Rampage 2 - La vengeance d'un sniper

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.

Who is Uwe Boll really? Is he like Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez (stuck in adolescence, has a mindless gore-fest fetish, indulges in shock value) without the talent, vision or innovation? Is he smarter than we give him credit for, using just a few dollars to crank out movies that can actually be seen in theaters? Has he simply risen to the level of his own incompetence? The fact that he cannot be ignored, that he refuses to crumble under the weight of his own perversion and badness (in fact, thrives on it) and keeps getting produced over and over and over and over again (and we keep watching) makes me believe I am missing something. Something that maybe, just maybe, just might be good (that is, of cultural value). He is in a way the trashy pulp fiction of movie directors (and holds a doctorate in literature) who surprisingly churns out a pretty good piece of celluloid every now and then. There is so much crap though (such as the BloodRayne series), and yet...we need him. He's like a crime scene clean up guy. Nobody wants that job, but somebody has to do it. Not many want to dedicate their life to making movies about how depraved, sadistic and evil humanity can be, but we still need them. We need them to help us not to forget (Auschwitz for example--if you though Schindler's List was horrifying, think again). Also, unlike the vast majority of Hollywood directors and producers, Boll, love him or hate him, is authentic. He does not cower behind the pen, but confronts his critics head on (even inviting them to box him). And he is absolutely passionate about making movies. I doubt a scene goes where he isn't actually creaming his tightie whities. But the maddening thing is, Boll refuses to learn, refuses to integrate feedback, and this is why his films never get better (sometimes Narcissism is too much of a good thing), and perhaps could be the reason he so often calls people "retards" (where did he get that doctorate again?). He refuses to back down, to conform...to be Michael Bay. And I hate Hollywood just enough to like Boll for that reason alone. In his newest movie, Rampage, Boll shows great courage in exposing atrocity as well as the sickness of corporate greed, manipulation and control. The movie isn't in and of itself that awesome (I liked 2009's Rampage much better) it's still vaguely intriguing and watchable, especially if you are a fan of extreme violence. Like I said, we "need" Boll.

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.

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 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