Controversial movies I haven't seen

What is it about?
The original "shockumentary" consisting of a collection of mostly real archive footage displaying mankind at its most depraved and perverse, displaying bizarre rituals, cruel behavior, and animal violence.

Why is it so controversial?
Even though certain parts in the film are either staged or manipulated in order to enhance their effect, the intention here was to shock Western film audiences with scenes such as the ritual slaughter of a bull, tribal dances and other rituals, and a visit to an ornate pet cemetery. Eventually, they were so succesfull that they created a whole new genre.

Do I actually want to see this?
Originally, I wouldn't be interested but since it is on the '1001 movies you must see before you die' list, I will eventually watch it but it is not a priority.

What is it about?
Cardinal Richelieu and his power-hungry entourage seek to take control of seventeenth-century France, but need to destroy Father Grandier - the priest who runs the fortified town that prevents them from exerting total control. So they seek to destroy him by setting him up as a warlock in control of a devil-possessed nunnery, the mother superior of which is sexually obsessed by him. A mad witch-hunter is brought in to gather evidence against the priest, ready for the big trial.

Why is it so controversial?
It combines sex, violence and religion which is always a controversial mix. Plus, the scene where some crazed naked nuns sexually assault a statue of Christ didn't help, I guess. It is notorious that the original cut has actually never been released.

Do I actually want to see this?
I'm definitely intrigued by this one and it is one of the few movies on this list that I really want to see. There is a top cast and it seems to be a really good flick.

What is it about?
A serial rapist stalks and murders prostitutes.

Why is it so controversial?
Event though the combination of porn with horror was nothing new, it was always rather humoristic than shocking. However, this time, the humor is gone and they pushed the limit to such an extent that they created something rather unsettling with some really realistic rape scene(s). And, of course, the insertion of authentic footage from the Vietnam War was rather controversial as well.

Do I actually want to see this?
It sounds like a really weird movie but I'll pass on this one.

What is it about?
An American journalist travels throughout the world in search of a good story by joining a modern-day harem and traveling to Venice to see what really goes on at diplomatic parties. While trying to expose a corrupt government official, Emanuelle stumbles upon a group that uses kidnapped girls to make and sell snuff films. A brush with death leaves Emanuelle wondering if it is perhaps time to hang up her camera for good.

Why is it so controversial?
The Emanuelle series, also known as 'Black Emanuelle' and not to be confused with the original Emmanuelle series, are movies combining soft-core action with some creepy elements. However, this time, they pushed the envelop with a scene when Emanuelle comes across a fantasy retreat owned by a very wealthy fan of snuff films and she finds a torture room in which women are being sexually attacked with all sorts of murderous sex toys, violated and murdered at the same time; big spiky shafts are used, and whips and chains and racks, and at the very end a woman's breast is carved off with a large blade…

Do I actually want to see this?
I'm getting too old for those soft-core flicks so I'm pretty sure I will never watch this.

What is it about?
An aspiring writer is repeatedly gang-raped, humiliated, and left for dead by four men whom she systematically hunts down to seek revenge.

Why is it so controversial?
In this so-called 'feminist' exploitation flick, you will first witness one of the most excrutiating rape scenes ever put on film and then some really sadistic scenes (including emasculation) during the vendetta by Camille Keaton, Buster's granddaughter (yeah, I'm serious...).

Do I actually want to see this?
According to Roger Ebert, it is one of the worst movies ever made, referring to it as "a vile bag of garbage...without a shred of artistic distinction,". So, no I won't see this trash which seems to be the lowest representation of sexploitation ever put on screen. Same thing for the remake which seems as worthless.

What is it about?
A collection of death scenes, ranging from TV-material to home-made super-8 movies The common factor is death by some means.

Why is it so controversial?
As said before, it is solely composed of death scenes, some fake but also some real ones including suicides, napalm bombing in Vietnam, some fatal car accidents and also animals dying like seals being clubbed to death. It is also infamous for its tagline 'Banned in 40 countries'.

Do I actually want to see this?
Come on! How low can you get?!? I don't need to see some real people like you and me really f*cking dying on my screen. This must be the worst kind of voyeurism ever. No way...

What is it about?
A New York University professor returns from a rescue mission to the Amazon rainforest with the footage shot by a lost team of documentarians who were making a film about the area's local cannibal tribes.

Why is it so controversial?
The tone is rather merciless with some (fake) cannibalism, sexual assault and some (real) animal molestation including a huge turtle, a monkey, a snake and a pig. The horror was so realistic that the makers had to bring the actors in court to make sure that they were still alive.

Do I actually want to see this?
It is a classic so I think I will watch it in the future but it really sounds pretty heavy...

