Controversy often serves as a catalyst for discussion, debate, and even dissent. From provocative themes to boundary-pushing visuals, certain films have sparked fervent discourse, challenging societal norms, moral codes, and artistic boundaries. Join us as we embark on a cinematic journey through film history, as we encounter a diverse array of works that have ignited controversy in various forms.
This curated list delves into what we at SAW have determined to be the 100 of the most controversial movies ever made. These films are not merely provocative for the sake of shock value; rather, they offer profound insights into the human condition, societal taboos, and the power of art to challenge, provoke, and inspire. Some have been met with critical acclaim despite their contentious nature, while others have faced censorship, bans, and public outrage.
From groundbreaking classics that pushed the boundaries of cinematic expression to modern masterpieces that continue to polarize audiences, each entry in this list represents a unique chapter in the ongoing evolution of cinema. As we navigate through tales of love, violence, politics, religion, sexuality, and everything in between, we invite you to engage with these films, not only as entertainment but as thought-provoking discussions of art.
70. The Last House on the Left (1972)
You know how people always say 80’s kids were different when came to being unsupervised in the things they did and watched? How they were pretty left to themselves to run around the neighborhood with their friends until the street light came on? Or watch tv and movies without parent controls and commonsense media telling them if something was appropriate or not? Well, I was one of those kids and I watched way to many things at young as a horror fan. This was a movie my eyes were too young to see being an 80s kid or not. Hell, it was still a rough watch when I revisited it as an adult. After the first rape, I had to turn it off and walk way for a bit.
Wes Craven would change the game of horror three different times throughout his legendary career and his first would with his debut film The Last House on the Left. We were moving away from the universal monsters and devil being the bad guys into a world where we would meet the biggest and most despicable villains of all time. People. The film’s graphic depiction of rape and revenge sparked controversy and condemnation upon its release, with critics and audiences alike divided over its merits. Some praised Craven’s boldness in tackling taboo subjects and his willingness to push the boundaries of cinematic storytelling. Others criticized the film for its extreme content and accused it of exploiting violence for shock value.
Audience members would threatened movie theaters to destroy the film roll, some would just steal the footage from the theater, and some projectionist were so offended they would take matters into their own hand to cut the film themselves. It would become an original “video nasty” in the UK and would be banned for more than 20 years.
-Vincent Kane
69. Martyrs (2008)
As a horror fan, I remember hearing about this new thing called the New French Extremity movement that was sweeping the horror nerd universe as a must watch if you wanted to push your boundaries. Being in the mid to late 2000s, these French films weren’t easily attained to watch here in the U.S. at least. They weren’t just sitting on the Blockbuster shelf and streaming was just getting started so options were limited. These felt like hidden treasures that you had to work for but one certain film was constantly spoken and written about that stood above the rest as the most brutal watch of all time.
Martyrs, to me at least, had this almost ghost/haunted house story that had me not really wanting to watch it for years. I remember the first time I finally pull the trigger to sit down and face this boogeyman of mine with my stomach in knots before I ever pushed play. It did not disappoint and I understood why the film had controversy surrounding it. The film follows the journey of Lucie, a young woman who seeks revenge against those who tortured her as a child, and her friend Anna, who becomes caught up in the aftermath of Lucie’s violent quest. Essentially mot of the movie is about a group of people torturing innocents in heinous ways for a certain enlightenment. Pascal Laugier’s uncompromising direction and the film’s graphic imagery create an atmosphere of dread and despair, sucked viewers in a world where pain and suffering reign supreme.
During it’s initial festival run, the viewing’s incited walkouts and people vomiting. There is even a documentary called Martyrs vs Censorship as the French version of the MPAA gave it a dreaded 18+ rating for its disturbing/severe aberrant behavior involving strong bloody violence, torture, child abuse and some nudity. This rating had mainly been reserved for porn films. Eventually the film would receive a 16+ rating but would not get it’s theatrical run in the U.S., instead getting the direct to DVD treatment.
