Why do we want to see movies like 'The Human Centipede 2'?

human-centipede-2

Image Credit: Film Images

human-centipede-2-01

Image Credit: Film Images

The first time that I heard about The Human Centipede (First Sequence), the notorious 2010 anatomical-nightmare horror movie, it was in the offices of EW, where a slightly freaked-out Clark Collis had just returned from a screening of it. I knew that Clark, like me, was an aficionado of all things cinematically dark and twisted, and I also knew that he tends to maintain a certain wisecracking-through-the-gallows sense of humor about this sort of thing. So when he said, “It’s the sickest movie I’ve ever seen,” and then, with nary a chuckle (very unusual for him), went on to describe it as if he was talking not about some dementedly over-the-top horror film but a gruesome traffic accident he’d just had the bad luck to witness, I knew a couple of things: 1) this was a movie I absolutely had to see; and 2) thanks to Clark’s vividly creeped-out invite/warning, I was actually a little scared when I tried to imagine what I was in for.

With that sort of expectation fevering up my cult-horror-fan brain, I made it to a screening of The Human Centipede a few weeks later, and I have to say: I was grossed out, I was luridly entertained — but on some level, I was almost relieved. Because with all due respect to Clark and his supreme good taste in supremely tasteless shock cinema, The Human Centipede (First Sequence), as grotesque a movie as it is, was not ultimately a film that pushed revulsion to the point of inhuman terror. Yes, it featured the outrageous, stomach-churning spectacle of a psychotic German surgeon, nestled in a bourgeois home in a woodland Berlin suburb, drugging several random innocents, strapping them to beds in his basement laboratory, and then surgically attaching them, mouth to anus, to form the title “creature.” Yes, it featured lots of shots of this wriggling three-person monster-mutant attempting to crawl around the house and find an escape.

But here’s the thing: The Human Centipede, for all the stitched-up bodily horror at its center, was an escape film. The Dutch writer-director Tom Six staged the movie as a piece of low-budget Grand Guignol suspense, and he was pretty damn shrewd in his use of camera angles, cross-cutting, and knowing how to turn that house into an airy, well-lit, yet dread-ridden Hitchcockian playground. He also pulled back, in his way, from the graphic awfulness of the movie’s premise, often using suggestion instead of explicit drippy gory detail. I didn’t think the movie was any harder to sit through than, say, Takashi Miike’s transcendently disturbing (and explicit) Audition. The Human Centipede may have centered on a sicko madman (wonderfully played by the veteran German actor/sunken-cheeked found object Dieter Laser), but it never quite gave you the scary feeling that the filmmaker was a madman.

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence), on the other hand, does. Let’s be clear: I’m not saying that I think Tom Six has lost his mind. But what I am saying is that The Human Centipede 2 is much, much more icky and horrific and intense than the first film was. It goes further, and does it more explicitly, and does it without the relief of all that will the victims get away? well-crafted “thriller” paranoia. The new movie is terrifying in the can I really watch this? way that I’d been scared, wrongly, the first film would be. It’s the true, nauseating, shock-and-awe fulfillment of that film’s hideous promise.

The movie is an all-out snuff nightmare, shot in industrial black-and-white, without the benefit (or emotional comfort) of even a basic three-act plot. The plot is this: An ugly, obese drooler geek, who works as an attendant in an underground London parking garage, bonks a bunch of people on the head with a crowbar and drags them to a squalidly dirty warehouse, where he attaches them, mouth to anus, into a 10-person human centipede. And then what he does just gets worse. And worse. Laurence R. Harvey, who plays this monster, is another found object, and an even more credible one. He’s corpulent in a dwarfish, obscene-phone-caller way, with sweat-plastered hair and the dead, scowling fish eyes of a predatory bottom feeder.

In what sounds like it might be a bit of postmodern prankishness, Harvey’s psycho gets inspired by watching and studying the first Human Centipede, over and over, on his laptop. He even tricks that film’s lead actress, Ashlynn Yennie, into showing up at the warehouse for an “audition.” (That’s her, pictured at left, after she learns that there’s not going to be any audition.) But because he’s a copycat gore fiend, using a staple gun to attach one body part to another (and also bashing one goon’s teeth in with a hammer — just because he can!), he makes Dieter Laser’s surgeon in the first movie look like a reassuringly accomplished skin-stitching professional by comparison. At least that guy knew what he was doing! At this point, most of the violence in our movies looks way too professional anyway, and part of the horror of The Human Centipede 2 is that there’s an authentically rancid, amateur-hour grossness to it. You never know what the psycho is going to do next — he’s improvising each atrocity — and the result is that, at certain points, you may have to work hard to say to yourself, “It’s only a movie.”

