Looking at the theme of 'to a catch a serial killer based on his killing profile' we've seen more than enough, specially films made in the 1990's or 1980's. It seemed that this new fashion of villains and the way they act sort of become the latest style. Hollywood became like a psycho killer in terms of following a pattern, in this case clichés, and the movies weren't interesting anymore. Legal technicalities delayed the movie's release for five years, so by the time it reached theaters in 1992 it wasn't something interesting to see, it was very dated. So, what "Rampage" could possibly add in terms of news, things unseen so that you can watch it now?
The great deal about this film is not the murders, how they happen or even why (after all, there isn't a reason why despite the so-called claims this murderer makes of 'drinking their victims blood trying to clean his own, poisoned by the devil). "Rampage" takes a less traveled route by showing us a dedicated and highly ethical lawyer (played by Michael Biehn) facing his moral issues when trying to convict the psychotic to the most horrific of the penalties (death), something he never did in all of his years practicing. And even more gripping than that is the whole argument about sanity versus insanity and how these definitions really work, a confusing thin line to make lawyers and prosecutors have advantage of condemning or not their defendants. These are rarely shown in other pictures.
This is one of the most overlooked works directed by William Friedkin, who even with a frightening subject to deal never made of this film something excruciatingly violent or shockingly appealing, which was a trend back in the 80's. Most of the scenes are suggestions of what happen, the rest is up to each one imagine how the murders happened. Even so, the movie haunts us with that, it gives a depressive sensation towards the crime scenes because somehow you can relate with reality for some moments, you believe guys like Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) really exist, it's not Norman Bates or Jason Voorhees slashing their victims. Reece is completely believable, despite a strange lack of idealism or a confusing one. Example: the police finds in his house lots of Nazist articles, flags, etc, given that scenario we believe he's racist, a guy with lots of prejudices and hate but when you look at his victims they're all white Americans, and most of them are his own neighbors.
The story has its twists and turns, its 'I've seen that coming' moments but it's presentation is good, very intelligent and intriguing. Drama works very well except for one or two things that get in the way (the scenes between the lawyer and his wife sometimes doesn't work), the thrilling parts are incredible (Reece's escape from the police van is great, despite some unbelievable things he and the police officers make); and the whole investigation of the murders and who is the guy doing it are the best thing in the movie, when the movie reaches highest picks of cleverness with great insights. But don't expect for the same excitement of Friedkin previous unforgettable work "To Live and Die in L.A.". Biehn was a unusual but good choice for the hero role but he was way over-the-top in the courtroom scenes. McArthur was quite effective as the psychotic who smiles and says sorry to his victims before killing them.
A little bit rare to find, (streaming movie sites with video in low quality but very watchable), "Rampage" is a very good film given that the theme was already explored hundreds of times and still knows how to make a difference in its viewers. Looking at the general picture this is really one of Friedkin's greatest achievements. 9/10
The great deal about this film is not the murders, how they happen or even why (after all, there isn't a reason why despite the so-called claims this murderer makes of 'drinking their victims blood trying to clean his own, poisoned by the devil). "Rampage" takes a less traveled route by showing us a dedicated and highly ethical lawyer (played by Michael Biehn) facing his moral issues when trying to convict the psychotic to the most horrific of the penalties (death), something he never did in all of his years practicing. And even more gripping than that is the whole argument about sanity versus insanity and how these definitions really work, a confusing thin line to make lawyers and prosecutors have advantage of condemning or not their defendants. These are rarely shown in other pictures.
This is one of the most overlooked works directed by William Friedkin, who even with a frightening subject to deal never made of this film something excruciatingly violent or shockingly appealing, which was a trend back in the 80's. Most of the scenes are suggestions of what happen, the rest is up to each one imagine how the murders happened. Even so, the movie haunts us with that, it gives a depressive sensation towards the crime scenes because somehow you can relate with reality for some moments, you believe guys like Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) really exist, it's not Norman Bates or Jason Voorhees slashing their victims. Reece is completely believable, despite a strange lack of idealism or a confusing one. Example: the police finds in his house lots of Nazist articles, flags, etc, given that scenario we believe he's racist, a guy with lots of prejudices and hate but when you look at his victims they're all white Americans, and most of them are his own neighbors.
The story has its twists and turns, its 'I've seen that coming' moments but it's presentation is good, very intelligent and intriguing. Drama works very well except for one or two things that get in the way (the scenes between the lawyer and his wife sometimes doesn't work), the thrilling parts are incredible (Reece's escape from the police van is great, despite some unbelievable things he and the police officers make); and the whole investigation of the murders and who is the guy doing it are the best thing in the movie, when the movie reaches highest picks of cleverness with great insights. But don't expect for the same excitement of Friedkin previous unforgettable work "To Live and Die in L.A.". Biehn was a unusual but good choice for the hero role but he was way over-the-top in the courtroom scenes. McArthur was quite effective as the psychotic who smiles and says sorry to his victims before killing them.
A little bit rare to find, (streaming movie sites with video in low quality but very watchable), "Rampage" is a very good film given that the theme was already explored hundreds of times and still knows how to make a difference in its viewers. Looking at the general picture this is really one of Friedkin's greatest achievements. 9/10