User reviews

I've been looking forward tremendously to "Rage" and pretty much knew for certain that I would like it, even though the film is rather obscure, unsung and quite difficult to come across. It certainly isn't a hidden gem or undiscovered classic, but I have a personal weakness for "rural" and politically themed drama/thrillers from the early seventies period; especially when a few interesting names are involved. In this case, it's one of the rare movies that George C. Scott directed himself, next to also starring in the lead role. Scott stars as Dan Logan, a widower and sheep herder living on an enormous ranch in the secluded countryside of Wyoming together with his teenage son Chris. During a crystal clear summer night, father and son decide to camp on their estate, but the next morning Dan finds his son in a critical unconscious condition. At the local hospital, Major Holliford already knows that they were both accidentally contaminated by a new type of military chemical/nerve gas due to a leak in the tank of a plane. The whole situation is covered up and handled with deep secrecy; so much even that Dan Logan isn't informed about his own son's death. Although suffering from the symptoms himself, Dan escapes from the hospital and sets out on a violent journey to unravel the ugly truth. The subject matter of "Rage" is truly compelling and also quite unsettling, since the events don't seem too far-fetched or unimaginable at all, but it doesn't result in the most spectacular action movie. The entire first hour is mainly talkative and slow, with protagonist George C. Scott lying sedated in a hospital bed and military doctor Martin Sheen professionally misleading Logan's regular physician and the rest of the medical staff. The final half hour is more lively and exciting, but it nevertheless remains somewhat unsatisfying. Dan Logan goes out on a furious John Rambo type of quest for vengeance, complete with stealing dirt bikes and setting off explosives, but eventually never achieves his mission. He kills a bunch of people, but they are all innocent marionettes (like policemen, security guards and even a playful ginger kitten!) while the real military harm-doers remain untouchable. As the director, Scott most certainly demonstrates that he's able to insert stylish little details and visionary touches, particularly through unexpectedly odd camera angles and enchanting slow-motion shots. "Rage" certainly isn't fundamental viewing, but still comes warmly recommended in case you enjoy conspiracy thrillers and/or the works of George C. Scott.

George C. Scott has only one competitor as a player who can do a better Rage than him and that is Kirk Douglas. It's kind of fitting that one of them have on his list of credits a film entitled Rage.

I remember seeing this in the theater back in 1972 and it was one of those first films that showed the American government as something less than wise and benevolent. All the more so because Scott is one of those middle American characters who is a true believer in the Stars&Stripes and all it stand for.

Scott is a widower who owns a small sheep ranch and he and his son Nicholas Beauvy who is better known as one of the young men mentored by John Wayne in The Cowboys. As they decide to camp out with the sheep an army helicopter is flying in their vicinity. The next day Beauvy is very sick and Scott takes his son to a nearby hospital.

Where all kind of people from the military as represented by Dr. Martin Sheen and the Public Health Service as represented by Barnard Hughes are very interested in his case. Scott is admitted too and the smell of cover-up proves too much for Scott's personal physician Richard Basehart.

I can't go beyond this other than Scott's given an unbelievable amount of justification for declaring a personal war on the army and the government it fights for.

Scott hits several levels with his performance. His Rage and anger to be sure, but it's all mixed in with both sorrow and betrayal. Director Scott did well by actor Scott.

In many ways Rage is a film for today's audience and I recommend it highly.

George C. Scott plays a rancher who, along with his son, is exposed to a chemical weapon due to a mistake the Army made. However, instead of being up front about it, the military places doctors on the case (Barnard Hughes and Martin Sheen) who lie continually to the man...not letting him know that his son had died and that his prognosis is grim. When he does discover they've been lying to him, he decides to go out in a blaze of glory...with a series of violent attacks in order to try to get the faceless military to pay for their crimes.