This time, I went to the screening with a handful of EW colleagues (we now consider ourselves an unofficial post-traumatic Human Centipede 2 support group), and for a few scenes, they, like a number of other people in the room, did their best to snicker at the proceedings, probably hoping that the movie, like the first Human Centipede, would be a clever gothic slaughter comedy. A couple of the early scenes, in which Harvey’s geek sits around at home with his nagging mother and his Talmudically bearded therapist, have a bombed-out Eraserhead vibe that allows you to distance yourself from the insanity. Before long, though, the screening-room chortles died down, and you could almost feel the place enveloped by a hush of dread, an alternating current of curiosity and foreboding. I was one of the enveloped, but since I’m a critic, and watching things like this is my job, dammit, I also began, in the back of my mind, to ask myself a question: Why were we all here, subjecting ourselves to this? Was it a legitimate horror-movie experience…or merely a case of voyeurism pushed to some ungodly sadistic plucking-the-wings-off-flies extreme? Or was it both?

My own reaction was this: I was revulsed by what I was seeing…but I was fascinated by it too. Maybe even gripped. I was scared, quite literally, to see what was coming next…but not so terrified that I wanted to look away. And as I sat there, right in the middle of this queasy/ arresting snake-pit experience, I realized that The Human Centipede 2 was, if nothing else, a true nightmare. And so I had to acknowledge that it achieved what so many of the horror films of the past 30 years, with their bloodthirsty psycho killers and brutal dismemberments, have tried and mostly failed to do: to get under your skin. To not only frighten you but haunt you. To disturb your dreams. To show us what human beings are capable of imagining. And maybe even doing.¬†The Human Centipede 2 sounds like the ultimate un-mainstream movie (even at the adventurous IFC Center in New York, where it opens today, it’s playing only at midnight), but the reason I’m even writing about this film, and you’re reading about it, is that the first Human Centipede had a cultural footprint much larger than its tiny theatrical release would suggest. The Internet spreads these movies and the chatter about them and the appetite for them, expanding cult taste into a global phenomenon. Right now, we can’t really know how many people see them, because the box-office tallies of video-on-demand are kept under wraps. But the safe bet is that a lot more people see these movies than you might at first guess.

The Human Centipede 2 has a “climax,” and it’s the scene I was thinking of when I wrote in my review that the movie “would have the Marquis de Sade gagging into his popcorn.” (I practically choked on my coffee this morning when I saw that line quoted in an ad in The New York Times.) I won’t describe the scene here, except to say that the most horrifying thing about it is Laurence R. Harvey’s giggle fit as it’s happening. It’s the film’s ultimate why are we watching this? moment, and it crosses every line of civilized entertainment. But it’s worth remembering that the same could be said — and, in fact, has been said — about every threshold-expanding horror film of the last 50 years. They said it about Psycho and Peeping Tom (both of which were released in 1960). They said it about The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and I Spit on Your Grave (1978). At least two prominent movie critics I won’t embarrass by naming said it on TV about Blue Velvet (1986). And then, just when it looked as if we couldn’t be shocked or appalled any more than we already had been, a little movie played at Sundance that launched the category of “torture porn” — and sure enough, right on cue, they said it again about Saw (2004) and Hostel (2005). Somewhere in hell, the Marquis de Sade isn’t just gagging. He’s laughing. Because if The Human Centipede 2 demonstrates anything, it’s that there will always be a new threshold to horror, a new unspeakable on-screen atrocity that makes yesterday’s unspeakable on-screen atrocity look acceptable and maybe even quaint. It’s really the audience’s appetite that knows no limits. Are you scared yet?

So who out there saw The Human Centipede? Who plans on seeing The Human Centipede 2? And do you think it’s possible for a horror movie to go “too far”?

Follow Owen on Twitter: @OwenGleiberman

Comments (151 total) Add your comment
Page: 1 2 3 6
  • 3 legged man

    The most important premise for a horror movie is that it must be about something which is horrorfying by its very nature. The only limit for the horror genre therefore is that which is not horrorifying and thus a horror movie (for better or worse) can never go too far. Now how well a movie is made is an entirely different story. The Human Centipede was reasonably well made and it was horrifying so it achieved an appropriate level of success. I will see The Human Centipede II but I think it has a harder row to hoe because the premise has already been done and thus a bit diminished (always the bane of the sequel).

