(written by Terry MacNeil, on October 25-26, 2026)
A lot of my (and Quentin Tarantino’s) favourite movies are considered “exploitation” films. However, “exploitation” is an umbrella term – and is SO broad, you basically need to use narrower terms, if you’re discussing movies with anyone. Even though great films like Cannibal Holocaust, The House on the Edge of the Park, and Baise-moi are among the ne plus ultra of the term “exploitation” – there’s also umpteen billion other films considered “exploitation” that are so tame, they’re practically family friendly (in my book). So “exploitation” is a movie term I stopped using many years ago. If I’m discussing movies like Cannibal ferox, or (the original) I Spit on Your Grave, or Chaos, I prefer to use terms such as “extreme” and/or “sadistic”.
Interestingly, there don’t seem to be many “new” movies film buffs consider “extreme” anymore – because “extreme” has gone mainstream (thanks to landmark movies like Saw and House of 1000 Corpses). It seems like pretty much every horror movie being made these days is incredibly gory, and/or sadistic, and/or sexually violent, etc. This development reminds me of how “mainstream porn” has become increasingly violent over the years – as elements of “BDSM porn” have increasingly infected (and become an increasingly common component of) “mainstream porn”. So as a male feminist, I am committed to NOT imitating just about anything I see being done in porn. That said, I’ll continue watching porn (when alone). But I digress.
As a pre-teen, I began my neverending quest to seek out and see the most violent/goriest movies (ONE reason for that, was because I was often severely depressed back then – and would often imagine the gruesome killings I saw onscreen were happening to me). As an adult, I also sought out movies with people being incessantly psychologically terrorized (such as in Rabid Dogs). As far as “extreme” movies with psychopaths go, I say the actor David Hess was the Laurence Olivier of “extreme”. Interestingly, the famous film critic Roger Ebert liked (the original) The Last House on the Left – which is rightly counted among the most extreme of “extreme” movies. However, I am CONVINCED Roger only saw the (fairly tame) R-Rated cut.
I knew I had to see Chaos, thanks to Mr. Ebert’s movie review of the film (which is a remake of The Last House on the Left, though with changes that greatly upset Mr. Ebert). And to be clear, I am referring to the 2005 film Chaos that was directed by David DeFalco. Anyway, to paraphrase the film’s opening screed, it claims the filmmakers were motivated to make Chaos to educate us naive viewers about the dangers lurking in the World – a claim that can only be taken seriously, if it’s referring to the danger posed to us by “the police”. There is also (insincerely) NO MENTION of the filmmakers being motivated to stir up controversy and make money. As for the film’s opening (hitchhiking) scene, we see two male (would-be) sex criminals attempting to rape a female hitchhiker – then her male sex criminal friends jump out of the bushes and kick the living shit out of the (would-be) sex criminals. So it’s clear in this movie’s universe that psychopaths are a dime a dozen. Also, the villains make lots of homophobic and racist comments. And of the two cops in the film – one is presented as a racist villain “just doing his job” aka “enforcing the law”. The vile views of the villains are contrasted with the “politically liberal” views of the “good guys” (and the non-villain cop). And I argue, THE FILM endorses the views of the “good guys”, and THE FILM deliberately highlights similarities between “cops” and the “psychopaths” the cops are supposed to protect “us” from. As for the film’s AMAZING ending, all the cops and all the “good guys” are killed – so only the boss villain is left standing. Then the end credits roll! This nihilistic ending (for a consistently nihilistic movie) is one reason Chaos is WAY BETTER than (the original) The Last House on the Left. Ⓐ