What is it about?
A woman walking home late at night is attacked by an unknown assailant who knocks her out with chloroform. When she regains consciousness, she finds herself tied to a bed in a blood- spattered dungeon, at the mercy of a white-faced man in a samurai helmet who wants to turn her into a "flower of blood and flesh." He then proceeds to slowly dismember and disembowel her as the camera records it all.

Why is it so controversial?
There are some major sadisctic torture scenes with a woman being dreadfully dismembered. After viewing a part of this film, actor Charlie Sheen was convinced the murder depicted was genuine and contacted the MPAA, who then contacted the FBI. FBI agent Dan Codling informed them that the FBI and the Japanese authorities were already investigating the film makers, who were repeatedly interviewed by the Japanese police and eventually summoned to court to prove that the special effects were indeed fake.

Do I actually want to see this?
It seems to be a movie made solely to push the envelop even further, to see how much a viewer can take before being completely grossed out. Sorry but I'm not interested...

What is it about?
Graphic, low-budget gore-shocker about Rob and Betty, a couple of ordinary necrophiles who apparently don't mind if their dead sexual partners are not so fresh. Rob's job affords him the opportunity to bring home corpses and the odd body part; when he loses his job, he loses Betty, and Rob's life gets REALLY bizarre.

Why is it so controversial?
First of all, it deals with necrophilia which is obviously taboo. It is a little bit like 'Sunshine Cleaning', expect that here, they take the corpse home and have a threesome with it. And I also heard some stuff about the woman replacing the corpse penis with some stainless steel and there is also some animal molestation.

Do I actually want to see this?
It sounds like a really weird flick and, even though I must say I'm intrigued, I will probably never watch it.

What is it about?
Japanese troops round up Chinese and Russian prisoners of war and take them to a place called Squadron 731, where they are grotesquely tortured and experimented on to test new biological weapons.

Why is it so controversial?
There are some very excrutiating torture scenes (a male test subject put into some kind of pressurized air chamber, in which his entire gastrointestinal track is forced out; and a poor old woman's hands made completely frostbitten in the camp's wintry surroundings until they are frozen like a popsicle, whereupon she is forced to dip them in boiling hot water with really unfortunate results) and some (real) animal molestation (a mortified cat dropped into a cage of starving rats).

Do I actually want to see this?
They try to legitimate all this gruesome stuff by providing some kind of legitimate historical background but I don't buy it. I'll pass on this one...

What is it about?
When the others leave for the night, the last mortician begins to fondle the corpses. He quickly moves to the corpse of a young woman who died in a car crash, tearing her clothes off and mutilating her body. He then mounts her and rapes her corpse while taking pictures with a camera and timer. He brings her heart back home to his dog to eat it.

Why is it so controversial?
Some of the most realistic looking dead bodies you will ever see in a film are cut, sawed and pried open, organs are removed, blood and gristle is drained into stainless steel basins, brains are removed from head, and skin is peeled back. And then, you have one of the most revolting sex scenes ever witnessed with one of those corpses...

Do I actually want to see this?
It is said to be rather impressive from a technical point of view but, a part from that, I don't think it has any artistic, educational or entertaning value so I probably won't watch it.

What is it about?
A surgeon becomes obsessed with the seductive woman he once had an affair with. Refusing to accept that she has moved on, he amputates her limbs and holds her captive in his mansion.

Why is it so controversial?
Following the foosteps of her notorious father, Jennifer Chambers Lynch basically had to produce something rather shocking with her directing début. Basically, it is a weird love story about a guy dismembering the love of his life.

Do I actually want to see this?
Why not? I don't really think it is any good but I'm really curious to see if David Lynch's daughter does come even near his level of weirdness.

What is it about?
While the leader is in jail, his leftist group is controlled by his girlfriend, but her leadership lacks conviction and perspective. When the leader commits suicide in prison, despair and confusion rule the group and revenge and violence erupts in graphic way.

Why is it so controversial?
You have here some major mutilation and dismemberment, a forehead is blasted by a shotgun in front of the camera with some really gross sound effects. According to the ones who dared watch it, it is simply one of the most audacious and disgusting things in recent horror movie history.

Do I actually want to see this?
As you may have noticed, there are many Japanese movies on this list and they seem to be expert in the extreme cinema. Even though I'm really fond of Japanese movies in general, I'm not at all interested in those horrific flicks whatsoever and this movie is not an exception.

What is it about?
When a Yakuza boss named Anjo disappears with 300 million yen, his chief henchman, a sadomasochistic man named Kakihara, and the rest of his mob goons go looking for him. After capturing and torturing a rival Yakuza member looking for answers, they soon realize they have the wrong man and begin looking for the man named Jijii who tipped them off in the first place. Soon enough Kakihara and his men encounter Ichi, a psychotic, sexually-repressed young man with amazing martial arts abilities and blades that come out of his shoes. One by one Ichi takes out members of the Yakuza and all the while Kakihara intensifies his pursuit of Ichi and Ichi's controller Jijii.

