Neurosis asesina

I saw this William Friedkin 's film back in 1987, when it was released in Paris, and was not that excited. Maybe I left the theater before the ending, I don't remember. Today, thirty eight years later, I tried again, just to check...And I still encountered the greatest difficulties to make it till the end. I don't like this film, I won't say it is a bad film, but certainly not the best from FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST director. I am even sure most audiences forgot it too; only the William Friedkin's hard fans may remind or like - love - it. It may be interesting for many audiences, of course, but for me it is such a bore.

Liberal district attorney decides to seek the death penalty for a man (Alex McArthur) who slaughtered a family at Christmastime, then drank their blood. He escapes, though, and starts killing again.

From director William Friedkin, with a score by Ennio Morricone, you might wonder why this film is not better known. As of 2015, the film has been released on DVD only in Poland, by SPI International. Luckily, it somehow found its way to Netflix.

The budget seems a little lower, but it is a nice little story of murder, insanity, and courtroom drama. Knowing that it is largely based on real life makes it even better. And there is that central dilemma: will someone who opposes the death penalty change their mind when faced with pure evil?

Rampage is based on the 1978 killings of Robert Chase, Sacremento's "Vampire Killer," aptly named because he drank the blood of his victims, claiming that he believed his blood was poisoned, so he had to kill people for their blood. In four days, Chase killed six people.

Like Charlie Reece, the film version of Chase, Chase had previously been committed to a mental institution, but neither his mother nor the institution seemed to take seriously his condition and peculiar, if not deranged, habits. And indeed, he was much more obvious about those peculiarities than the film lets on.

Both the movie and the case which it is based on bring up an important question about the death penalty. Michael Bein is prosecutor Anthony Fraser, who is prosecuting for the death penalty. Fraser, however, had previously been staunchly opposed to the death penalty, remarking how had he been in the legislature, he would vote against it. But, these are one of the situations where people are forced to ask: are you opposed to the death penalty in ALL situations? Even Fraser was forced to reconsider his position, after the investigation reveals numerous brutal murders. As a result, he tries a tough case.

Tough in part because of the issue of Reece's mental capacity at the time of the murders. The defense argues not guilty by reason of insanity, expecting the plea will keep him from getting a prison sentence (and the death penalty), and instead, get him in a mental institution. Fraser can't believe that someone would want to argue that for someone as vicious as Reece, but one psychiatrist, in testifying for the defense says, nothing can be solved if he is dead. It does nothing for those who died, and it does nothing for him. The psychiatrist reasons that Reece should be put in a hospital and studied, that investigators would be able to formulate a profile to prevent future murders.

Fraser retorts, asking, so people must die for that? The ultimate question becomes, in Charlie Reece's case, would it be worth it to declare him insane? Especially considering the lack of attention he could possibly be given anyways as he sat drugged up in a mental institution as just another patient. The system itself is one of the arguments against the insanity plea in a case like this.

In a case like this, so brutal, and with Charlie Reece (and the real Robert Chase) so wacked, is reform possible? And is it necessary? Those are the issues this film wrestles with, and not easily so. It does somewhat capture the eerieness evoked by such a brutal serial killer, particularly with intermitten scenes of flashbacks and symbolic scenery. You get sucked into this strange character of Reece and you keep wondering if this guy is really crazy or was it all just a game? The movie makes it seem like Reece is initially faking it, but then you can't be too sure. And that's essential to the viewer looking for justification for their conclusions as to whether Reece should be executed or not. Definitely a worthy courtroom drama to try.

After five people have been viciously murdered in suburban California, the police arrest Charles Edmund Reece for the crimes for which he slaughtered two families and drank their blood for cleansing. Liberal district attorney Anthony Fraser is put onto the case, where he has to convince the jury that the killer wasn't insane during those acts, so he can be found guilty of the charges to receive the actual death penalty. However the religious Anthony doesn't believe in that justice, but after seeing the aftermaths, and the victims of the ordeal, he goes out to nail him.

Talk about an admirably confronting and dreary cold-blooded thriller with no easy way out, but one that raises many ethical questions on the insanity plea to escape the death penalty. William Friedkin's "Rampage" has a routine set-up to its premise (taken of William P. Wood's novel), but there's enough emotional engagement and fascination that demands your interest. Friedkin who also wrote the sedate screenplay tries to delve a little deeper into the circumstances with some background and motivation. The way they look into the mind of the killer and try to explain his way of thinking is unnerving and unpredictable. While the stirring script wants to be thought provoking, it still could have used a touch up as some unconvincing details enter. This one plays out more like a bitter courtroom drama with the damaging effects of the incidents engulfing those who happen to be involved one-way or another, as the psycho-thriller part of the story coming off as seconds. However these moments are highly potent with unsparingly disturbing, intense and callous images and feelings finding their way in. What makes these scenes effective and stay in your mind is that they aren't cheap jolts. Ennio Morricone's simmering low-key score lends to the chilling and glum nature that blankets the air, and the sweeping doco-style camera-work gives it a bit of leering authenticity. However like some others have mentioned, it does feel like a TV-movie. Alex McArthur's casual performance is disquieting and really creepy, especially how he goes about killing his victims and seeking forgiveness for his actions. Michael Biehn is in exceptionally fine form as the public attorney. Friedkin's dependably gallant and dark direction covers most bases and steers to a psychological graduation of perfect timing. One solid aspect is that Friedkin truly makes you feel as if you're apart of the jury, as if your mind-set has an important say in deciding the fate of this man.

Provocative, but not entirely perfect.

Simply put this is a great movie. And one that was years ahead it's time dealing with the now so popular "serial killer" theme. But most interesting about the movie is the way it makes you think about the moral aspects of the death penalty. Friedkin simply shows and lets the viewer make up his /her own mind about it. That's why it succeeds: it doesn't want to teach you a moral lesson or oversimplify like most Hollywood fare does. And on top of that it has a wonderful Ennio Morricone score.