The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence)

The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) is Tom Six’s 2011 body-horror sequel to The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009), written, directed and co-produced by Six, and centred on Martin — a psychologically impaired parking garage attendant obsessed with the first film — who abducts twelve people to build his own “centipede” with crude, non-surgical methods (Australian Classification Review Board). In June 2011 the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) refused it a certificate, effectively banning it in the United Kingdom; four months later, after distributor Eureka Entertainment lodged an appeal and proposed cuts, the BBFC passed an edited version at 18, requiring 32 cuts totalling 2 minutes 37 seconds (Participations; 4RFV). Australia went the other way: the film was first classified R18+ in May 2011, then refused classification outright on ministerial review in November (Australian Classification Review Board).

The film stars Laurence R. Harvey as Martin and Ashlynn Yennie — an actress from the first film — playing a fictionalized version of herself among the victims (NME). It was distributed in the UK by Bounty Films through Eureka Entertainment and in the US by IFC Midnight (Screen Anarchy).

The June refusal: “sexually violent, and potentially obscene”

On 6 June 2011 the BBFC refused to classify The Human Centipede 2 (Full Sequence) for direct-to-video release, which made it a criminal offence to supply the film on DVD or video anywhere in the UK (Participations). The board’s core distinction was thematic: it had found the first film “undoubtedly tasteless and disgusting” yet acceptable as a relatively conventional horror about a revolting medical experiment, whereas the sequel, in its judgment, presented the centipede purely as “the object of the protagonist’s depraved sexual fantasy,” with the victims shown as little more than objects brutalised and degraded for the central character’s amusement and sexual arousal (Participations). The BBFC warned the film was potentially in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964, and said cutting was not viable because the unacceptable material ran throughout (Screen Anarchy). Director Tom Six publicly ridiculed the decision, and star Laurence R. Harvey told NME the BBFC’s press release was “so absurd” that it overstepped its remit (NME). The refusal stood as the BBFC’s first outright rejection of a mainstream horror film in years — and the direct contrast case to The Bunny Game, which never escaped refusal.

From appeal to 18: 32 cuts in four months

The June refusal letter left the distributor free to attempt cuts, and Eureka Entertainment lodged an appeal against the decision (4RFV). During preparations for the appeal, the company proposed its own cuts; the BBFC responded by proposing a more extensive series of them. On 6 October 2011 the board awarded an 18 certificate to the re-cut version: 32 individual cuts across eight sequences, totalling 2 minutes 37 seconds, covering sexual and sexualised violence, sadistic violence, humiliation and the killing of a newborn baby (4RFV; Screen Anarchy). BBFC President Sir Quentin Thomas said the cuts produced a work “many will find difficult” but properly classifiable at the adult level; the company accepted the cuts and withdrew its appeal, while one vice-president, Gerard Lemos, abstained, maintaining that no viable cut existed (4RFV). Eureka’s sales director Ian Sadler said that after nearly four months of detailed debate, the company was pleased the storyline was uncompromised and “the level of horror has been sustained” (Screen Anarchy). The stat, source and implication: 32 cuts and 2m 37s (BBFC, via 4RFV) — against a June ruling that cuts were “not a viable option” — implying that the BBFC’s outright-refusal posture is negotiable once a distributor engages the formal appeal machinery.

Australia: R18+ reversed to Refused Classification

Australia reversed the film’s trajectory. The Classification Board first rated it R18+ with the consumer advice “high impact themes, violence and sexual violence” on 9 May 2011; the Minister for Justice, Brendan O’Connor, then applied for review, and on 28 November 2011 a three-member Classification Review Board panel unanimously refused classification (Australian Classification Review Board). The board found the film’s violence “detailed, prolonged and repeated frequently” and its impact very high even at the adult level, judging scenes — including forced defecation sequences, the crushing of a newborn, and barbed-wire sexual violence — gratuitous, exploitative or offensive and beyond what R18+ could accommodate (Australian Classification Review Board). Under Australian law, an RC film cannot be sold, hired or advertised, and the review decision replaced the original R18+ ruling entirely (Australian Classification Review Board). The panel had viewed the film itself, heard oral and written submissions from distributor Monster Pictures Australia, and considered 24 public submissions (Australian Classification Review Board).

The UK release that nobody watched

Controversy did not convert into tickets. The cut version opened in the UK in November 2011 and took just £942 on 10 cinema screens over its opening weekend — less than a sixth of the first film’s £6,145 at 14 sites a year earlier — a figure reported via The Guardian (NME). Six insisted the ban had been a marketing gift, telling NME that “everybody was talking about the film because of them banning it” and that the story survived the cuts intact (NME). The US took a different route: after its September 2011 Fantastic Fest premiere, the film went out through IFC Midnight in an unrated, pre-cut director’s version with midnight-only screenings — the American cut the BBFC had refused to contemplate (Screen Anarchy).

