Rampage

Even a broken clock is right two times a day. And it was bound to happen eventually…. Uwe Boll has made a good movie. Not a great movie, but a decent film. Not just good in comparison to the rest of his filmography, but a good movie in its own right. Rampage isn’t based on the 1986 Midway arcade video game, although you might assume so since Boll is involved in a lot of video game adaptations.

Instead, Rampage is the movie that Postal should have been. It is Falling Down without the morals. Rampage is angry, sadistic, fun, yet disturbing.



Brendan Fletcher
plays Bill, a young man who plans possibly the biggest killing spree in history, gunning down innocent people in a small town. Unlike Falling Down, the film doesn’t feature a bad guy and the good guy trying to stop him. Instead, we see the mass murder spree from the point of view of Bill, who you will sometimes find yourself relating to, especially in the early minutes of the film before the killings. And that is why this film works — it puts you in a very uncomfortable position. When Bill walked into a bingo hall with hundreds of old men and women, my mouth was never open wider in anticipation of what horrible things may come to follow.

At my screening, there was a group of moviegoers who would cheer and laugh every time more people were destroyed using semi-automatic weapons, in the same way you cheer on Rambo has he kills off the bad guys. But these aren’t the bad guys, these are innocent people (for the most part), in the wrong place at the wrong time. At times I wanted to cheer on an awesome kill, while most moments I felt disgusted at the reaction from others in our screening room (and I’m not super politically correct or anything). This is a movie that makes you think and decide on a moral stance, because it never offers one itself. It is Grand Theft Auto with real people, and real-looking violence and gore.

The film has flaws, including but not limited to some of the improv acting. Boll shot the film using handheld cameras, doc-style putting the viewer in the middle of the action, sometimes in close-up. And from what I understand, the action beats were planned out, but most of the dialogue was improved by the actors based on a treatment, to give the film a more natural feel (which sometimes works and other times doesn’t even come close).

/Film Rating: 7 out of 10

I’ve included the trailer below for those interested:

About the Author

Peter Sciretta is a film geek and popcultured fanboy living in Los Angeles. He created /Film in 2005.

  • geiser
    .....what?
  • Henrik
    I tought this movie was gonna have giant gorillas and lizards distoying a city.
  • Pat
    lmao! that's exactly what I thought this movie was about
  • Gelman
    I thought it was going to be about MMA star Rampage Jackson...
  • JBuell
    Well, I guess this means I should go sell all my stuff and start repenting to God... I was hoping to have a few more years before the Apocalypse, but Uwe Boll making a decent movie is the last sign. The end is nigh.
  • Wow. I wonder how German audiences will take this...
    Being German myself, I know how we, as a general people, react to this type of horrible nonsensical violence (obviously, post WWII).
    I hope there is NO hubbub, NO controversy, and this gets its fair release.

    Glad to see Boll moving up, as a filmmaker, apparently.. and why not? The more good movies, the better.
  • Nothing is wrong with a good movie, but when someone has a bad track record, you can't help but notice.
  • CharlesTisMe
    Saying Boll has had a bad track record is like saying a hooker gets around.
  • CharlesTisMe
    "I hope there is NO hubbub, NO controversy, and this gets its fair release."

    You might as well hope that magic is real too. No way will this film be appreciated for what it is or get wide release.
  • muffin7
    I guess Uwe Boll was right about himself all along... we just never understood him because of his ridiculous accent.
  • sfgv
    so, boll didn't make a 'good' movie at all.
  • shameless
    i really dont care. as far as im concerned, i wont see this movie and uwe boll still sucks poop.
  • Roberto
    But is there a point to it?
  • Not every movie has to have a poignant point to it. Sometimes a movie can just be entertaining. Hell, The Godfather series hardly has a point other than learn to watch your back, which should just be common sense.
  • Roberto
    I can't see how a dude just blowing a bunch of people away for an hour and half could be entertaining. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really want to see a feature length version of the Columbine videos. Maybe I don't play enough GTA.
  • it's not your kind of movie, alot of people including me like to watch roller coaster movies of pure madness such as crack, crack 2 "insert any 80s action movie here" not to mention "insert just about any horror movie ever made here"
  • Yeah. Since you saw it, anyway.

