alot of people give Boll crap for being such a "horrible" director.
Its not entirely his fault. you know what his only "good" movie is? Postal, Thats because RWS (the company that made postal) helped him out with the movie. most other companies just sell the movie rights and expect Boll to shit out a masterpiece. maybe House of the dead would of been a better movie if Sega had taken the time to help Boll make that movie maybe it wouldn't of been a shit-fest and if you think the movie sucks than don't watch it. don't condemn a movie you dont live and voice your opinion. nobody gives 2 fucks what you have to say. if you think Uwe Boll's movies suck, than make one yourself. obviously you can do a lot better right?

I hate to think how many sick people will be inspired by this...

I am thinking same as henrik. Movie was have gaint gorillas as well as lizards. I did n't saw this movie but read lot about this movie.

^ Were you drunk when you wrote this?

In my lifetime I have only ever walked out of one film, and that was House of the Dead. I wouldn't have walked out of Rampage if the theater was on fire.
This film will be misunderstood, torn apart by entire organizations, and will undoubtedly infuriate most who ever get the chance to see it.
Think what you may about Dr. Uwe Boll, but this film is right and pure in the way that only Independent cinema can be; and Douglas' Falling Down never could be.
This film will never get wide distribution because the level of violence and lack of easy answers will be too much for most people. I haven't bought a DVD in months and I've got this one pre-ordered for sure. Shockingly amazing from a man most people thought was only capable of churning out crap.

I remember sites like Twitch and Film School Rejects also thinking "Postal" was good as well. That movie was shit. This sounds like your average film fest audience overreaction.

Postal was slightly less shitty than most of Boll's other work, but I'd still group it with all the rest in terms of poor performing movies. THIS, however, is NOT Postal. This is NOT House of the Dead. This is NOT fucking Bloodrayne.

This is a film that stands alone and apart from his other work. Unfortunately from his Q & A session, it seems he has every intention of returning back to video game movies after this since he's made a fortune on them through International distribution. At least one thing he produced in his lifetime isn't crap though. See it.

Dude, just from the trailer you can tell this movie is a million times better than anything Uwe Boll has done before. I remember seeing those positive Postal reviews too but I also remember the movie looking like shit in the trailer, just like the rest of his films. Ive' never actually sat through more than 15 min. of any of his films. I really want to see this though.

looks kinda like taxi driver meets crank

ps. no im not saying this movie seems like it will be near as good as taxi driver so please no "awww boo hoo this guy compaired taxi driver to this piece of poo awww"

Don't be so quick to stomp it under Taxi Driver without first seeing it Keith - that's one of my favorite movies, and both will be sitting on my shelf in a couple months (because there's no way Rampage is getting any real theatrical release, its violence is straight to DVD).
Some people will say this had less "purpose" than Taxi Driver, and I can see exactly where they are coming from, but I believe it's equally legitimate.
Let's hope this becomes Boll's Taxi Driver and propels him into a new direction (then at least he'll stop making piss poor video game movies)

Damn, this should be the plot of the next Grand Theft Auto game--You play a guy who's had enough of society and decides to fuck up a whole city.--That would actually make the crazy things you do in that game make a lot more sense.

This movie looks really interesting, I can't believe I just said that about a Uwe Boll movie! Isn't it ironic that the first non-video game based film he's made looks like the best movie that could be a video game ever! I feel like this is what the Crank films should have been like.

/film seems to be giving out positive reviews left and right these days, so I'll take this one with a grain of salt. I can't tell if 7 is average or above average.

That being said, I never saw Uwe Boll as the monster of film-making that so many people wished he was. There are far worse people out there.

I think 7 is being too harsh on this film, it deserves an 8 or 9 at least. It did exactly what it aimed to do, the cinematography was great (unless you're old and realistic camera movement makes you nauseous), the main character was fully fleshed out, the depictions were realistic, the action was realistic, and it all came together in an ending I never saw coming for a damn minute. Why Peter only gave it a 7 is beyond me.
Though I really enjoyed his "Even a broken clock is right two times a day" comment. This couldn't be more true for Boll's career.

For me Uwe Boll's movies started out about how bad they were, but eventually when I found out he made bad movies because he was exploiting a tax loophole in German law, it made me angry.

The guy was trying to piss the public off, and on top of that all the hate sites now seem contrived, because not only do some of them no longer exist, but the few that are still around promote his movies. How is it possible that some of these sites were fundamentially opposed to this guy, and then just suddenly turn tail?

Go ahead, try finding information around the internet about his exploits, you will find little more than a somewhat questionable posting in wikipedia.

No, it's no longer about how good his movies are.

If I could make my short films utilizing tax loopholes instead of my own money, believe me I would.

They still let this guy make films ?

I would like to see this film it's thought provoking, weather there is two meany ? and not enough Answers i don't no depending on what the film is trying to say.

Looks rather typical. If Boll really wants to hold a mirror up to society and have us reflect accordingly while watching his films, he might want to try a little more subtlety? His attempt to do this in all of his films has failed miserably. This one seems to have the same failed intent behind it -- had Peter not given it props, I never would have given this a second thought.