Classification record

Jurisdiction	Decision	Date	Cut length	Source
United Kingdom (BBFC)	Refused classification	6 June 2011	n/a — cuts ruled “not viable”	Participations
United Kingdom (BBFC)	18, after appeal and negotiation	6 Oct 2011	32 cuts, 2m 37s across 8 sequences	4RFV (BBFC release)
Australia (Classification Board)	R18+	9 May 2011	None	CRB decision
Australia (Classification Review Board)	Refused Classification (unanimous)	28 Nov 2011	n/a — ban replaced the R18+	CRB decision

Key milestones

Date	Milestone	Source
6 Jun 2011	BBFC refuses classification; UK supply becomes a criminal offence	Participations
Jun 2011	Tom Six issues statement mocking the ban; Eureka lodges appeal	Screen Anarchy; NME
22 Sep 2011	US premiere at Fantastic Fest, Austin, Texas	Screen Anarchy
6 Oct 2011	BBFC awards 18 to the 32-cut version; appeal withdrawn	4RFV (BBFC release)
Nov 2011	UK theatrical opening: £942 on 10 screens (opening weekend)	NME
28 Nov 2011	Australian Review Board reverses R18+ to Refused Classification	CRB decision

Frequently asked questions

Why was The Human Centipede 2 banned in the UK? On 6 June 2011 the BBFC refused it a certificate, judging that its focus on the protagonist’s sexual arousal at the degradation and torture of his victims made it “sexually violent, and potentially obscene” and potentially in breach of the Obscene Publications Acts 1959 and 1964. It said cutting was not viable because the unacceptable material ran throughout the film.

How did it eventually get released in the UK? Distributor Eureka Entertainment lodged an appeal and proposed cuts during the appeal preparations; the BBFC countered with a more extensive list. The re-cut version — 32 individual cuts totalling 2 minutes 37 seconds — was awarded an 18 certificate on 6 October 2011, and the company withdrew its appeal. One BBFC vice-president abstained, still holding that no viable cut existed.

Was it banned anywhere else? Yes. Australia first classified it R18+ on 9 May 2011, but the Minister for Justice sought a review, and on 28 November 2011 the Classification Review Board unanimously refused classification — meaning the film could not be sold, hired or advertised in Australia at all.

What is the film actually about? According to the Australian classification decision, it follows Martin, a disturbed, psychologically impaired parking-garage attendant obsessed with and sexually aroused by the first Human Centipede film, who kidnaps twelve people and assembles them into a “centipede” by stapling and taping them mouth-to-anus in a warehouse.

Did the controversy help the film commercially? Not at the UK box office: the cut version took just £942 on 10 screens on its opening weekend, a sixth of the first film’s take. Director Tom Six nonetheless claimed the ban was “a huge marketing thing” that got everybody talking about the film.

What this profile does not claim

• It describes the film’s content only as far as the cited documents describe it — primarily the Australian classification decision’s own synopsis; it makes no independent claims about specific scenes.
• It does not assert that the BBFC’s June “not viable” language reflected a formal policy position versus a negotiation posture; the disagreement between outlets is recorded in openItems rather than resolved.
• It does not cover the film’s production history, budget, or critical reception beyond the release data cited.
• The Guardian’s own 2011 pages are referenced only via NME’s full-read citation of them; the profile cites NME directly.

What we could not verify

• The Guardian’s original October 2011 and November 2011 pages — cited here only through NME’s full-read reporting of them.
• A separate contemporaneous report of Australia’s original 9 May 2011 R18+ decision — the date and consumer advice are reported through the Review Board’s November decision, which restates them.
• The distributor’s original UK plan for a straight-to-DVD release — consistent across outlets but documented here only through the June BBFC refusal context.

Sources

Tier 1 (2): Australian Classification Review Board’s published 28 November 2011 decision and reasons (government document — RC reversal, synopsis, legal reasoning); Participations peer-reviewed journal (Kenneth Weir and Stephen Dunne, University of Leicester, Nov 2014 — BBFC refusal, grounds, appeal process, 32 cuts/2m37s, David Cooke’s account). Tier 2 (3): Screen Anarchy (ban wording, 32 cuts, Ian Sadler/Eureka statement, IFC Midnight US release, Fantastic Fest); NME (Guardian-cited £942 UK opening, Harvey and Six quotes); The Playlist (18 rating win, cut package, Eureka’s distributor role). First-party (1): BBFC’s own October 2011 press release via the 4RFV broadcast directory (32 cuts across eight sequences, Sir Quentin Thomas and Gerard Lemos positions, withdrawn appeal). Wikipedia: lead index only, not cited.