    ...Damn you people are getting more pretentious every day.
  • So safe to say that Die Hard is not on your favorites list? Cause basically that is all the Die Hard series is.
  • greycolumbus
    Die Hard 1 is more like one guy getting himself deeper in shit and trying to get out of it accordingly.
  • Gelman
    This COULD have had a point if there was a semi-legit target. He could have been a one-man army against Capitol Hill: plenty of innocents (young staffers, tourists, etc.), but a hatred of government would be at least logical. Or he could be targeting gangs in the ghetto, or just women (like that psycho from a couple of months back who was rejected one too many times). There are so many options, but this just looks random. And that's kinda boring to sit through.
  • Kyle C.
    I agree that this film is going to put a lot of people off and if it does get a big release, which I doubt, there will be controversy. But I feel that with all art, be it film, video games, etc...there should be no boundries and these people that commit awful crimes were fucked in the head long before The Matrix(blamed for Columbine) or GTA.
  • PH
    Have you seen Gus Van Sant's Elephant?
  • CharlesTisMe
    Well if you're ever on XBOX Live playin GTA IV Ranked Deathmatch, my tag is "Carl Brotha" and I'll give you an in-game example of how Brian gets down in this movie.
  • CharlesTisMe
    Oh and Elephant was boring as shit compared to this movie
  • The_Kid
    Wow, that trailer was really good, but I hate Uwe Boll ever since I wasted my time with House of the dead. But this actually looks pretty good, maybe he got tired of people calling him a hack.
  • CharlesTisMe
    Can't argue with you there, House of the Dead blows
  • The Great Cambino
    I always figured Boll would make a decent flick one of these days. He's a very deliberate director who always gets the movie he had in his head translated to the screen -- that vision usually just isn't very good, to say the least.

    Still, all he really needed was a good script and an idea he was truly passionate about to make a good movie. Glad to hear it may have happened.
  • Sorry Peter but this looks horrible and really should not be compared to the amazing Falling Down. I doubt very much that critics are gonna respond as well as you did to the flick.
  • It's no where near Falling Down....

    And 5 out of 7 critics I've spoken to at Fantastic Fest liked the film.
  • RJBlakeAAU
    I'm intrigued by this film mainly because many years ago I got to interview Dr. Uwe Boll for a class project. He was very gracious and nice. Also, the thing you figure out when talking to him, is that he loves movies and he knows what makes a good one. His ability has proven inept and I really want to see it because of his help on such a large project.
  • Gelman
    Uwe Boll was also the name of his high school's janitor, though...
  • CharlesTisMe
    Make that 6 of 8 homes.
  • CharlesTisMe
    This film is leaps and bounds better than Falling Down. Rampage is like Falling Down, except with balls, a real body count, and an actor who isn't a crybaby bitch. I own Falling Down on DVD - don't get me wrong, it has its moments, but Rampage makes it look lamer than Gacy.
  • nemon
    "This is a movie that makes you think and decide on a moral stance, because it never offers one itself."

    A moral stance on what? Are you suggesting the film is attempting to start an argument about whether murdering a couple hundred people for no reason is "OK," or do you mean it's attempting the challenge the "morality" of the viewer who enjoys watching a movie about a couple hundred people being murdered for no reason?

    There's no question of morals in the latter option, but there is a question of values: what's the value of a completely hollow film that attempts to do nothing but provoke a reaction from an audience by way of graphic violence, torture, etc? There's no revelation in the fact that we can empathize with fictional characters who experience terrible things. There's no revelation in the fact that we can enjoy watching terrible things happen to fictional characters because we recognize the fiction, the fantasy, the artifice.

    Violence in film is meaningless without the application of thematic or formal ambition to place it in the context of a larger statement or argument. Based on your description, it certainly doesn't sound like anything is happening on a thematic level. Based on my experience watching several of Boll's previous films, I have no reason to expect he has anything going on formally.

    I think that people work hard trying to read this kind of film when they can't accept that they're just staring into a void. This is really a film that begs the audience to project something useful into it to compensate for Boll's lack of effort.
  • "This is really a film that begs the audience to project something useful into it to compensate for Boll's lack of effort."

    Did you see the movie? If not, I think it's wrong to make such a claim before doing so.