Why is it so controversial?
Miike is rather notorious for his violent movies and this seems to his most violent one to date. You have here some major sadism, masochism, torture,... And a few jokes in between (see pic above).

Do I actually want to see this?
I was really impressed by 'Audition' which is easily the most hardcore movie I have ever seen thus when I hear that this movie is even worse, I think it must be one hell of a ride. Takashi Miike is not the easiest director but I love his style so I will definitely check this one out.

What is it about?
Two deranged friends bring along another guy to go on a random murder rampage. They kidnapped lesbian lovers, couples and they torture them in any way that the viewer can imagine. Your worst fears will come true in this shocking account of a killing spree.

Why is it so controversial?
It is notoriously known as the most hardcore and violent movie ever made. There is no real plot here, just pure mayhem and this is the closest you will get to watch a snuff movie, except of course, watching the real thing. Rape, sadism, pedophilia, necrophilia, infanticide,... You name every sick thing in the world and it will be displayed here.

Do I actually want to see this?
This is the most striking example of 'Watch it if you dare'. It is disgusting, not entertaining whatosever and may traumatise you until the day you die.... Why on Earth would I be interested in the most realistic fake snuff movie ever made?!? I have only heard bad things about this 'movie' and I will never watch it.

What is it about?
Professional motorcycle racer Bud Clay heads from New Hampshire to California to race again. Along the way he meets various needy women who provide him with the cure to his own loneliness, but only a certain woman from his past will truly satisfy him.

Why is it so controversial?
There is not much really controversial here except that Chloë Sevigny is said to have given an unsimulated blowjob to Vincent Gallo during one of the scenes.

Do I actually want to see this?
It is now pretty much forgotten but Vincent Gallo's previous movie, 'Buffalo '66', was actually pretty good so I'm still curious about his next flick, even though it doesn't seem to be good, I''m afraid.

What is it about?
A mad scientist kidnaps and mutilates a trio of tourists in order to reassemble them into a new "pet"-- a human centipede, created by stitching their mouths to each others' rectums.

Why is it so controversial?
You have some major torture and sadism here with Dr. Josef Heiter who literally joins 3 people together. According to Roger Ebert, the film had been "deliberately intended to inspire incredulity, nausea and hopefully outrage."

Do I actually want to see this?
Another puke inducing piece of trash... Next...

What is it about?
An aging porn star agrees to participate in an "art film" in order to make a clean break from the business, only to discover that he has been drafted into making a pedophilia and necrophilia themed snuff film.

Why is it so controversial?
It deals with a snuff film with child rape and necrophilic themes. This flick is notoriously known for its sexual representation of children and extreme violence and has been subsequently banned in various countries like Spain.

Do I actually want to see this?
It seems intriguing but I'm not really keen on the whole child molestation thing...

What is it about?
A pair of teenage girls are headed to a rock concert for one's birthday. While trying to score marijuana in the city, the girls are kidnapped by a gang of psychotic convicts.

Why is it so controversial?
It is (in)famous for his very violent scenes and sadism and was subsequently banned in the UK for about 30 years.

Do I actually want to see this?
I have a weak spot for Wes Craven's work so I will definitely check this one out as soon as I have the opportunity.

My verdict:
I'm pretty sure it is one of the least hardcore movies on this list. I mean, it was definitely pretty nasty and I can imagine that it was quite controversial back in those days but even though it was indeed rather unsettling, it was nothing I couldn't handle. Basically, it is one of those cheap-ass horror flicks they used to make back then.

What is it about?
A legendary propaganda/documentary of the Third Reich's 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally. Featuring a cast of thousands as well as, of course, Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, Hess, Goering and other top party officials.

Why is it so controversial?
It is basically 2 hours promoting the 'Glory' of the Nazi party starring Adolf Hitler and his demented buddys.

Do I actually want to see this?
From a cinematic point of view, it is said to be an awesome flick so I will definitely check it out when I get the opportunity. Plus, it must be a really valuable history lesson.

My verdict:
If you are a real movie buff, you have to watch this movie at some point but, man, it remains a tough watch though... I mean, it is pretty impressive from a technical point of view and it has a huge historical value but it is also seriously boring and quite sickening to behold.

What is it about?
Two brothers, Phil and Ted Stoneman, visit their friends in Piedmont, South Carolina: the family Cameron. This friendship is affected by the Civil War, as the Stonemans and the Camerons must join up opposite armies. The consequences of the War in their lives are shown in connection to major historical events, like the development of the Civil War itself, Lincoln's assassination, and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.

