Strictly average movie

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Yeah I know I'm late to the party on this one. Everyone already saw this rip off, eh I mean remake, of Last House on the Left years ago, but I finally caught up to speed. And I gotta say, kinda surprised at the hate it gets. I mean the rating itself is shocking. 3.1? Really? Woodchipper Massacre was rated higher than this! Shame people, shame! Essentially, Chaos is just a modern retelling of Last House on the Left. Same story, same set up, even the cops in this one were stupid too. Only difference is what happens to our girls when our band of psychos happen upon them. It's the brutality that really makes this movie. It's so shocking and in your face, it's really quite an upsetting movie to watch. Where the girls are being harassed, you really feel bad for them, when they scream you really want to help them. Most surprisingly though, it how far the filmmakers go. I suppose they were trying to up the ante. Which is an effort in on itself, as the original Last House has some pretty gruesome and memorable scenes, even by today's standards. But this newer one does actually make a very decent effort to be as offensive and disturbing as it can. It includes two very cringe worthy scenes, which I really don't want to spoil for you here, but trust me when I say I was not expecting such scenes in such a modern movie. They are traumatising. I applaud this. Nothing is G rated, everything is extreme and ugly. That's the way it should be. That's what makes an effective movie. Connected to that is the effects. Those scenes wouldn't have been nearly as brutal had the effects been dodgy, but instead they were right on the mark. Those were some stellar special effects, well done. I guess another plus of this movie, is the lead bad guy, Kevin Gage, playing Chaos. Now he's no David Hess, that's for sure, no one can take on the Hess. But, he does pretty much make this movie. He's scary, really scary. Which is ironic because the whole time I was racking my brain trying to remember where I had seen him before. It hit me that he was the friendly lead in Laid to Rest, and I couldn't believe how different he was in that movie and this one. All I know is now, I'd never want to run into this guy. He's one scary brute.But alas, while this movie is offensive and brutal, it's not all great. The ending really is a mixed basket. I won't discuss it so as to avoid spoilers. What I will say is I appreciate what the filmmakers had in mind, I find that very cool, it's just they could have executed it a bit better, let's face it, the way they went about it was pretty stupid. I don't have much more to say about this movie, but damn, I just can't get those two scenes out of my head. They were disturbing! Might just be in my top ten of most disturbing scenes I've ever seen. If you've seen this movie, you know exactly what I'm talking about. For that brutality alone, it gets an 8/10 from me.

Denizens and die-hard supporters of films heralding from the golden age of Grindhouse would be foolish not to see the glaring similarity between David DeFalco's "Chaos" and Wes Craven's 1972 epic of technically wobbly brutality, "Last House on the Left" (in itself responsible for a fair share of imitations): in both films, two thrill-seeking teenage girls are left to their own devices and run afoul of a gang of psychopaths who proceed to defile and murder them; seeking refuge from their heinous deeds, the group winds up staying in the home of one of the girls' parents, who proceed to dish out their own brand of Grand Guignol vengeance against the attackers. While Craven's film still holds up today as an unsettling exercise in human brutality (juxtaposed against a banjo-twangin' soundtrack and dopey humor) that condemns the very acts it most explicitly portrays (by presenting them in such a rough, unglamorous light), DeFalco's artless, subtext-free imitation leans heavily on a BS opening crawl that plays the "based on a true story" card to justify its wretched, pointless existence (comparatively, last year's slick Hollywood remake of "Last House" better understood the fine line between authentic horror and prurient titillation). Having read several reviews of "Chaos" prior to seeing it, I was wondering if its extremes would authentically shock me; while the torment visited upon our clueless teens is indeed horrific, the lack of purpose matched with DeFalco's leering camera renders the rapes and murders as nothing more than queasy adolescent jack-off material. The film culminates in a moronic conclusion where what little logic the film possessed is completely jettisoned in favor of implausible shock value that is less shocking than outright cynical. The one thing that keeps "Chaos" from being a total waste of film is Brandon Trost's ("Halloween II") deft cinematography; it's a shame it wasn't applied to a better project.

One wouldn't expect an individual to own up to how genuinely effective this film is when said individual refers to Wes Craven's "Last House on the Left" as "mediocre." (The junk Craven has been churning out since Scream 1 deserves that label, not "Last House.") A viewer should have the maturity to admit that he found a film shocking even when he disapproves of it. Note one viewer who claims the film is nasty and overly graphic and yet lame at the same time. Is it possible to find a film "dull" when one obviously had such strong reactions against it? Or, to quote Stephen Thrower, is it possible to be bored and outraged simultaneously? The answer is obvious. At least Roger Ebert, a critic I despise (note that his parry to the filmmakers' defense, had the honesty to admit that the film affected him and that he could not deny its impact, and this was in a zero star review. But some people can't stand to admit when they are genuinely bothered by a film like "Chaos," so they try to have it both ways, so they cop a stance of combined disaffectedness and moral/aesthetic outrage. I.e., "The viewer doth protest too much." As for the predictable, banal, and tiresome claims that the violence and rape don't "help the plot," not all movies -- or books, for that matter -- are about "plot." No one complains that the philosophical inquiries in a Bergman film don't "advance the plot." "Art" and "Exploitation" have more in common than originally meets the eye, as evidenced by the source material for Wes Craven's original film. So stop obsessing over Alfred Hitchcock and his plot-driven style of film-making: his method is not the only valid method with which to craft a thriller. Besides, the obvious is right in front of your nose and you can't even see it: this film's story is about the depredations that befall the two teen-aged girls. The thing done to them in the woods ARE the plot. Get it?

Chaos (2005) *** (out of 4) I've been dying to see this film since Roger Ebert reviewed it last year, which caused a huge debate between himself and the filmmakers. What we've got here is yet another rip of The Last House on the Left, which of course was nothing more than a cheap rip of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring. Two girls go to a party where they walk off into the woods to buy drugs only to be raped, tortured and eventually murdered. As with the other film, the killer's eventually end up at one of the victim's house. I'm not a fan of the Craven film so it might seem strange that I'd give this a positive review but this film really shook me up with its message and the incredibly graphic and sexual violence. The film has been promoted as having the strongest violence of any film and I might just agree with that. The death scenes in the film are quite shocking and are so bad that they'll certainly stay in my mind forever. However, I don't think the film is only about violence because it works on a whole lot of emotions, which is something hard for any film to do. The film is very sad, depressing, ugly, mean and brutal. It's a very unpleasant film to watch but I believe that was the whole point. The filmmakers wanted to show ugliness at its very chore and the film captures that like not many have. The ending will probably stir up even more debate and at first I hated the ending but the more I think about it the more I think it supports today's culture. I found the performances to be incredibly good, which is another rare thing for a movie like this. Kevin Gage plays "Chaos" and is very menacing. I'm sure 99% of the people who view this movie (even the most jaded horror fans) are going to be disgusted at what they see. Hell, I was but I think that was the point to the film.**As an added side note, I've been reading various horror sites about opinions on the movie and I find it rather sad and funny that a lot are putting this film down for being a rip of the Craven movie. Yet, they don't seem to know that the Craven film was nothing more than a cheap rip of the Bergman movie. I personally feel the Bergman movie is one of the most beautiful films ever made so perhaps some of this controversy will lead viewers to that film as well.