While the plot is good, the execution isn't. It's simply a guy going Rambo and killing a few people in a somewhat pointless rampage. The overall feeling is grim and awful and it's a movie no one can enjoy. Now I am NOT saying a film about chemical weapons need to be fun....but it should have more depth than this. Violent and depressing.

While camping out, a Wyoming sheep rancher and his son are accidentally sprayed with a secret poison. The boy dies while the military covers up its mistake, enlisting civilian personnel in the cover-up. But will the father find out, and if so, what will he do.

It's important to keep in mind that the screenplay is based on a true 1968 occurrence. The Pentagon covered up poisonous contamination of several thousand sheep in Utah, and only admitted it after overwhelming evidence. I assume they were wary of being seen experimenting with poisonous chemical at a time when the Vietnam War was going badly. The movie itself is very methodical. The first part dealing with the cover-up shows how deception is spread among medical and military professionals. Surprisingly, however, no higher justifications such as national security are cited. It's more like an embarrassment than a security breach.

Anyway, Scott really low-keys it throughout, being good-citizen cooperative even as he's fed one lie after another about his son. Even after he finds out the truth, his rage is more intense than histrionic. I guess I was expecting him to explode in the scary way that only he can. Apparently, the actor wasn't happy with his performance (TCM), blaming it on his divided roles as both director and lead performer.

All in all, the movie's like a slow fuse being lit until it finally goes off. Just how sane Logan (Scott) is during those climactic moments is, of course, anybody's guess. Considering what's happened to him, his actions are understandable, if not excusable (innocents die). At the same time, the lessons are, if anything, more relevant now than then, especially with the rise of our national security state and its mass surveillance program.

(In passing—this is one of the few films I've seen to actually portray death throes as the person expires. Kudoes to Scott for including such a disturbing detail that traditional Hollywood avoided like the plague. More of that and audiences might take a different view of movie violence.)

George C Scott stars and makes his directorial debut in this tense but ultimately pointless drama about a peaceful rancher who goes on a rampage of revenge after a botched military nerve-gas experiment conducted over his land leads to the death of his young son. You can feel Scott's character's frustration as he's lied to and stone-walled from every angle by the military bureaucrats who want to cover up the incident. Scott knows how to keep things moving and shows some stylish touches in the director's chair, but he can't keep the ending from being disappointing and unsatisfying. Still, all said, it's a fairly absorbing ride while it lasts. It's a movie that will likely stay with you long after the end credits roll.

As you might be able to tell from the plot synopsis, Rage is a pretty upsetting movie to watch. Since you probably know my taste in films (if you've been reading the Rag for a while), you might wonder why I watched it in the first place. Made in 1972, it has remarkable relevancy in today's world, so I thought it might have an emotional impact. It certainly did! In fact, given a re-release, I'm sure it would be very popular at the box office.

In case you haven't read the synopsis, George C. Scott stars as a father who's teaching his young son the ropes about farming. They spend one night outdoors on their property, and in the morning, George finds his son bleeding and deathly ill. He rushes him to the hospital, but Dr. Martin Sheen soothes that there's nothing seriously wrong with the boy. Then why does Martin want to keep them both quarantined and take further tests? It turns out, there was a government experiment that went wrong, and a terrible chemical spill infected the air. With massive cover-ups in play, will George ever find out the truth?

This was a bit of a pet project for George, as he also directed the film. Perhaps he felt drawn to the 1970s "question authority" mantra, or perhaps he just liked the opportunity to fly off in a rage and get revenge on "the man". It is absolutely George's show, as he has to go through all the stages of worry, belief, grief, distrust, and vengeance. Although, I particularly liked Richard Basehart's performance in this film. He plays George's regular family doctor, and he comes across as extremely trustworthy. So, when he sits George down and lies to him about what's happening to his son, it's very eerie. If Mr. Honesty can be drawn into the cover-up, no one is safe!

Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to gruesome images and upsetting scenes involving a child, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.