    Killing people is and always will be morally wrong. The moral stance has nothing to do with that, but to do with your enjoyment of the movie, and the killing going on on screen.
  • nemon
    "There's no question of morals in the latter option, but there is a question of values: what's the value of a completely hollow film that attempts to do nothing but provoke a reaction from an audience by way of graphic violence, torture, etc? There's no revelation in the fact that we can empathize with fictional characters who experience terrible things. There's no revelation in the fact that we can enjoy watching terrible things happen to fictional characters because we recognize the fiction, the fantasy, the artifice.

    Violence in film is meaningless without the application of thematic or formal ambition to place it in the context of a larger statement or argument."
  • So if violence in film is meaningless...then you're basicaly saying you haven't seen at leat 50% if not more of some of the greatest films of all time just because they had violence in them?
  • Wow.
    Talk about... well, pretentiousness.
    Seriously. I wouldn't be saying that if I were you.
    You'll contradict yourself in one way or another one of these days. And Hard.

    You really should consider your arguments. "I don't watch violent movies because they don't tell me why he pulled the trigger in one way instead of the other."

    ...Well, who the hell are you? Alan Moore?
  • It's not a debate on whether killing is "right" or "wrong", it's merely pointing out that there are always at least two sides to every story and that only seeing it through your own eyes doesn't make your P.O.V. the only "logical" truth as most like to think about their own opinion.
  • Megajat
    Haha! Stuff like this makes me crack up! People are getting into a debate on morality for an Uwe Boll film! This really is the end! Lol!
  • Plan9
    Uwe has always been a cocky prick, but I will tell you there is a legitimate place in the film industry for movies that know their place and aren't trying to be Citizen Kane. As a general rule, if it feels like the actors and the crew had fun making the film, I can have fun watching it.... e.g. Dead Snow..... which may or may not apply to Uwe's work.
  • monkeymafia
    I just don't like this. I, like many, am fascinated by Boll's ineptness and to take something like a serial gunman plotting and executing out a murderous rampage feels irresponsible in his hands. I have a feeling that the anti-hero is far from the complexity of DeNiro's character in Taxi Driver and this film will only serve to feed outrage from conservatives and give some creepy lunatics some more ideas.

    I don't like self-censorship so if this is the movie Uwe wanted to make, so be it, but I just don't like it. It feels emotional cheap and vacant, like he's just showing us a taboo for substantial reason. It reminds me of the Richard Bachman (Stephen King) story "Rage" without the (little) insight it gave. Perhaps I'm wrong though, I'll see what others have to say before I see this one though
  • CharlesTisMe
    I think an argument could be made that Brian in Rampage has more complexity than DeNiro in Taxi Driver (though certainly not built in a similar way). The first hour of Rampage I almost got sick of all the philosophical discussion about overpopulation, genocide, etc. and began to wish they had left his motivations a little bit more to the viewer to interpret (which I suppose they still do to some extent). People are so quick to say Taxi Driver is "obviously gonna be better than this crap" but truth be told, they're very different executions of a similar topic and both are amazing films independently.
  • GregoryV
    Did hell froze over?
  • I will say the trailer does impress upon me that I might want to view this film. Though I'm not the biggest Boll fan, I will def give it a chance since I do like these psychological thrillers.
  • Dysthymia83
    Sounds like Uwe Boll doing a riff on Gus Van Sant's "Elephant". Wow, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.
  • CharlesTisMe
    It's nothing like Elephant, except that there are automatic machine guns and people get shot. That is where the similarities end.
  • Like Peter, I am not super politically correct by any means, but I don't understand films in this "genre" - films such as Monster and the upcoming film based on Richard "The Ice Man" Kuklinski.

    Sure, we come from a society that loves violence - three of the biggest money grabbers this past summer involved giant killer robots intent on destroying Earth, environmental terrorists, and gun-toting guinea pigs. But when is violence for violence's sake justifiable? Why are films made in which, for the lack of a better word, monsters kill people with no purpose other than personal gain? More so, why do producers and directors in Hollywood think that the general public wants to see movies of such a violent nature? Perhaps I have different interests than the standard movie-going public, but I go to the movies to watch great story and interesting characters, not savage blood lust. These types of films are for the lowest-common denominator.
  • ChrisTen6
    Improved is a word on its own -- and it doesn't mean 'to improv'
    It thoroughly confused me.
  • Name
    what a horrible movie idea. Absolute filth and trash. Disgusting.
blog comments powered by Disqus