Why is it so controversial?
1. The black actors are actually white guys with black make-up.
2. At the end of the movie, the North and the South unite themselves to fight against the black 'oppressors'.
3. Basically, the whole thing is a recruting movie for the Ku Klux Klan.

Do I actually want to see this?
Since it is a major milestone in movie history, I will definitely watch it at some point but I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy it...

My verdict:
Once again, if you are a real movie buff, you should watch this movie at some point but, man, it was a tough watch as well... The first half was actually really good but the second half was just seriously despicable and even though I recommend to watch it for its historical value, I can't say I enjoyed it.

What is it about?
In London, England, love blooms between an American college student, named Lisa, and a British glaciologist, named Matt, where over the next few months in between attending rock concerts, the two lovers have intense sexual encounters.

Why is it so controversial?
According to The Guardian, 9 Songs was the most sexually explicit mainstream film to date. Basically, you have 9 songs but also 9 unsimulated sex scenes involving the 2 leads.

Do I actually want to see this?
I'm a huge fan of Michael Winterbottom who is, in my opinion, one of the most underrated movie directors on Earth, so I will absolutely watch this one.

My verdict:
Eventually, the whole thing felt like a missed opportunity but I still think it was a brave and interesting experiment. Indeed, it's too bad everything added to the sex scenes was so underwhelming.

What is it about?
A couple lose their young son when he falls out the window while they have sex in the other room. The mother's grief consigns her to hospital, but her therapist husband brings her home intent on treating her depression himself.

Why is it so controversial?
Even though Lars Von Tries has always been a challenging movie director, this must be his most relentless movie to date. It is utterly depressing and violent with some testicle crushing and clitoris getting cut with some rusty scissors.

Do I actually want to see this?
Even though I'm not a fan, Lars von Trier is and remains one of the most interesting directors around (except, obviously, when he starts to make some really stupid Nazi jokes...). So, I will definitely check this one, even though it looks pretty heavy.

My verdict:
Well, I definitely had some mixed feelings about this one. Indeed, one hand, it's beautifully shot, highly artistic, and the two actors involved were quite amazing but, on the other hand, it was just so unpleasant to watch, it was pretty much an actual nightmare so I'm not sure I really cared for the whole thing after all.

What is it about?
Four fascist libertines round up 9 teenages boys and girls and subject them to 120 days of physical, mental and sexual torture.

Why is it so controversial?
It is a truelly awfull and confronting depiction of sadism with some gruesome rape and scenes of various kinds including torture, graphic violence and sexual depravity.

Do I actually want to see this?
I have seen a couple of movies directed by Pasolini and they all really impressed me so I will definitely watch this one whenever I get the chance, even though it does seem pretty hardcore.

My verdict:
Well, eventually, it definitely deserves its reputation as it was easily one of the most f*cked-up movies I have ever seen and I have seen quite a lot of weird and messed-up flicks. In fact, the sex scenes were not so unbearable but it was the first time I saw a movie dealing with scatology and these scenes were just awful to behold. Later on, it didn't get much better with some horrible torture scenes. Eventually, what was Pasolini's point? In my opinion, he wanted to show that Fascism was and still is the most decadent, depraved and insane political ideology that ever existed. Still, even though I have a weak spot for nightmarish movies, Pasolini went really far here and I think I will remain nauseous for a couple of days after watching this flick.

What is it about?
Manu and Nadine lose their last tenuous relationship with mainstream society when Manu gets raped and Nadine sees her only friend being shot. After a chance encounter, they embark on an explosive journey of sex and murder. Perhaps as a revenge against men, perhaps as a revolt against bourgeois society, but certainly in a negation - almost joyful in its senseless violence - of all the codes of a society which has excluded, raped and humiliated them.

Why is it so controversial?
It is a rather violent flick starring 2 French (ex-) porno stars with some explicit sex scenes including a rape.

Do I actually want to see this?
I was still living in France when this movie came out and I always thought it was intriguing, even though it looks really trashy.

My verdict:
Even if it was expected, it still turned out to be a cheap and nasty piece of work. Concerning the story, the beginning scenes were pretty messy and awkward and, from the moment the main characters met each other in the most random way possible, the whole thing became some kind of (very) dark version of ‘Thelma & Louise’. At least, even if Karen Bach and Raffaëla Anderson both gave some poor performances, they actually had some charisma and a nice chemistry together and, with some slightly stronger material and some better directing, they could have delivered something interesting. Concerning the explicit sex scenes, well, they were the reason why this movie made some waves when it was released but, to be honest, they didn’t have much value narratively speaking and it seems that they had been added just to create some controversy and to make sure that this movie got more attention that it actually deserved.