Scrappy, ultimately pointless scare-tactics drama with George C. Scott playing a rancher who, along with his son, is accidentally sprayed with toxic chemicals by the military while on a camp-out. Scott made his directorial debut here and does a fine job handling the actors, as well as himself. Unfortunately, Scott's continuity as a filmmaker is spotty; worse, his vision of this material is singularly unimaginative, with routine action and set-ups which don't involve the viewer. The anti-military undermining isn't so much provocative as it is half-baked, and the narrative of the film strays. Martin Sheen, Richard Basehart and Barnard Hughes are all worth-watching here, and Scott as always is a magnetic screen performer, but this 'message film' is awfully tepid. ** from ****

***THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*** Maybe its me but there was something about this film that worked on my nerves like a tongue on a rotten tooth. It's based on a true incident in Utah in which an Army truck dropped a cannister filled with nerve gas and a butt-load of sheep bought the proverbial farm. But if the wind had happened to be blowing in the direction of Salt Lake City that day...

George C. Scott (wearing what looks distractingly like fake eyebrows) directed and stars in this fictionalized account of a farmer and his young son who are accidentally poisoned with nerve gas by the Army.

Perhaps its my own experiences at the hands of prison doctors that makes the many scenes of bloodless technocrats abstractly speaking about the opportunity to study nerve gas symptoms and blithely LYING with their every breath so quietly, eerily effective.

After being lied to in the worst possible way by all responsible, George C. Scott's doomed farmer wreaks some almost Rambo-like revenge! I had heard about this movie for years and always wondered just what sort of havoc Mr Scott would wreak went he went into his RAGE... It was quite something to see him shooting security guards in the face and generally going postal. One can certainly understand where he is coming from. A film like this would never be made today, especially with a major movie star both directing and starring. George C Scott knows how to handle actors--this is probably one of Richard Baseheart's best performances--full of great conflicted emotions and heavy themes to wrestle with--and what a voice that man had! I think that one of the strengths of the story is the semi-documentary feel to the events. There is no giant conspiracy, just an average army-style Cover-Your-Ass situation, with those responsible already well insulated by their positions of power. The revenge enacted by Scott's character is as understandable as it is ultimately ineffective, a message nicely telegraphed by the final image, which I won't divulge here. Suffice it to say, this is one of those strange cinematic oddities from the 70's that has become, unfortunately, once again relevant. After all... if the wind had happened to be blowing towards Salt Lake City that day...

Outstanding action. Ruthless vengeance on an uncaring military bureaucracy bent on covering the truth to protect themselves. This came out during the discovery of the Watergate cover-up.It was a timely tale of righteousness. Well acted,taut paced. One of the few times made for tv is not an excuse.

Wyoming sheep rancher Dan Logan (George C. Scott) and his son Chris are tending to their flock. An Army helicopter flies by. Next morning after sleeping outside, Chris is in dire medical distress and there are dead sheep. Dan brings him to the hospital. He struggles to find any answers. Dr. Holliford (Martin Sheen) asks all knowing questions and immediately puts Chris in isolation. He gives their family doctor Dr. Caldwell (Richard Basehart) a secret handshake. The Army had accidentally released some nerve gas. Dr. Spencer (Barnard Hughes) from Public Health Service helps with the cover-up.

The Army aspect should be held back to give this story more mystery. I'd rather not have the Army folks do an extended exposition. The audience should discover the truth along with Dan. The reveal should be a shock. Spencer should be the one giving the full exposition. As for his vengeance, it would be nice if all his victims actually deserve it. Dan has a bit of Rambo in him but an unhinged Rambo can be very disconcerting.

Almost everything in this film is predictable. The failure of the military to take responsibility, the complicity of local physicians and authorities, and a complete cover-up by the military brass; all of it rather predictable.

Despite these types of nerve gas weapons being outlawed by the Geneva Convention, they still, of course, still exist, within various nefarious military installations dedicated to this type of warfare. The military does not particularly care what the Geneva Convention has to say about these weapons; all is fair under the guise of National Defense.

