Note: This is probably the longest review I have ever written and it mostly deals with the source of controversy surrounding Natural Born Killers, so if you just want a brief summary of why this film is worth watching, skip to the end!<br /><br />I remember when Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killers was released in 1994 and delivered a well-deserved kick up the arse to American audiences. Stone set out to criticize media for its mindless glorification of violence and criminals in the media and did so through a sharp satirical spectacle about two infamous killers-turned-idols, starring the "it" actors of the early 90s. <br /><br />Unsurprisingly, conservative American families were outrageddisgusted at what was presented to them and saw the film itself as a mindless glorification of violence and criminals as opposed to criticism. Indeed, they were so outraged that, when teen-fans left their Oklahoma home to go out east and shoot fellow Americans, parents blamed Natural Born Killers for having inspired the shootings. Oliver Stone was left with blood on his hands, while more murders were being linked to his masterpiece. Lawsuits were filed; cases were tried and reinstalled, until finally they were dismissed in Louisiana in 1998. <br /><br />The reason I bring this up again, after so many years, and so many more violent films later, is because Entertainment Weekly has published a list of The 25 Most Controversial Movies of All Time and Natural Born Killers is ranked as #8. Now, I don't want to knock Entertainment Weekly as they report on reality, but when a film like NBK gets a high ranking as 8, they should be called Entertainment, Weakly. My point is, rather, that this is a film that dealt with such an important, realistic issue that it should never have been controversial in the first place. So why was it?<br /><br />The reason for this high ranking, I assume, is the ending of the film. Instead of opting for your typical, clichéd cop-out in which the "good guys" win and the "bad guys" are punished, Stone lets Mickey and Mallory Knoxthe glorified killersget away with precisely everything and ride off in their car on the highway. This was what lead to a public outcry and what caused an anti-violence film like Natural Born Killers to be mistaken for a pro-violence advertisement. <br /><br />Firstly, it is my opinion that audiences who need everything to be carefully spelled out for them in a film in order to get the message and morals right are probably devoid of morals in the first place (no offense, Crash (2004)). So because Natural Born Killers did not have a perfect righteous ending with a "good guy" shaking his finger and telling you that this was unacceptable and having the bad guy repent their crime, some people took this as homage to serial killers. This fills me with concern for your average movie-goer. <br /><br />Secondly, Natural Born Killers shouldn't have inspired this much controversy because, while it often exaggerates to get its message across, it is realistic to the coreand why should realism be labeled controversial? Isn't it just the opposite? Having violence in a film is a realistic portrayal of the world today. Having media glorify violence is even more so, because that is what is happening. By making Mickey and Mallory Knox into infamous symbols ("If I were a mass murderer, I'd be Mickey and Mallory!" one worshipping teen tells the TV camera team), Stone is parodying reality. He is parodying the idea of media turning serial killers, like Jeffrey Dahmer, into celebrities. Dahmer was on the cover of new magazines more than once, for example. The prison interview with Mickey is based upon the Charles Manson interview with reporter Geraldo Rivera. The story told on "American Maniacs" about Mickey killing a cop after asking him for directions is taken almost verbatim from a story made up by J. Edgar Hoover in the 1930s about bank robbers Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker in an attempt to try to silence the couple's growing fan base. In other words, no one can argue that Natural Born Killers is not a realistic portrayal of the media's response to criminals.<br /><br />Now thirdly, it is my guess that the film struck a little too close to home when it opened and therefore attracted unfair criticism. It pointed to things that were too familiar with audiences. Take the famous sitcom scenes of Mallory's family, featuring hammy acting, clown-like sound effects and canned laughter. All the stylistic elements were present it was just the content that was overblown; Mallory's father made lewd suggestions and it all culminated in a ruthless killing spree. Yet, somehow, it was still funny because it was so close to the average sitcom. This was Stone's intention. In prison, when Mickey is being interviewed on national TV, the film cuts to a simple black and white image of a typical American home. The family is sitting around watching the interview, glued to the television like mindless zombiesthe very same people who hated this film. That's biting irony.<br /><br />So, controversial? I have watched Natural Born Killers many times and cannot see anything else than a satirical masterpiece. I also do not think that exaggerating images or scenarios is overkill  I think exaggerating morals and 'happy endings' to get a point across is overkill. Natural Born Killers had the perfect balance and was meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek. It doesn't glorify violence; it shows how desensitized the media and the public have become to it. And it does so with flair and fury. <br /><br />9 out of 10