    • bill

      I think you’re going to be surprised.

      • Jenn

        EW is disgusting.
        ELEVEN articles on this weak film so far – and now they even insist on comparing this boring trash to classics.
        Pathetic.

      • Jenn

        The ONLY difference between Human Centipede 2 and 2 Girls 1 Cup is that EW wasn’t paid $750,000 to write a dozen favorable publicity articles for 2 Girls 1 Cup.

      • Cameron J

        Oh yes, Jen. People who have different opinions than you? Pathetic. Hopefully EW will apologize to you.

      • Mike

        Uh, Jenn, the OTHER difference between Human Centipede 2 and 2 Girls 1 Cup is that the former, disgusting as it may be, is purely fictional, with all of the on-screen atrocities being faked by “movie magic.” The latter is as real as it looks. Big, big difference.

      • toastybiggins

        How does that even make a difference, though? You may KNOW that Human Centipede 2 is fake, and you may KNOW that 2 girls 1 cup is real, but isn’t the entire point of a horror film (or ANY film) to convince the audience that the unreal is real, even if it’s only for 90 minutes or so? And if that’s the case, what REALLY is the difference between the two as you’re watching them?

        Humans have a limited capacity to distinguish between the real and the fake. And as technology allows us to create fake things that LOOK increasingly real, I believe that this capacity will very shortly be overwhelmed. How do you KNOW that 2 girls 1 cup is real? It’s not ridiculous to imagine it being done with special effects. By the same token, how can you KNOW that The Human Centipede 2 is fake? You may know intellectually that it is fake, but two the primitive animal part of your brain that movies seek to fool, the distinction is nonexistant. And if it’s not…well I guess it isn’t a very good movie then.

    • Necro

      This article is so stupid. Why not write about something people are actually watching. EW always trying to make lemons out of lemonade. And that’s not always a good thing.

      • Fay

        You will be suprised how much people watched this.. People are actually watching this, just because it’s banned in so many countries!

  • RyanK

    Great column Owen! I’m looking forward to watching HC 2 almost as much as I’m dreading it. I guess that’s kind of the point.

    • Tim

      I see the appeal of this show. Any excuse to show someone’s face buried in someone rear makes for great horror.

      • Jenn

        What a terrible, contrived, and lame article.
        EW has been HIRED as the Marketing Team for this moronic film eagerly awaiting their next shill-for-cash contract.

  • zack

    i do not want to see this and cannot understand how anyone would…i have read about the grossest scenes in this and i think i would literally throw up if i had to be subjected to watching it. what is our society coming to that this is even considered some kind of entertainment? i truly cannot fathom someone sitting there thinking this crap up, then filming it, then people going to watch it. it disgusts me, plain and simple.

    • BillD

      I think you answered your own question: it disgusts you. (And me too, actually.) But it’s entertaining to some people to be grossed out / freaked out. It’s not for me or anyone to say they can’t have that (relatively) harmless thrill.

      • puddinman

        That’s the question though: Why is this type of thing entertaining to anyone? I can’t imagine even trying to sit through it. And I’m sorry if it seems a little over the top, but if someone is willing to sit through this, then I have to question that person’s sanity. To watch people being tortured is the sickest form of “entertainment.”

        Where do you draw the line? Can we make a Human Centipede of children next? Or is that too far? I thought the first one was too far, but I guess not, huh? What will satisfy the sickos who enjoy this?

        Sorry, but I’m revolted by the very idea that anyone could possibly want to see this.

      • Dgently

        @Puddin – Completely agree. To me, the line is scenes of murder versus scenes of torture. To me, one of the scariest movies ever was Silence of the Lambs. Both the book and the movie made the point of saying that Buffalo Bill skinned his victims AFTER they were dead. If we had been “treated” to seeing the murderer skinning live victims…well, I never could have watched.

      • Tim

        The lack of creativity in horror movie over the last few years is apparent to everybody who loves true horror films. These movies do very little in the way of frightening anybody. SAW was a fake reality horror show. Now we have surgically sewn faces into buttocks… And you people just eat this up like thanksgiving dinner. I understand though, because that is how desperate for entertainment you have become with the lack of any real creativity left in this town.

      • Jenn

        Glieberman is a sick perv. And he’s desperately trying to sound hip. Pathetic.

