Roger Ebert’s Reluctant Encounter With ‘Chaos’: A Film He Couldn’t Endorse
Roger Ebert’s reaction to the 2005 horror film ‘Chaos’ was so severe that he refused to review it, describing it as ugly and cruel, and warning audiences to steer clear.
When Roger Ebert was faced with the 2005 horror film ‘Chaos’, his response was anything but indifferent. Despite having previously praised the original inspiration, Wes Craven’s ‘The Last House on the Left’, Ebert found himself unable to muster even a hint of approval for this unofficial remake. Rather than penning a traditional review, he openly condemned the film’s very existence, expressing genuine regret at having watched it at all. He went so far as to urge the public to avoid it entirely, making his distaste unmistakably clear.
Although Ebert was never the genre’s most enthusiastic supporter, he was not above recognising quality when he saw it. In 1972, he awarded Craven’s controversial original a respectable 3.5 stars, suggesting he was not opposed to challenging narratives. However, David DeFalco’s retelling, which altered little beyond character names and the ending, left Ebert thoroughly unimpressed. The early 2000s had seen a surge in so-called ‘torture porn’, but for Ebert, no amount of shock or gore could disguise what he saw as a film lacking in every conceivable way, and offensive to boot.
Unflinching Critique and Reluctant Exposure
He did not mince words.
“Chaos is ugly, nihilistic, and cruel; a film I regret having seen,”
he declared, offering a rare and emphatic thumbs-down.
“I urge you to avoid it. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it’s ‘only’ a horror film, or a slasher film. It is an exercise in heartless cruelty, and it ends with careless brutality. The movie denies not only the value of life, but the possibility of hope.”
Rather than dissecting the film in detail, Ebert instead referenced the scathing opinions of his peers, sounding almost shaken by his own experience.
He admitted,
“There are two scenes so gruesome I cannot describe them in a newspaper. No matter what words I use.”
The impact was such that he could not simply ignore what he had witnessed.
“Having seen it, I cannot ignore it, nor can I deny that it affected me strongly,”
he reflected.
“I recoiled during some of the most cruel moments, and when the film was over, I was filled with sadness and disquiet.”
Reluctance to Review and Public Response
That was as close as Ebert came to offering an analysis. His only nod to a conventional review was a brief summary of the plot. The violence, he said, was
“Sadistic, graphic, savage, and heartless.”
The dialogue?
“Often racist.”
The action?
“Involves the girls weeping and pleading for their lives.”
As for Kevin Gage’s portrayal of the central figure, Ebert described it as
“Repulsive and cruel.”
For those seeking a thorough critique, there was little to be found beyond these pointed remarks.
Director David DeFalco did not let the criticism pass unnoticed. He responded by taking out a full-page advert, addressing Ebert’s condemnation directly. Yet, Ebert remained unmoved, suggesting that DeFalco’s true aim was not to enlighten, but to provoke controversy and attract attention. He declined to engage further, leaving his original comments to stand as his final word on the matter.