Haha all I could think of was the scene from lethal weapon 4 when that guy is all armoured up with the flaw thrower haha still looks like an uwe boll movie to me haha

Oh god...my world has turned upside down..tell me, is Michael Bay making a serious drama?

i'm not sure i'd even consider watching - and therefore supporting - any piece of art - film in this instance - which glorifies behavior like this, especially in a decade where it has happened so frequently.

now, if the film does not glorify the slaughter of innocents at the hands of a piece of shit crybaby, who could never have it as bad as other who choose to not murder, then i'll check it out. but from the trailer i just saw, with the contrived "society is a disease" rant, and the description peter has given us, i'm not sure i'd ever be able to defend something like this, let alone watch it.

but i haven't seen it yet, nor actually spoken to someone who has. so maybe i'm wrong. but for the record, here's a small checklist of some guys who seem like they might be similar to the Rampage 'protagonist':

April 2007: At least 22 people are killed as a gunman goes on the rampage at the campus of Virginia Tech

October 2006: A 32-year-old gunman goes on the rampage at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, shooting dead at least three girls before killing himself

September 2006: A gunman in Colorado shoots and fatally wounds a teenage schoolgirl, and then kills himself

September 2006: Two days later a teenager kills the headteacher of a school in Cazenovia, Wisconsin

March 2005: Schoolboy in Minnesota kills nine, and then shoots himself

May 2004: Four people are injured in a shooting at a school in Maryland

April 2003: Teenager shoots dead a head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, and then kills himself

January 2002: A student who had been dismissed from the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia, killed the dean, a professor and a student, and wounded three others.

March 2001: A pupil kills two students after opening fire at a school in California

February 2000: A classmate shoots dead a six-year-old girl in Michigan.

November 1999: A 13-year-old girl is murdered by a classmate in New Mexico, again via a shooting.

May 1999: Six are injured by a student in a shoot-out in Georgia.

April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves at Columbine School in Colorado. An award-winning documentary was later made about the killing.

June 1998: Two adults are hurt in shooting by teenage student at high school in Virginia

i'm not gonna knock boll's filmmaking skills, because i truly believe that anyone can turn a corner in their craft, and hit the mark. i'm far from an overly PC person, but when things like this are really happening, morals and ethics gotta come into play when you choose to make something like this - right? and i'm left wondering - sorry to be a broken record - but if in fact glorification is being passed of as a sound 'statement' of some kind.

Thank you so much for that little history lesson. I wish I knew how to use wikipedia and search for "teen shootings". Gimme a fucking break...dont see the goddamn movie and quit bitching about it. Ethics, morals, whatver you want to call them, are irregardless when it comes to a directors pov. This movie doesnt look oscar worthy, nor does it look like a movie thats going to be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of setting off 100s of teen killers. This movie is made to be viewed for pure entertainment, nothing else. I highly doubt this movie is going to be the be all end all for pointless graphicly violent films. People who use school shootings and violent teens to prove a point about violent films are doing nothing but finding the easy way out when it comes to something or someone to blame. Ive said this numerous times, its not the movies and its not the video games. Blame the fucking society and blame the parents. I hate Uwe Boll but I actually am going to see this movie because it looks like a decent film, but that might be the psychopath shooter in me talking *sarcasm*

^ This guy gets it (chuggz).
I appreciate that JasonB has morals, we all know we could use more of that in our society, but criticizing the film on those grounds is absurd. People that advocate censorship of anything that doesn't appeal directly to their aesthetic tastes usually site "morals." Look at American censorship laws dating back to the 40s.
Most of these pretentious, search-engine-inspired comments FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN THE MOVIE YET really make me laugh hardily (truly not attempting to be condescending, just sayin).
I watched Rampage a week ago at Fantastic Fest. If this film seems like it will be too much for you to stomach, it definitely will. If so, maybe you should stay away from films containing violence in general. My mom enjoys watching the HG network for example.

Wow. I mean the trailer seems to give it much more depth than I thought it would have, despite what you've said.

Makes me interested to see the fill and see how *I* would react.

I'd watch this

90% of the people who won't see this will be because they just want to deliberately hate on Uwe Boll. Regardless on any good talkback.

Honestly? Some of these guys can be so intolerant.

BLASPHEMY!

Via twitter from some people who's opinions I trust:

some people liked it, but I pretty much hated it. Super shaky, out of focus 90% of the time and completely unlikeable lead.

from another:
It's official, uwe boll still sucks at making movies

And another:
Just saw a real piece of shit. It was only slightly better than Uwe Boll's Rampage.

I think I'll hold off on it.

Your third posted comment makes no sense. How is Rampage "slightly better than Uwe Boll's Rampage."?

And I remember the guy who brought up the "shaky" issue in the audience during the Q & A. He was so old balls he had to leave the theater cause it was "too much for him" hahaha.

looks mind numbing. I like my movies with a thing called a "plot".

Then you're gonna LOVE the ending. Its completely unlike the typical Hollywood wrap-up "everybody gets justice" bullshit endings we always, always get from the studios.

thats funny because a couple of people I know down at fantastic fest say its terrible.

One could argue that this is in bad taste but not me; I want to see some good old ultra violence.

I am from the future, from the year 2013 to be exact, there was no apocalypse...other than that the hover boards are amazing and Uwe Boll won the Noble Peace Prize for shooting himself in the head...it was amazing..

I don't know if I should take this as a sign of the apocalypse or as a sign of better days to come.

what a horrible movie idea. Absolute filth and trash. Disgusting.

^ hahahaha. Weak sauce.

Improved is a word on its own -- and it doesn't mean 'to improv'
It thoroughly confused me.

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.

Sounds like Uwe Boll doing a riff on Gus Van Sant's "Elephant". Wow, there's a sentence I never thought I'd write.

It's nothing like Elephant, except that there are automatic machine guns and people get shot. That is where the similarities end.

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.

Did hell froze over?

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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!