence, and it was outrageous in the worst way. The horrible scene in which the Japanese man voids his bowels into the mouth of the girl is indeed sick--and sickening. However, I could have stopped watching it. I do not think that Six should not make movies, I just think that we should all show him how we feel about his movies--pay to see them and swell up his wallet, or stay away from them and watch his wallet shrink. As for part two of Centipede, I will not sit through it. But won't judge you if you do.
Oct 26 - 08:22 PM
I had watched first part and I hated the way it was portrayed in, such things don't carry horror, horrors don't make you throw up rather hide your face or scream (though in low-tone), but this is sick, if this film has got to be good, then there are several of subjects in sick-arena to pick up and keep making movies....
Nov 26 - 05:37 AM
well stated, Roger
Feb 21 - 03:57 PM
Just say it was stupid you pretentious shit
Apr 7 - 09:34 PM
Or you could get all that sand out your vagina.
Aug 25 - 04:41 AM
Ivan Christiane Gaitan Fernandez
I totally agree with Ebert, and I also wish that Tom Six die before "offering" the audience a third part.
Jun 14 - 12:29 PM