Chaos (2005)

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Well, here it is people. This was ranked as the worst thing ever on the website Metacritic. Well, technically it was tied with a bunch of other movies, but it doesn't really matter. I have no clue what's going on here. I heard it was supposed to be a remake of "Last House On The Left", but then in the credits they say it was an original story. They also say that it was based on a true story, but then the credits say any similarities to real people are coincidence. What even is this? I remember this being one of Roger Ebert's most hated movies of all time and it makes perfect sense. If you're going to criticize a movie for being disgusting, make sure it's one that's horribly acted like this.Ebert had sort of a feud with the director. Well, they exchanged e-mails trying to defend their position, but they were certainly at each other's throats. Yep, it certainly deserves all of this. Ads say that it was "only a movie" so we shouldn't be offended by it. If it's "only a movie" why even watch it? There is nothing unique about this film in the slightest. We get some bland story stretched over 74 minutes and even then, it seems to go on forever. It is probably the worst horror movie I have seen in my entire life. It is a film that is rotten in every sense of the word. It features a deranged maniac with a bunch of friends. The plot is that two girls are tricked into going into a house of a bunch of evil people who do terrible things to them. That's all. I don't want to even say anything more about the story, if you can even call it.This movie is unpleasant with horrible characters everywhere. The cops who are supposed to be good are terrible people. One even says he isn't racist even though he then admits that black people are bad. What kind of idiot says that? In the end, everybody kills each other for no reason. Why is this happening? Why is everyone such a horrible person? Even the story is so stupid! The one girl runs away until it's dark and still can't get away from her attackers. We get scenes over and over of these girls screaming and running and that's it. Where am I supposed to be entertained by this? There is nothing interesting going on at all. It is one of the most insulting films ever made. It has some of the least amount of purpose I've ever seen in a film. It is abysmal with how ugly it is. I just wanted to get away from the screen while this was on. I actually stomached the whole thing. I have no doubt that if my mom saw this, she would think it was the worst movie she ever saw. Even a horrid film like "Caligula" at least has some interesting sets. Nothing is fancy in this. It's just terrible people doing terrible things. There's no music too. It's just a bleak pointless psychotic monstrosity the whole way through. It's hard to find any reason why anyone would like this. Avoid this at all costs. Zero stars

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", despite being basically a remake of Craven's "Last House on the Left", is quite successful in delivering its intentions. The film sets out to shock and it manages to deliver a powerful sucker punch to the viewer.From the moment "Chaos" begins, with its almost "public information film" blurb, there's an impending feeling of doom. The movie is quite clear from the onset that this is a warning to youngsters and parents alike. As the film starts to pan out, its resemblance to the earlier Craven film is unmissable.Kevin Gage's Chaos is a thoroughly unpleasant chap with a penchant for violence. Gage is excellent in the part and is thoroughly believable as this screen psycho.The whole cast are very good for an independent film of this nature, particularly the actors who play the parents.7 out of 10. Worthy of a rental.