-Vincent Kane
68. Irreversible (2002)
Irreversible was one of those films that I used to hear whispers about at school and college. Some of the scenes I’d heard about seemed almost surreal in their violence. Thankfully I never watched it until much later in life, but in saying that I don’t think you can ever be prepared to watch it, regardless of age. The plot depicts the events of a tragic night in Paris as two men attempt to avenge the brutal rape and beating of the woman they love. What really adds to the tension is the fact the plot unfolds in reverse chronological order. At the beginning you see an enraged man taking revenge for something that has happened. The violence in this scene is pretty much unmatched compared to anything else I’ve ever seen. It’s proper look away from the screen type stuff. Then we eventually get to the event that sparked such rage, and it’s even harder to watch.
Both scenes made viewers leave the cinema in disgust on release, and that’s quite understandable. It doesn’t shy away from the ugliness of the world and for better or worse, this makes Irreversible one of the most memorable films I’ve ever watched.
-Lee McCutcheon
67. Lolita (1962 & 1997)
I don’t know who’s ballsier – Kubrick for tackling this story first or Adrian Lyne who decided to tackle it again after seeing the controversy the first one received. Based on Vladimir Nabokov’s novel of the same name, both films revolve around Humbert Humbert, a middle-aged literature professor who becomes infatuated with his landlady’s teenage daughter, Lolita. The two films explore themes of obsession, desire, and the corruption of innocence. Kubrick’s adaptation is both faithful to the source material and a bold reinterpretation, whereas Lyne sticks to the text but takes bolder chances in casting. He wanted the main actress to be as close to the age of the titular character, which obviously creates issues due to the subject matter. Both have exquisite casts that bring something unique to their respected movies.
Mason’s nuanced performance captures Humbert’s charm and charisma, as well as his darker impulses and inner turmoil, while Irons makes you squirm because there’s never a moment where you question whether or not he would, it’s more a matter of when. Opposite Mason, Sue Lyon delivers a mesmerizing performance as Lolita, perfectly capturing the character’s mix of youthful innocence and precocious sexuality and stealing scenes from Irons is Dominique Swain, a siren in the body of a young woman. Regardless of which one you prefer, Lolita remains a true cinematic masterpiece that continues to fascinate and provoke audiences with its exploration of forbidden desires and the dark underbelly of human nature.
-Sailor Monsoon
66. Viridiana (1961)
Viridiana is the ultimate Buñuel film in that it has both of his loves on full display – poking holes in religion and surreal imagery. The film follows Viridiana (Silvia Pinal), a young woman who’s about to take her vows to enter the convent and her uncle (Fernando Rey) who’s obsessed with her due to her uncanny resemblance to his dead wife. As the story progresses, Viridiana’s idealism clashes with the harsh realities of the world outside the convent. She tries to help the poor and downtrodden, but her efforts are met with indifference and cruelty. This highlights Buñuel’s critique of societal hypocrisy and the limitations of religious doctrine in addressing human suffering.
The infamous banquet scene is a surreal and provocative highlight of the film. Don Jaime (her uncle) and his guests indulge in debauchery and hedonism, revealing the darker aspects of human nature. Buñuel’s biting satire spares no one, as he exposes the hypocrisy and moral decay lurking beneath the veneer of respectability. Audacious, thought-provoking, provocative but absolutely beautiful to look at, Viridiana is a challenging work of art that continues to captivate and provoke audiences over half a century after its release. Buñuel’s uncompromising vision and unique storytelling make it a landmark achievement in world cinema, deserving of its status as one of the greatest films ever made.
-Sailor Monsoon
65. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979)
I still kind of wish Life of Brian had been called Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory, as Eric Idle had jokingly suggested. Certainly it couldn’t have caused any more blowback from religious groups than the film ended up receiving. There were protests and marches with rabbis and priests (and “nuns with banners!”) all decrying the film as blasphemous. Christianity got off easy, you ask me, with Jesus himself being treated mostly straight and only those around him getting the pointy end of the stick.
Jewish viewers also got a break, with a character making fun of Zionists left on the cutting room floor. No, the film makes fun of the overly religious, the overly dogmatic, the government, the revolutionaries, the concept of organized religion, individuality, group think, belief, Romans, the left, the right, and probably my mother. Or your mother. What was I saying? Anyway, it’s a brilliant film that takes on several sacred cows, but no actual sacred cows, and offended all the right sorts of people.
-Bob Cram Jr.