What transpired in the film, of course, was a tragedy, but the result was inevitable. Scott does a good job acting, and an adequate job of directing. However, the screenplay is so absolutely depressing from beginning to end, that even a raging George C Scott cannot save it. It is this predictability that ruins any chance of the film having elements like suspense or tension. Interesting to watch for Scott's performance.

This was one of the films I remember from back in the day. One of those that I watched every time it came on TV. Not artsy, but despite the usual predictable elements (as is the case with most films), I found the plot both interesting and entertaining. Watching it, you could imagine the possibility of it really happening and reacting the same way Scott's character did. Unfortunately, its not out on DVD. If I recall correctly, it was not a great success in the theater, but considering all the junk that does make it to DVD, I don't know why this one isn't out. While films remembered from your youth can be disappointing, I will definitely be buying this one when it becomes available. This one, "Hardcore", "Day of the Dolphin" and "Patton" are my favorite George C. Scott features.

Rage explores a man's descent into despair and fury after the system fails him and his son, who tragically died. After hearing Quentin Tarantino's passionate take on this film in the Video Archives podcast, I was intrigued and knew I had to watch this one for myself.

First of all, George C. Scott gives a powerful performance. You can really feel his loss turning into rage, rage over the injustice done to him and his son, and making him an unstoppable force out for vengeance. This also marked Scott's directorial debut. While his acting was great, his directing choices felt a bit uneven, particularly at the beginning, where his overuse of zoom-in/zoom-out transitions felt old real fast.

While I enjoyed this movie, I felt somewhat underwhelmed by the conclusion. I wanted to witness more of the unbridled fury that the film had been building up to.

Ultimately, Rage serves as an ageless depiction of the system screwing someone, but it falls a bit short on delivering what its title promises.

George C. Scott both stars in and directs this melodrama, as he plays a rancher who, while out camping with his son, discovers that they were accidentally sprayed with an experimental gas, that has killed his son and livestock, and sends him to the hospital, where he learns that the military was behind it, and after being frustrated by their stonewalling, decides to take matters in his own hands, even though he has not escaped the effects of the poisoning...

Though Scott gives a first-rate performance, and is ably supported by costars Richard Basehart, Martin Sheen & Barnard Hughes, this film ultimately fails because the father goes so far off the deep end with his revenge, killing the innocent, that he loses any sympathy, and the film ends inconclusively, and unsatisfactorily. A failure at the time, though can be seen on DVD from Warner Archive, for curiosity's sake.

George C. Scott's "Rage" (1972), his first as both director and star (his directorial debut was the critically acclaimed, multi-award winning 1970 television film "The Anderson Trial") is an uneven, if well intentioned polemic. The film begins as an idyll for a Wyoming rancher (Scott, giving a superb performance), his son (Nicolas Beauvy), and the family dog, as they tend their sheep, drive around their ranch, and camp out in the picturesque countryside. Their dream quickly becomes a nightmare, as each are accidentally exposed to a deadly nerve agent being tested at a nearby military base, his son dying from the exposure. The government immediately begins covering up the incident, using threats and coercion when necessary. Scott's passionate effort at political commentary and indictment of governmental corruption works less-well when depicting the bureaucratic machinery working against the truth, than in his quieter, more intimate scenes. His gift as a director is obviously an ability to work well with actors, emphasizing humanity in roles where often there is little. Beauvy, Richard Basehart (particularly poignant), Martin Sheen, Barnard Hughes, and Kenneth Tobey, all portray characters usually represented as stereotypes in a genre film. The subtlety of their performances add dimension to their characters, but work against the overall effect of the film. Scott's "rage" is much less satisfying by the film's end because the performance are so effective. We understand the motivations of those covering up the tragic incident and the cathartic release the audience anticipates with Scott's revenge isn't there. Instead we are left with a mix of emotions the director may have intended, but the audience didn't expect...or want.