for people who rate this movie 1/10 .....

I think most of the 1/10 voters didn't even watch the movie.

Human Centipede 1 was really campy and had a lot of ridiculous scenes. It was pretty silly but still watchable, I'd give it about a 5/10.

Human Centipede II was just a terrible *beep* movie that wasn't funny, campy or even gory enough to keep my interest. It failed as a movie on every artistic and technical front for me. I gave it a 1.

"DRAINAGE!"

Who says they hated the first? Who says they've even seen the first? I haven't seen this one, but plenty of horror series don't need to be watched sequentially. It could just be that it was on TV, they're friend rented it or something else. And some people like to watch bad movies, just to roll their eyes or have a laugh at.

~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

I saw them both and hated them both. Why did I watch them? When you have a "cultural phenomenon" like "The Human Centipede", one definitely becomes fascinated with the concept of why something becomes popular for its polarizing existence.

I'm more disturbed that 1,185 people gave it a 10. Makes me wonder what kind of movies they watch that would earn this pile of **** a 10/10 rating.

i enjoyed the first film, i am a big fan of disturbing/art house films and i gave this film a 1/10. the first film was campy and i thought it was funny. i definitely did not find either film disturbing, but the first one was so ridiculous that i really enjoyed it. the second one was nothing like the first one at all. its like someone with absolutely zero artistic talent tried to combine eraserhead with a wes craven film. what an absolute embarrassment. i am not bothered by shock value, although i the violence pretty disgusting, so good job there, but it doesnt take talent or skill to be gross. by the time they were all *beep* on each other i was actually laughing at how stupid it all seemed.

but why do some people like this? because it's violent and people like to equate ridiculous violence with psychological horror? what does this movie even have without the violence? it's one original though stopped being shocking after the first movie, the characters are dull, 1 dimensional and boring, the plot is just, honestly, kind of dumb, the writing is neither realistic or artistic and the directing is bland and uninspired. what was even the point of this movie? it didnt progress on the first one at all. it just sat around in the puddle left over from the original. and how could it? it wasnt a very good idea to begin with. i feel like after the first movie, this guy realized he had literally no more orginal ideas left in his brain, so now hes gonna spend the rest of his career milking the first film. and beyond all of that, who even finds gratuitous violence that interesting anymore? i mean really? havent we all been desensitized enough by video games and a serbian film to look past this boring gimmick and see it for the bland void bad horror movie writers cram their films with when they dont know how to write something original or scary?

so yeah, i definitely watched it all and i definitely do understand it, and i thought it was terrible. 1/10.

The first movie was psychological. This one was blatant slasher flick.

Tom Six heard the fans and this was a remake for the fans.

Reminder: The O.C. resets to its first episode on POP network April 1 @ 2 p.m. EST

Even though I wouldn't rate the movie higher than 3.5/4, I agree that it is definitely not a 1 neither. It has some interesting cinematography and good acting. The plot is simply twisted and ridiculous, but as a movie it does have some strong points.