Plot Details: This opinion reveals minor details about the movie's plot.

Like most people, it seems, I first heard about David DeFalco's Chaos back in the summer of 2005. The film was absolutely blasted in Roger Ebert's August 12th column, with the critic giving the film 0 stars and going so far as to say "Chaos is ugly, nihilistic, and cruel—a film I regret having seen". He then proceeds to spend a few hundred words telling us why he feels that way. I have to admit, seeing Rog get that worked up over a genre film certainly piqued my interest in Chaos--and if various internet horror film message boards are any indication, it had the same effect on a lot of other horror fans. Of course, I figured there was some grandstanding and hyperbole on Ebert's part—after all, I've seen that old episode where he and Gene Siskel go nuts on slasher flicks in the wake of Friday the 13th like they're the most evil thing ever to grace a cinema screen (and believe me, watching that now and listening to Siskel blather on about how the makers of slasher films were all guys who hated women and couldn't get dates is pretty damn hilarious in a sad sort of way). Part of the gig of being a critic is not only gushing about things you love, but also throwing some bolo-like punches at the crap you hate (and I'm as guilty as anyone—I've ripped more than a few of the postmodernist slasher flicks of the '90s in my day). However, the buzz about Chaos didn't stop there. As it turns out, things were just getting started.

Had it ended there, with a single, solitary review from Ebert decrying the film as garbage, then Chaos would have probably died a quiet death. Sure, some people would have seen it just to see what offended Ebert so much, but a lot of people would have read the review, said to themselves "ok, I'll mark that one off the 'to rent' list", and gone on with their lives. However, as fate would have it, something very strange happened. First off, the people behind Chaos sent Ebert a lengthy letter about the film and the review. That's not so unusual—I'm sure a lot of guys who put out a film and get slammed in the review write to critics complaining about it/wanting to debate certain issues. What was so odd, and gave Chaos a new lease on life was that Ebert (who clearly should have known better), actually responded. Ebert didn't just respond, he published the response (and it was lengthy) and by doing so actually got drawn into a sort of "debate" with the guys who made Chaos. As anyone who knows anything about hype, advertising, and publicity will tell you, this was a huge victory for the Chaos people. They got Ebert to talk about their low-budget horror flick not once, but twice—at length. There's no such thing as bad publicity as the saying goes, and Ebert gave Chaos more publicity than a multi-million dollar ad campaign…and it didn't cost them a penny. Brilliant on the part of the film's creators…not so bright on Ebert's part.

Now, roughly a year after the whole Ebert debacle, Chaos is available on DVD (this is the one mistake the people behind Chaos seem to have made—waiting a year to get it out was almost too long in our "I want it and I want it now" world. They should have released this thing in the months right after the Ebert comments for maximum impact). As anyone who's read my stuff regularly knows, I'm not the kind of guy who blasts a film for being mean-spirited, gory, nihilistic, or morally questionable. In fact, a lot of films with those very qualities are ones that I love. That being said, I didn't dislike Chaos because it was violent and somewhat reprehensible (and it is both)—I disliked it because it's one of the biggest cases of cinematic plagiarism I've ever seen.

Ultimately, Chaos is nothing but a rip off of Craven's Last House on the Left (which was an updating of The Virgin Spring). And when I say rip off, I'm not meaning that there are some similarities between the two stories—I'm saying it's such a blatant act of grand theft cinema that Craven should have a lawyer. Not since Umberto Lenzi "borrowed" scenes from other films and spliced them into one of his own have I seen such a grievous act of outright artistic theft.

Opening with the most absurd cautionary scrawl in the history of cinema (which is saying something, considering the scrawl that preceded Ilsa: She Wolf of the SS) Chaos assures us that what we are about to see is a cautionary fable about the dangers facing young women in the world today. The film then cuts to young Sadie (Kelly K.C. Quann) being accosted on the side of a deserted road by two guys who want to give her a "ride". Things aren't what they appear to be, though, when Chaos (Kevin Gage) and his cohort Frankie (Stephen Wozniak) appear from nowhere and assault the potential assaulters. It becomes readily apparent that Sadie, Chaos, Frankie and Chaos' young son Swann (Sage Stallone) are some very bad people on the run from the law.