64. The Guinea Pig Series (1985-1990)
Every film on this list has done at least one thing to ruffle the feathers of conservatives but only a select few can claim the honor of being confused for an actual snuff tape. Guinea Pig is a Japanese horror film series that consists of six films, each more depraved than the last. These movies all follow the same basic formula: one person locked in a room who’s slowly being tortured to death. That lack of plot helps sell the realism of the torture a little too well. Charlie Sheen once reported the director to the FBI after he mistakenly believed Guinea Pig 2: Flower of Flesh and Blood was a real snuff film.
If that wasn’t wild enough, they’re also suspected to have influenced Tsutomu Miyazaki, a serial killer who kidnapped and murdered four young girls. A work of art should never have to shoulder the blame for inspiring (whether intentionally or not) the actions of a madman. Art is not safe. A true artist creates things that challenge the status quo. They take chances and cross lines just to see where the lines are. The Guinea Pig movies are not art. But they also aren’t trash, either. They’re clearly effective enough to allegedly inspire true life horrors and realistic enough to scare the shit out of a drugged up B actor. These films aren’t art but they do offer an experience most art can’t. An experience you’ll never forget.
-Sailor Monsoon
63. Heathers (1988)
I was a teenager when Heathers came out, and I don’t really remember thinking that it was all that controversial. This was a decade before Columbine and suicide clusters and the madness we have to deal with seemingly every other week. No, Heathers was mostly just a dark comedy that dressed up in John Hughes clothing. Nowadays the plot, involving bullying, cliques, suicide, murder, guns, homophobia and peer pressure, seems like a smorgasbord of all the things you CAN’T make a teen movie about. Certain not a comedy.
Having the idea of suicide becoming popular because a popular kid did it just seemed like something that could happen, back then, as weird as that sounds. (Not that there’s much suicide in the film – it’s mostly murder.) Heathers was Mean Girls with murder. Fight Club without Brad Pitt (though he did audition for the part that went to Christian Slater). It was fun, and cool, and mean and weird. It had Wynona Ryder smoking a cigarette lit by the explosion of her boyfriend. It wouldn’t get made today. So I’m glad it go made when it did.
-Bob Cram Jr.
62. Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain dealt with taboos and has been touted as a groundbreaking portrayal of a forbidden love story between two cowboys in the American. The film follows the complex relationship between Ennis Del Mar, played by Heath Ledger, and Jack Twist, portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal, as they grapple with societal expectations and their own inner conflicts. However, it was the film’s unapologetic portrayal of same-sex romance and its challenge to societal norms that propelled Brokeback Mountain into the spotlight and sparked both acclaim and controversy.
Brokeback Mountain ignited debates about LGBTQ+ representation in mainstream cinema and sparked conversations about discrimination faced by queer individuals. The film’s frank depiction of intimacy between two men, contrast with the rugged backdrop of the country setting, challenged societal norms and confronted viewers with complexities of human desire and identity. Brokeback Mountain faced backlash from certain groups and cultural critics who objected to its subject matter.
-Vincent Kane
61. Death Race 2000 (1975)
Like so many films produced by Roger Corman, Death Race 2000 is a masterpiece by mistake. An action-packed, gore-filled piece of exploitation cinema that succeeds as over-the-top satire almost despite itself. Director Paul Bartel (Eating Raul) had something to do with that, but some of it is just a weird alchemy of body parts, pro-wrestling character names and cartoonishly menacing racing cars. Set in a nihilistic, dystopian future where the faceless “Mr. President” oversees the Transcontinental Road Race as a distraction for the masses, Death Race 2000 revels in violence and social commentary. All of it as broad and bloody as possible.
There’s a threadbare plot about main racer Frankenstein (David Carradine) wanting to assassinate the President when he shakes hands after the race, but really, it’s all just an excuse to have weird-ass cars and weird-ass people race around and kill each other and pedestrians (they’re worth extra points, you see). Als featuring Sylvester Stallone in a pre-Rocky role, Death Race 2000 has no right being as much fun as it is, nor having as much influence as it does. (Dystopian weird-ass people racing around in weird-ass vehicles trying to kill each other is a thing.) Everything about the film is excessive (except the budget) and that includes how much enjoyment I get out of it.
-Bob Cram Jr.
80-71 | 60-51
How many of these controversial movies have you seen? Did you find any of them controversial?