The Disturbing Reel

“Realistic.”
“Disturbing.”
“Proof the internet is a lawless nightmare.”
That’s how critics often describe XXX: Dark Web. But is this film truly exposing some hidden digital underworld, or is it revealing something far more uncomfortable about us?
In this episode, I dissect XXX: Dark Web while expanding the conversation into a deeper psychological question: Why are people drawn to extreme cinema in the first place?
We break down:
• The myth of the “red room” and online moral panic
• Anonymity and how it alters human behaviour
• Voyeurism, livestream culture, and commodified violence
• Why society is quick to blame films for real world actions
• The difference between curiosity, catharsis, and unhealthy escalation
• And why mental state matters when engaging with extreme content
This isn’t a surface level reaction episode.
It isn’t outrage for clicks.
It’s a psychological deep dive into spectatorship, responsibility, and the complex reasons humans explore darkness through cinema.
Because watching something disturbing doesn’t automatically make someone disturbed, but self awareness, context, and honesty matter.
And the real conversation isn’t just about what’s on the screen.
It’s about why we’re watching.
If you have any stories to share, scary, dark web or true stories that will fit my podcast, send them to sensorystowers@gmail.com

Films like
The House That Jack Built, Inside, Audition, and Irreversible are often dismissed as “shock for the sake of shock.”
Too violent.
Too disturbing.
Too far.
But are they?
In this episode, I break down why these films are not surface level exploitation, and why they matter in the evolution of extreme cinema.
Drawing on psychological research, trauma studies, moral disengagement theory, attachment theory, expectation violation theory, and cultural analysis, we examine:
• Narcissism and artistic delusion
• Grief and identity collapse
• Objectification and entitlement
• Revenge and the illusion of justice
• Why audiences actively seek disturbing content
• And how extremity functions as cultural confrontation
This is not a defence of brutality.
It’s a defence of nuance.
Because extreme cinema has historically served as counter-cinema, challenging comfort, exposing illusion, and forcing confrontation with ego, trauma, control, and consequence.
If you think these films are “just gore,” this episode may change your mind.
If you already appreciate them, this will deepen your understanding of why they endure.
The horror isn’t what’s on screen.
It’s what they reveal about us.

Films like
A Serbian Film,
Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom,
and Martyrs
have been called disgusting, depraved, morally corrosive, and culturally dangerous.
But what if the film isn’t the real issue?
In this episode, we move beyond outrage and into psychology. Instead of asking why these films exist, we examine why audiences seek them out in the first place.
Drawing on research in media psychology, sensation, seeking, moral panic theory, and Jungian shadow work, this episode explores:
• Why “banned” content becomes irresistible
• The psychology of morbid curiosity
• Whether violent media truly desensitises viewers
• How moral outrage functions socially
• The difference between reflective viewing and empty consumption
• And what extreme cinema reveals about us, not just the screen
This is not a defence of brutality.
It’s an examination of agency.
Because no film forces itself into your mind.
You chose to watch it.
So the real question is, why?
If you engage with extreme cinema, this episode may challenge you.
If you condemn it, this episode may challenge you even more.
Either way, we’re going beyond shock value and into something far more uncomfortable:
Responsibility.

After recently being diagnosed with gallstones, I made the decision to go vegan, and my inbox exploded. Some of you agreed. Some of you sent the usual “plants have feelings” arguments. So in this episode, I’m addressing all of it.
This is not a recruitment drive. I am not here to force anyone into veganism. What I am here to do is talk about the most extreme documentary I’ve ever seen: Earthlings directed by Shaun Monson.
If you claim to love animals but draw the line at certain species, this episode will challenge that. We break down cognitive dissonance, speciesism, the realities of the meat industry, and the psychological comfort of not looking too closely. I also address the common health myths around veganism and explain why anyone can go vegan if they plan properly.
This isn’t about moral superiority. It’s about awareness. If veganism isn’t for you, that’s your choice, but at least know exactly where your food comes from.
Listener discretion advised. This documentary, and this conversation, are not easy.
Once you see it, you don’t get to unknow it.