Meanwhile, young college girls Emily and Angelica (Chantal Degroat and Maya Barovich) are headed to a rave in the woods. When they meet up with Swann and head back to his place to score some ecstasy, it's a decision both young women will come to regret. Add in Emily's concerned parents, two bumbling cops, and the fact that the killers eventually wind up at Emily's house (with her parents figuring out that they've killed her) and well, it's just Last House on the Left all over again, just without Craven's more assured direction.

Hailed by DeFalco and crew as "the most brutal film ever made!", Chaos isn't as gory as one would expect. Yes, there are squirm-inducing moments at times (a nipple removal and a rape by knife stand out). Instead, the film aims to traumatize the audience not through gore FX but through the unrelenting hopelessness that colors every frame of the finished product. Chaos is a mean film—half of Degroat and Barovich's dialogue is them screaming in agony or begging for their lives. Most of Chaos' observations are filled with racism and hatred. That might have worked in a better conceived film—but as it stands, the character of Chaos is so undeveloped that his rantings and ravings make him seem more like a caricature than a genuine psychopath. This isn't a character acting like a savage because something made him this way—it's an actor acting like a savage because the script calls for it. Let's face it—Kevin Gage just isn't David Hess. Hess could make these poorly developed sleazy characters work because he always managed to imbue them with some sort of twisted humanity. Chaos, meanwhile, is little more than a cartoon. Tack on one of the dumbest endings ever (the one spot where it actually manages to break away from the plot line of Last House on the Left—just barely) and it all keeps getting worse.

As you've probably figured out, it's a lot more fun to talk about all the stuff surrounding Chaos than it is to view the film. After the Ebert exchanges DeFalco started using those and his background as a pro-wrestler to hype the film (there are some funny stories about the LA screening that you can find online). Apparently, some of the actors actually crashed the screening's Q&A session to shed some light on what really happened with Chaos. Depending on who you believe, the film was originally intended to be a remake of Craven's Last House on the Left (with there even being reported plans of including David Hess) and the actors were contractually bound to that film. However, as shooting started the producers felt the film was original enough to not need the tie-in to Last House (what were they smoking?) and Hess was dismissed. Stallone quit, but was forced to finish his scenes. Maybe they should have opened the film with a cautionary scrawl about the dangers of working in the exploitation film industry instead of the crap that opens the film now…

To be totally honest, I agonized over whether or not to write this review. On the one hand, talking about Chaos gives the people behind this film exactly what they want—more free press for a film that didn't deserve any sort of recognition to begin with. However, in the grand scheme of things, they got more free press and hype than they could have ever asked for from the Ebert pieces—anything that comes from my modest critique is going to be miniscule compared to those reviews and exchanges. On the other side of the coin, I figured it was probably almost necessary to have someone like myself comment on the film for no other reason than because I'm a genre fan. A lot of people can look at Ebert's comments and say "well, Ebert doesn't like horror flicks—but I do so this might be something worth seeing". I love horror films. I've championed some that are as controversial as Chaos (I Spit on Your Grave, Nick Palumbo's Murder Set-Pieces, the August Underground films), and I'm not the kind of guy who immediately finds a film that has a mean streak and some nihilism to be a bad thing (I liked Fight for your Life). Despite that, I can't champion a film like Chaos. I can deal with the cruelty and the suffering (even though they mostly seem to be there just for the sake of titillating an audience), but I simply cannot condone a film that blatantly rips off the work of another artist. Trust me when I tell you that finding and watching a copy of this film is a waste of time. Spending money to see this film simply rewards the filmmakers for their crime. Let's allow Chaos to fade into the obscurity it so richly deserves.


Recommended: No

Viewing Format: DVD
Video Occasion: None of the Above