Rampage 2 - La vengeance d'un sniper

This is my first review of a movie in a long time, so long in fact that my previous user name was forgotten. More recently I've noticed a trend on IMDb that reflects the dawning of a different pedigree of reviewer than previous generations. I felt that I should "take it back" as I have had more and more misgivings about the ratings from this site. Maybe I'm just getting older or maybe the internet generation has wildly different norms than mine. I feel like it is my duty to balance the scale!

I'm neither a fan, if they exist or a hater of Uwe Boll but I believe the rating on this film is higher than it should be. Anyone familiar with Uwe Boll knows that he could care less what people say about his films, which in of itself is both good and bad, at least as a director. Most of his films are NOT very good at all but neither are they as bad as people who hate Boll say.

That said the movie is basically a commentary on particular views of the state of the US, corruption, power, overpopulation, exploitation, and a few other things. Some of it is fairly idiotic though. You could literally summarize most of the key points in a paragraph and not watch the movie unless you were interested in seeing the violence instead, to which you could easily find better. I agreed with most of the points made but the violence the main character seemed to indifferently inflict took away so heavily from the message that rooting for such a deranged character became pointless. This is not saying that I have never imagined myself in a similar scenario, but it makes for a shitty movie when the protagonist shoots anyone he likes just because it makes him feel good. Pretty much a bad guy despite the attempt by Boll to turn him into a anti-hero instead. To give you an idea, this character shares some of the same beliefs as the Joker from The Dark Knight but is not nearly as entertaining, even though acting for the most part was pretty good. The main character is simply one-dimensional, the violence that was meant to be shocking is really not. The only thing left that makes the movie stand is the message. And as I've said it could be summarized into a short paragraph. I have a notion the type of people who would like this film will be angst ridden teenage boys/young men who harbor anti-establishment views and want to ride a chariot of fire. I should know, I was one, but I find the presentation of this adolescent and somewhat psychotic. There is little wisdom here and more nihilism than anything else.

I know Uwe Boll gets a lot of hate for his movies and to be honest I quite enjoy his movies, House of the Dead was fun zombie mayhem and Assault on Wall Street was a fairly tense thriller.

I liked the first Rampage and was fairly curious when a sequel was announced, the trailers looked decent and the reviews I heard were actually not bad

So how does "Rampage: Capital Punishment" hold up? Well I must admit I thought it was a decent film, Brendan Fletcher is great once again and the film manages to convey effect tension and fear again. Though this is not a film for everyone, there is a pretty big political message running through out the film and it seems that our lead character believes that killing people is the ultimate solution to all our problems.

Though looking through all that I found the film to be well acted (apart from Uwe Boll's hilarious cameo), well shot and effectively paced

Rampage: Capital Punishment is a fair thriller, worth a rent

Mr. Boll's first Rampage was a pointless rage against humanity. He spent our precious minutes throwing some swill our way about how humanity was expanding past the point of sustainability, and that the only solution was to kill some people off. And that was the whole of it. Kill people. No justifications and no reason for them. Just kill lots of people.

While I disagreed with the premise, the plot had a simple purity and made for a pretty viciously entertaining movie.

When I heard about a sequel, my first thought was, "Oh please don't ruin it by trying to develop this madman." Unfortunately, Mr. Boll has done just that by opening his big mouth.

Mr. Boll apparently has the social and political comprehension of a child, and he displays his ignorance proudly in this movie, which can best be described as a simple tantrum.

I think he might believe that this second movie expounds upon the "fine points" of the first film, but in reality all it does is drown them in paranoia rhetoric that contradicts itself even as it spews from the mouth of the main actor. Mr. Boll attempts to bury us in just about every politically motivated, paranoid conspiratorial bit of garbage he can dig up from any sort of anarchistic whacko out there.