      • Gonzo

        @Tim you are crazy!!! Yes most mainstrem movies now are remakes or slightly different versions of older movies but HC and HC2 prove that there is still some creativity in the world. It may gross and repulsing and you may not like it but it is definately creative. I know I would have never thought of something like this in a million years.

    • EL

      As disgusting as this appears to be, I’d rather watch this than a Kate Hudson rom-com.
      _
      I look at something like Fool’s Gold or Something Borrowed or The Bounty Hunter and ask myself “why would anyone watch this?” Yet this looks so disgusting and dumb I say “I HAVE to watch this!” It’s weird.

      • Jenn

        In Mexico, you are known as EL Moron.

      • Cameron J

        Anywhere you are known as The Bigot.

      • Pablo

        I still haven’t entered the 90s yet.

    • shelly

      I agree totally. No matter how well written and articulate this article is, it doesnt hide the fact that the movie and the subject matter is crap and sick. Amazing that it is written about by both NY Times and EW. Yes, who is paying the publications to publicise. No class, no scruples.

    • Asa

      Well said, zack. I dont find people s***ting into each other’s mouths and barbed wire rape entertainting and it bothers me to think that there are people out there that do.

    • jesmith

      I agree zack, these movies are absolutely disgusting. It is messed up that people consider this entertainment. Any one who enjoys this type of movie is sick in the head. Why do people now days think these kinds of movies are any good at all? This is coming from a horror fan, horror movies have not been any good since the late 80′s/early 90′s.

  • Traci

    I love horror, I really do. But, this…ugh! I just don’t get the appeal. I’m grateful for old school movies like the original old school movies like Halloween, Nightmare on Elm street, and Friday the 13th. Now, those really scare me and are well done.

    This movie just makes me want to throw up. I honestly think the guy that came up with this is sick in the head. Who thinks “I know! I make a movie where the villian attaches a person’s mouth to another person’s backside. He’ll keep doing this until he creates…wait for it…a human centipede! They have to eat each other’s crap!!” That concept isn’t even scary, just disturbing and digusting. I don’t mind some disgusting moments in horror. But, This is just plain disgusting for no reason.

    • BillD

      As Owen mentioned, people said those same things about Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St, Friday the 13th, etc. and all those “ground-breaking” movies before them. It’s a matter of perspective. The Beatles were considered vulgar, anti-moral, good-for-nothings by many people back in the 60s. Today, they’re considered family-friendly. It’s all a matter of time and perspective. (BTW, this kind of movie is not my thing, so I won’t be seeing it.)

      • Amy

        If Halloween, Nightmare on Elm St, Friday the 13th, etc. are considered family-friendly and these types of movies are ground-breaking and will only get more horrifying from here, I’m truly terrified for what’s to come in cinema. I don’t understand why people would want to watch something like this or the people who have images like this in their head when they write them down, but I guess to each their own.

      • Amy

        I missed the Beatles reference to being family-friendly, not those movies. Oops!

      • no

        nope. OG is just trying to justify what a sicko he is. this movie has no redeeming value. and those that find interest in seeing it, there is something wrong with them. I read the UK’s memo on why they banned it. horrific.

      • Traci

        I honestly doubt that these centipede movies ever be considered ‘ground breaking’. I stand by my comment. The centipede movies are sick. They’ll never be in the same category as the movies I mentioned. They’ll just be remembered for the nasty plot. Those movies I mentioned are classics because they were innovative and again well made. I agree with others that they could never be family friendly. I’ve seen them several times. There are still some scenes that scare me.

      • Jenn

        @no

        Correct. Glieberman is sick. And this isn’t the first time his perversions have been on obvious display. He needs help.

    • Dark Dot

      Traci, you don’t find the thought of being part of a human centipede scary? I call BS. (But I won’t sew you to a bull and make you eat it.)

  • braveheart

    saw the first movie….usually i like more drama then horror but with human centipede i couldn’t look away.

    • Jenn

      EW must love 2 Girls One Cup.

      • Mike

        Jenn, you most love trolling. Please look up the terms “fiction” and “special effects” before you compare HC2 to 2G1C again…

  • @Owen

    You are one sick bastard !

  • R Coker

    I thought the idea of the first movie was disgusting and depressing, and I don’t have any understanding of why people are drawn to movies based around prolonged severe suffering of people on every level. I don’t necessarily believe movies should be banned, but film which depicts torture, severe and graphic violence, rape and extreme gore should be given another rating as being more “obscene” than any hardcore pornography in existence. It’s a sad state of affairs when US society can’t tolerate a single breast on television, but don’t mind seeing people being tortured, disfigured, raped and mutilated to death, even if they have to go to a theater or order VOD to see it.