The Disturbing Reel is officially expanding.
From the next episode onward, all new podcast episodes will be available exclusively on YouTube under The Disturbing Reel.
This decision isn’t random, it’s intentional. Over the last few weeks, the audience has been growing rapidly on YouTube, and more listeners are choosing that platform to engage with long form extreme cinema analysis. Rather than divide the audience, I’m consolidating everything in one place.
The content is not changing. The voice is not changing. The depth is not changing.
This has always been about dissecting extreme cinema through psychology, not for shock, not for outrage, but for meaning. Whether people love these films or hate them, they carry themes that deserve critical discussion.
In this episode, I also address something that has been circulating in the underground film discussion space for years, misinformation surrounding A Serbian Film. Accuracy matters. Nuance matters. And if we’re going to critique extreme cinema, we need to critique what actually exists on screen, not what spreads fastest online.
If you haven’t already, follow The Disturbing Reel on YouTube to continue listening.
Expansion was always the goal.
Now we take it further.

In this episode, we examine Sweet Whip through a trauma informed and BDSM educated lens.
This discussion is not about shock or erotic imagery.
It’s about psychological conditioning, trauma bonding, and the dangerous confusion between survival responses and consensual power exchange.
Topics include:
• Abuse imprinting and nervous system conditioning
• Trauma reenactment vs autonomous kink identity
• The difference between BDSM and coercion
• Why education and consent literacy matter
This episode also includes a direct message for anyone currently stuck in an abusive cycle, whether in a dynamic or a vanilla relationship, and guidance on seeking safety and support.
If you have a story to share with the podcast, submissions can be sent to:
sensorystowers@gmail.com
(Email listed in YouTube & TikTok descriptions.)
This episode is about clarity, not spectacle.
Because trauma deserves understanding, not aestheticization.

In this episode of Disturbing Reel, we examine Funny Games not as a home invasion thriller, but as a study of spectatorship.
Why do audiences expect violence to resolve cleanly?
Why do we tolerate suffering when it serves narrative structure?
And what happens when a film refuses to reward us for watching?
This is a calm, layered analysis of:
• Narrative manipulation
• The psychology of safe viewing
• Violence without catharsis
• Moral distance in media consumption
This episode also explores how spectatorship connects to true crime culture and why depth matters more than speed when discussing harm.
This isn’t about shock.
It’s about structure.

In this episode of Disturbing Reel, we sit down for a calm examination of Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975).
Rather than focusing on shock or spectacle, this discussion explores something more structural: what happens when power no longer seeks moral permission to operate.
No monsters.
No chaos.
Just authority functioning without accountability.
This isn’t a reaction.
It’s an analysis of systems, and why their endurance is more disturbing than their violence.

Extreme cinema is often dismissed as gratuitous, exploitative, or unnecessary.
But what if these films aren’t trying to shock us, what if they’re diagnosing something we’d rather not examine?
In this opening episode of Disturbing Reel, we explore why extreme cinema exists, why some of the most disciplined directors work in this space, and why audiences often recoil from films that remove narrative reassurance.
This isn’t about endurance.
It’s about analysis.

The murder of Junko Furuta is often described as one of the most horrific crimes in modern history, but brutality alone does not explain what happened.
In this episode, we move beyond the headlines to examine the psychology of group violence, entitlement, misogyny, moral disengagement, and systemic failure. We explore how violence escalates when responsibility is shared, how silence enables prolonged abuse, and how ordinary environments can become sites of unimaginable harm.
This episode is not about sensational details.
It is about how violence is sustained, not by monsters alone, but by indifference, complicity, and systems that fail to intervene.
We also examine the aftermath: the legal response, societal discomfort, and why Junko Furuta’s case continues to haunt decades later.
Content warning: This episode discusses extreme violence, sexual assault, torture, and murder.