Far from being convincing, it made me roll my eyes. Oh good grief. I've heard all this ridiculous ranting before, and from the mouths of better men. His ranting contributes very little to the plot of the film, and instead confuses the hell out of the viewer. I pity anyone who listens to this garbage and accepts it on it's face value.

WHAT POINT EXACTLY is Mr. Boll trying to make with this.. art? That democracy is dead and we'll all be better off if we behave like the anti-hero? Shooting people just for fun? Mr. Boll wants us to kill the rich? Sure. As long as Mr. Boll knows that he falls into that proper category. President Bush is evil? Heard this before a million times while he was in office. I'm hearing it more and more now that he's out of office, with the current administration trying to blame the previous president for everything it can't sort out for itself. The U.S. has NO GUN CONTROL?? Mr. Boll, are you completely oblivious?

The protagonist is asked a few times by other actors what solutions he suggests. His answer is repeatedly something along the lines of (I'll paraphrase), "Hey! Don't look at me! I just shoot people." Rather than being interesting, it comes off as merely offensive.

What it comes down to is that Mr. Boll tried to make a "point" with this film, which was a huge mistake. It's convoluted and redundant. The main character's motives, which were so clear and sinister in the first film, have suddenly become a pointless splatter of insipid demagoguery. He should have just stuck with killing people for fun.

It would have made more sense.

I'm still rating the movie a "6" because it was well made, and I'm not so petty that I give poor scores to well made films just because I hate the politics of the writer.

I do not agree with murder in any way, shape or form, and this is the irony of the movie. But you have to admit most of what he is saying is true, and that government and corporations are at the center of evil and corruption in many ways in society and have been for a very long time, for thousands of years. However, for example, Assange and Snowden would never say to go murder people just to get the attention of others or to expose evil. Neither of them did that. The other side of the coin is many people are losing their lives all over the world because of much of what our own government agencies and United Nations has done, and that has actually been proved. These are not just conspiracy theories either. One example he brought out was the 50 children who died by drone for one terrorist who was not even proved a real terrorist. There is something to say about that also from the Obama drone killings. I also know our government is connected to the phony war on terror, which has been connected to the Mossads being the false Al-Qaeda. War is bred from all sides for one order of evil, and this has been seen in history with Rome, Babylon and pretty much everywhere. This movie of course should never be seen as a justification to murder people, as this is clearly wrong, but one reason why things are going sour in a lot of places is what he is talking about, and that is very real. I give it 7 out of 10 for that. Uwe Boll just has some real guts making movies like this considering shootings that have sadly happened, but I can tell you mind control is not far off from that either in connection. We know how to clone, make robots, send out satellites, etc. etc., so how hard is it to think we cannot control a person or groups with any method, especially seeing in the past projects like MK ULtra and the current Project Monarch? Think about that. Dark movie, but good points are made.

The first Rampage was a shocker for most people because of its crude violence, as we rarely see these days and was a wind of fresh air for those of us who are tired of a movie industry that is too afraid of doing anything remotely controversial.

Rampage 2 succeeds because it doesn't take the easy route, which will be just to replicate all we already saw in the first movie. Here,we have less killings, but in exchange of that, we are taken into a ride where the main character explain why he thinks that this society is rotten to the core and must be cleansed. Bill essentially deems every political party and corporation as responsible for the injustice in the world. Topics as censorship, corruption, religion and invasion of privacy are constantly brought up by the main character as prime examples of how decadent the society is in his eyes.

Regarding the action scenes, they are more or less on the same level that we saw on the original, nobody should expect anything new or ground breaking on this department, but hey, why fix what's not broken is just more of the same but the death toll in this movie is not even close to the one on the first one, mainly because in this movie take place inside a T.V station and is a hostages situation, not a killing spree out in the open.

If you are interested on the character's motivations for his extreme actions, peppered with some good shooting segments, I think you will enjoy this movie, but if you expect a carnage just as big or bigger than the one on Rampage 1, you better start looking for another movie to quench your thirst of blood.