    • Sarah

      Very good point! I totally agree.

    • Jarda Voda

      I agree with every fiber of my being! Im a free-speech purist, but, seriously, no one in his or her right mind can justify that these movies get R ratings- if no parent can give a child alcohol or show her/him sexual porn, then why, for heaven’s sake, is torture porn and sick horror something a parent can show a child?? Its about money, of course. You can release a NC-17 movie widely and its problematic online.

      There IS something seriously wrong with our culture. And its a proven fact that watching violence decreases one’s sensitivity to it.

      To make these movies and rate them R or even NC-17 instead of some new XXX-Violence is immoral, unethical and more disturbing to me than any horror movie ever can be.

      • ag721

        You are right, and I agree with you. But you have to do your homework when talking down on something, because you forgot to notice something that is very key to what you are saying.
        This Film Is Not Rated.
        So your argument doesn’t really apply to this particular film.
        But to go further into the ratings themselves NC-17 means “No Children Under 17 Years of Age Allowed’ regardless if a parent is there or not, children are not to be allowed into the film. Period. As well as the fact that a lot of theaters and movie rental companies don’t carry a film that gets an NC-17 rating. I think the stigma attached is already where it needs to be in the sense of the reputation the film has now because of this rating. What I’m saying is that NC-17 is already what you want from the MPAA. in terms of condemning a film.

    • Dgently

      Seriously. I’ve never scene either movie, but I’m sure I’d find Deep Throat a lot less obscene than Human Centipede.

      • Ann

        I agree completely.

      • Sean

        Even though one is a film where everything is fake (Human Centipede) and another is a film where a woman was basically taken advantage of and has campaigned ever since because of her vile experience on set?

  • ns

    That actor is so repulsive looking that he definitely needed to be in a horror film.
    If it’s more disgusting than Hostel 2, I don’t think I want to see it…

    • bill

      Hostel 2 looks like a Care Bear movie compared to this.

  • Felix

    Here’s what’s scary to me. You say that every time we get a film that takes horror to a higher level, someone calls it the sickest thing ever. Thing is, it never is, and today’s pinnacle of awfulness is tomorrow’s standard. Torture porn has lost a lot of its bite, and the original Halloween, while still scary, is quite tame in the gore/brutality department. I’m scared by the possibility that one day, HC2 will seem…normal horror fare. What will we be watching by then?

    • Nate

      Salo?

  • DRG

    Why is EW so obsessed with this sequel to a fringe cult movie that nobody saw in the first place? Everyday there is a new story or to about it posted here.

    • Shannon S.

      …the writer was just making the point that it’s amazing how many people actually saw this movie. Twenty years ago, a little independent horror movie like this would’ve taken years to build this type of cult following. I think what EW and this writer are fascinated with is not necessarily the movies themselves, but just the impact it’s had on pop culture. Seriously, is there a more independent, low budget horror movie that’s gotten this much attention in such a short span of time…and a Human Centipede-themed South Park episode already?

      • The Chew!

        He’s not making a point about how many people saw the movie. In fact, he says he has no idea how many people saw the movie because in-demand doesn’t release viewership numbers. EW is obviously in the pocket of whatever company is distributing this film.

  • Jasper

    This movie will seem like Bami compared to what people who are involved with and enjoy it are in for. What a bunch of rubes we’ve become.

  • Shannon S.

    That’s actually the best article I’ve read about the whole “Human Centipede” experience. I remember finally sitting down with a friend of mine to watch the first movie, and I was literally nervous to see what was going to happen. When it was over, I was definitely creeped out (and a little sick to my stomach), but it was surprising to see that the movie was not graphic or gory at all. I actually don’t blame Tom Six for taking this approach with the sequel…because he’s giving people exactly what they thought they were getting the first time around. Even the snobs who criticized the movie when they hadn’t even seen it…this is like the director’s way of saying “OK, you’re saying I’m disgusting and horrible when you haven’t even watched my movie…OK, then I’ll give you something REALLY disgusting and horrible.” And just like a car wreck on the side of the road…once again I can’t help but watch.

    • Felix

      You may be on to something. A lot of people were smug about the first one, saying “Oh, I saw it and whatEVER, it was all hype.” Should’ve kept their mouths shut.

