Rampage 2 - La vengeance d'un sniper

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.

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.

First, I have to admit that this movie kind of excited me when I first heard of it. I thoroughly enjoyed the first film, and if you like "Assault on Wall Street" you'll enjoy this one even more. I liken it to "Fight Club", but just a lesser budget version. There's narration and clips which I feel add to the movie.

Sometimes the film contradicts itself. The star of the film uses an iPhone and guns which he says are part of the problem, (among other things). That said, the message he's conveying isn't all that insane, and it really mimics a lot of the social attitude in the United States today. The message cannot be missed in this movie.

It also has it's usual action and carnage which is exciting. I firmly believe Uwe Boll has learned from past mistakes. It's pretty refreshing to see a director who isn't cranking out the next crappy "Transformers" movie, and isn't afraid to mix things up a bit. This film shows that he's found his footing and is making decent movies. I sincerely hoping Uwe Boll makes a third film. It for sure merits one.

An Uwe Boll movie with a rating over 6 stars (currently anyways)? You must be asking yourself if the planets have aligned just right to give this guy some competence? Is the Armageddon approaching? Don't fear though, even the biggest idiots say something smart at least once in their lifetime right?

I watch Uwe Boll films to have a good laugh, don't we all? This one was a little different (although I did let out a few hardy chortles at Uwe's acting in this film).

Now, this is no masterpiece of film-making, but i'd say it's still worth a watch. I can't believe i'm saying this about a Boll film... I must be losing my mind.

The film has a pretty clear, in your face, kind of message (maybe a little preachy). I think the message can be taken all kinds of ways, and it might alienate some of the audience. However, if you just take it for what it is, and go along for the ride it is pretty fun.

Every single movie has flaws, even critically acclaimed masterpieces. In bad movies it's easy to spot the flaws because you aren't invested in the story. Good movies, with engrossing stories distract you (at least the first time watching) from all the mistakes, minor plot holes, camera-work, and things of that nature.

This movie had me fully invested in the story. I think Brendan Fletcher's performance is what kept me invested. I mean damn, he is a extremely talented actor. It really is thanks to him that this movie was so fun to watch. You can tell he really gave a s*** about his role and put a lot into it. I believed his character every single step of the way. I'd recommend watching it just to see him act.

Now this movie is violent (I mean it's called Rampage for Christ's sake) but it isn't full of gore and it give you a break from the violence every once in awhile.

Again, it's got a pretty clear message and I don't think its really saying anything different or new, but Fletcher's performance does make the message pretty powerful (to me anyways).

Look, Uwe Boll blows dogs for quarters, but he took a break from doing that and actually made something decent. Check it out, even if it's just to watch a very talented actor put a lot of hard work into a performance.

I always appreciate it when you can tell someone really had a lot of passion for their role. That someone actually cared about a vision they were trying to bring to the public. Brendan Fletcher does just that.

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.