Le sang du châtiment

Warning: this movie is pretty grisly in spots, at least in the first half where the creepy character played by Alex McArhur goes on a couple of killing sprees. This film features a bit of an oddity: filmmakers actually opposing the "insanity plea," showing how it can be misused.

In this story, several psychiatrists are made to look corrupt and just plain stupid in parts. I also noticed a jab at Catholism in here as killings are shown in flashback as a mass is shown with the words "body of Christ" said over and over by the priest.

Overall, not pleasant to view in spots, and not super overall, but it does hold your attention and certainly brings up some good points. The screenplay and direction is by William Friedkin who did a number of interesting and controversial films.

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.

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 not so much about a serial killer as it is about his trial and the aftermath of his deeds. This is mainly where it feels misdirected. For a director like William Friedkin, one might expect something of a more gritty production rather than a courtroom drama. But if you're looking for a courtroom drama, this IS a very good one.

Michael Biehn plays the DA, Nicholas Campbell is the defense, and Alex McArthur is the killer. Of those three actors, I found Nicholas Campbell to be the most compelling. Biehn is somewhat vacant - so is McArthur, but that's necessary. There's certainly passages in this film that succeed at deeply shocking the viewer. The detached killings, for one, and the discovery of the killer's basement room. In spite of these graphic passages, I feel that the film needed more gore to drive home the point that later dialogue tries so hard to get across.

Visually, this is a fairly realist film. Unlike Friedkin's previous effort, "To Live and Die in L.A.", there's no deep shadows or bizarre lighting techniques. Somewhat to it's detriment, perhaps, it's none too interesting to look at. There is much to experience in this film, though not a lot of rewatch value. There's a scene where a stopwatch is used to demonstrate the real-time of murder. It's tense. If only "Rampage" had more such scenes.

This film is one the great films that never were due to distribution troubles which lead to a five year gap between when the film was released in Europe and when it was released in American. Disastrous for the film but the majority of people who have seen Rampage, say it's a very good film. It is a real shame that this missed most film audiences as it is a very intense, moving and thought provoking drama.

For a film that is mainly based in the courtroom and prison, it is very fast paced. The police chase scenes involving the killer (Alex McArthur) are gripping and echo Friedkin's famous car chase scenes which made French Connection so famous. Rampage's strong point, however, lies firmly in the courtroom scenes. With these scenes, the atmosphere is so strong, that, as a witness, you can not help but be sucked in by it. Towards the end, there is a scene where the prosecutor, Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn), stands to the jury and stands in silence for two minutes to represent how long the killer took to murder one victim. This scenes is almost uncomfortable to watch and Biehn's facial expressions tell the whole story.

The acting by Biehn and McArthur is at a very high standard. If this film had earned the recognition it deserved, Biehn would definitely have been a bigger star as the world would have seen that he doesn't just play soldiers. His performance in Rampage is genuinely moving and Fraser's inner conflict surrounding the death penalty is laid bare by Biehn. As expected, he shines in the courtroom scenes where he is shouting and passionate but the subtle moments highlight his skills as an adaptable actor. McArthur as Reese is very chilling to watch. The disturbed nature of his performance is very unnerving and his psychotic episodes are shocking yet worthy of praise. The rest of the cast give performances that do not really stand out but this is fine as it allows concentration on the main characters.

The key man in this production was William Friedkin. His style is all over this film, giving it dark undertones to highlight the evil acts being committed and to increase an already intense atmosphere. His mastery of suspense really helps the dramatic moments and even adds a small dose of surrealist imagery to make the film even more provocative. His dealings with the characters is also worthy of praise as he focuses on Fraser and his wife's history and relationship to help the audience form their impressions on the character. Also with Reese, the exploration of his relationship with his mother and with past acquaintances helps the plot to deepen and add more to the courtroom scenes.

Two important legal issues are raised in this film; firstly, the case of legal insanity. Cases of this nature can go on for a very long time with people trying to prove/ disprove insanity and it is clearly important that these life or death situations are made with the right evidence in place. Rampage does really well handling this issue, especially in the jury scene as it highlights the ambiguity of the issue and the near impossible decision people have to make regarding it. The second issue, the death penalty, is not as well handled by the film. Whilst the characters make very good arguments for and/ or against it, it appears Friedkin was uncertain and sadly left the film with an ending of ambiguity rather than closure. This could simply be a case of Friedkin illustrating that the issue will never be resolved despite the frustrations of others.

A moving and highly entertaining film, Rampage deserved so much more and film audiences deserved to see it. With superb acting from the always brilliant Michael Biehn and with William Friedkin on top form, the film had all the ingredients to be a highly popular film. Atmospheric and disturbing, Rampage proved a powerful vessel for Friedkin to air his views but sadly, the vessel never took off. One of the best courtroom dramas I've seen and one that I'll watch many more times in the future.