      • Ann

        I agree with you. And what does it say about us, as a society, when we all know that this 2nd one is as gross and insane as we feared the first one was and YET will discuss the crap out of it and many of us will actually go see it BECAUSE it’s gross?

        I won’t be seeing this one, and I haven’t seen the first, but I do think there’s something about the human psyche that is curious about how far we can go, how much we can take. I mean, everyone on this page clicked on it for a reason. Myself included.

  • kim in kentucky

    I know that I told my friends that I wanted to do the things they do in these movies (and was serious about it) – I believe (and hope) that they would get me into theraphy asap!

  • Tim @rural_juror

    The better question is “why do some people want to MAKE movies like ‘The Human Centipede 2′?” Clearly a disturbed individual.

    • Ann

      My guess is that they want to make it to see if they can and to take delight in all the people who say they are morally affronted and disgusted by it and yet will go see it anyway, read about it, and think about it. Doesn’t make it right, but that’s my guess.

  • Ophelia

    I’m not sure why I’m writing because I hate slasher/gore horror movies & haven’t seen any of the movies mentioned in the article. The movie that was most horrific and life-changing & haunting to me was “A Clockwork Orange”. What made it so was the possibility that this could be true … home invasion rape that was stylized and playful for the perpitrators and finally the rapist being society’s victim. My question: what is scarey @ films that will never be true, like Human Centipede?

    • Felix

      Clockwork Orange was disturbing, but it’s hard to take seriously….too stylized and 70s-inspired. HC2 is messed up because it’s so easy to believe a disturbed man could abduct and hurt people.

      • bill

        I understand what you are saying. The concept of Hostel as well as home invasion movies bother me, because I thought it could happen.

      • Satan

        You do realize that A Clockwork Orange was made in 1971, right? So it had no choice but to be “70s inspired”. As for the stylized nature of it, that was a Kubrick thing. Man was a genius, and ACO was one of his great films. But it’s not a “horror movie” per se. It’s horrific, but it’s more of a social commentary than a grossout-a-thon.

      • LOL

        Owen is crap for giving this a B+ rating.

    • Lyndsey

      If a man can advertise on the internet that he wants to eat someone AND another person responds to that ad to let this guy cut off parts of his body & eat them then yeah, I have no doubt that psychopathic, sadistic killers could find inspiration in movies like this. After reading up on torture murders over the last century I no longer believe there is any limit to what the most depraved are capable of. Did you know that many torture victims have in fact been forced to eat feces? That a Japanese teenager was held captive for weeks by 4 boys and so severely raped & tortured to the point that she could do nothing but crawl then she was burned alive? By the way, thanks to movies like this that portray victims as nothing but objects, the multitude of people who knew what was happening to that girl never even reported it or tried to help. These movies are frightening because, unlike Freddy & Jason, these monsters are real!!

      • Ophelia

        That was my initial horror at A Clockwork Orange, that the home invasion rape & torture would give people ideas. Moreover it broke down the trust that people behave in a civilized manner, which was also scarey. After reading your post & thinking about the Brit’s censure of the Human Centipede II, I’d almost have to consider such movies as irresponsible.

      • Lyndsey

        I completely agree. I’ve never believed in censorship but there’s such a thing as creative responsibility…and despite filmmakers’ protests that they shouldn’t be held responsible for people imitating their work, it takes a seriously depraved mind to even come up with the idea of raping a woman with barbed wire!! What does it say about our society that anyone but sadistic psychopaths would consider something like this entertainment?!!

      • Mike

        Lyndsey, I sorta get your concern, but maybe you should read up on torture murders BEFORE the last century. History is full of sickos who were deranged long before there were movies to show them how it’s done.

      • JCK

        Lyndsey,

        I could have went forever without being reminded about the man that advertised his cannibalistic desires on the internet and the man that answered it. I just didn’t want to believe that was true, but when it was all over the news, I was traumatized. No fault of yours though!

        Horrible about the Japanese teenager. Everyday I wonder if the world should, in fact, just end…

Page: 1 2 3 6
Add your comment
The rules: Keep it clean, and stay on the subject - or we may delete your comment. If you see inappropriate language, e-mail us. An asterisk (*) indicates a required field.

When you click on the "Post Comment" button above to submit your comments, you are indicating your acceptance of and are agreeing to the Terms of Service. You can also read our Privacy Policy.

Latest Videos in Movies

Advertisement

TV Recaps

Powered by WordPress.com VIP