User reviews

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.

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?

This is an interesting drama and it was also a truly scary film. Some parts are completely terrifying and the acting from Alex McArthur was bone-chilling. Good film from the director of The Exorcist and French Connection. Could have used some touching up in the script department. Good thriller/drama.

Rampage went pretty much overlooked when it was released which is too bad, cause it was a really frightening film. One of the most frightening of that decade. Friedkin's direction was straight ahead which made the movie roll along like it was a documentary which added to the realism that a movie with that subject matter needs. Performances by both leads are very good.

"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.

William Friedkin chose to adapt the novel by William P. Wood, and much like Cruising, Friedkin's last sole writing credit, there's a serious attempt to tackle something that just doesn't quite come together. I have admiration for Friedkin's attempts at serious efforts to make a topical film that actually has both feet in reality, except that it makes these rather wide-ranging assumptions about the audience's perception of the central issue that needed more explanation in the film itself while intentionally obfuscating key points, making the stakes of the central conflict unclear for a very long stretch.

Advertisements

REPORT THIS AD Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) kills a series of people, the better part of two families, over the course of several days, causing an uproar in the small city where he lives. This draws the attention of the new district attorney, a Republican who campaigned on using the death penalty, who assigns the incoming case to the assistant DA Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn), a liberal who was in the legislature and opposed the death penalty there. His orders are to pursue the death penalty as punishment, but first they need to catch Reece. After he kills the wife and elder son of Gene Tippetts (Roy Applegate), Reece gets cornered and captured after he flees, and the assumptions start.

The central core issue is around the death penalty and its application. There's no real debate within the film about its merits or demerits (some scattered individual lines of dialogue, and no more), making it feel like Friedkin was assuming opposition from his audience without feeling the need to build it in dramatically. I don't think it's the worst assumption to make (though, opinion is still divided on the matter), but I still find its application here curious. The bigger problem though is the framing of the death penalty regarding the actual stakes of the case.

You see, there is Supreme Court caselaw (Ford v. Wainwright) that makes it unconstitutional to execute an insane person, but this is never brought up in the film. There is no explanation until very late what the dual sides of the potential outcome are. On the one hand, we know that there will be the death penalty, but what happens if the defense successfully argues insanity? It's not explained until very late, so we're left with little regarding what would happen if this defense actually plays out and succeeds with the jury. They keep bandying around the "not guilty by reason of insanity" phrase a few times, and it implies to me, a non-legal mind more general audience, that the film is implying that Reece would simply go free...which is insane, but the film gives me nothing else to assume. Sure, I could stop the film and look up caselaw about what it means, but that's hard to do in a movie theater, now isn't it? Again, it does get cleared up (he'd be put in a mental institution for study for the rest of his life), but that lack of clarity colors so much of the preparation and execution of the trial. It's weird.

Friedkin was well-known for demanding realism in his films. The most famous behind the scenes story is probably his insistence on real counterfeiting happening on the set of To Live and Die in L. A., and I think that extends to the trial here. This feels like a real criminal trial. There are no surprise witnesses. Boxes of evidence pile up in front of the judge's bench. The audience isn't rowdy. The lawyers probably get too heated, but that's, I think, excusable. The focus of what we see in the trial ends up being dueling testimony from expert witnesses regarding Reece's sanity or lack thereof (again, the actual stakes of the ruling still hadn't been laid out by this point in the film...it gets laid out in closing arguments). Fraser also ends up probably going too far into the Nazi metaphor in an argument with one of the doctors, really hammering it home well-beyond subtlety, which I found odd.

The resolution of everything is interesting with the jury coming back with their verdict, Fraser having gone completely for the death penalty and getting it, and Reece's defense arguing for a final CAT scan to look into his brain to help with sentencing (why didn't they do the CAT scan before? It's one of those weird things in the script that honestly doesn't make the most sense). So, Friedkin (and assumedly Wood, though there are apparently two completely different endings filmed for the movie, so I don't know which one was Wood's, if either of them were) takes his central character from one extreme to the other (the journey is solid even if the details around it don't make the most sense), undercuts it, and then throws in even more good obfuscation about the rightness or wrongness of everything with a final little twist of fate.

Really, there's something to admire at the heart of this film. I'm finally seeing the connective tissue across Friedkin's filmography, and it's not about obsession, it's about evil changing the men who pursue it. With that in mind, the focus is fully on Fraser, and it mostly works. Biehn plays Fraser well, a man caught between his beliefs (as shallowly presented as they are), his job, and his sense of justice, all while he's hit with evidence to get him to question everything. The problem is that what surrounds him is so janky. There are other positive things throughout as well. Applegate is tragic as the father and husband who leaves town with his sole remaining child, and McArthur is kind of terrifying of Reece, all while there are depictions of institutional malfeasance that are almost as scary. However, the stakes are just so unclear for so long that I think it undermines a lot of what's going on.

I've read a short description of the alternate ending, though, and I think I would have loved that. Depressing, for sure, but exactly in line with what the story needs.

So, I admire Rampage to a certain extent, but I don't think Friedkin pulls all of the pieces together all that well. It needed a rewrite, perhaps from someone else, but I appreciate the sense of realism he brought to the courtroom.

Rampage, from director William Friedkin (The Exorcist), starts off in Silence of the Lambs psycho killer mode, as young lunatic Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) guns down a family and mutilates several of the corpses, the killer drinking his victims' blood. When Reece is apprehended and brought to trial, assistant district attorney Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn) is ordered by the DA to push for the death penalty, insisting that the killer is not insane.

After a scene where Reece escapes and commits more murders before being recaptured, the film settles down into routine courtroom drama and loses much of its power; it's effectiveness is undermined by the uncertain stance of its protagonist, and of Friedkin, who, in a change of heart, apparently re-edited the ending to save Reece from the gas chamber. This results in a frustratingly ambiguous finalé, where Reece is found guilty of murder by a jury (and therefore considered sane) but then saved from execution when a PET scan shows his brain to be abnormal (and therefore insane). Meanwhile, Fraser goes from gunning for the death penalty to wanting to save Reece's life.

What could have been a really powerful piece either for or against capital punishment ultimately becomes neither - just a muddled movie that doesn't know what it wants to say. As if to exemplify the film's indecisiveness, Reece isn't declared insane but neither does he go to the gas chamber: he is found dead of an overdose in his prison cell.

5.5/10, rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

Prosecutor Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn) seems to have a normal life with his wife Kate (Deborah Van Valkenburgh) in California but they actually suffered the lost of their daughter Molly. He gets a gruesome case of a massacred family. D.A. Spencer Whalen is pushing for the death penalty but it's against Anthony's views. Also the brutality of the killings could lead to an insanity plea. The crazed Charlie Reece (Alex McArthur) continues his killing spree and drinking blood. A boy is missing and he's assumed to be kidnapped. Naomi Reece (Grace Zabriskie) is Charlie's unstable mother. Albert Morse (Nicholas Campbell) is assigned as his public defender.

The production looks poor like a good TV movie. It's surprising that a great director like William Friedkin made this. It doesn't look quite as good as his earlier work. It moves much too slowly. There is a lot about the insanity plea. That seems to be what the movie is all about. It has some interesting takes on the issue but it's not particularly dramatic. The trial meanders at times. Also I doubt insanity plea is as easy as portrayed in a jury trial. I think the real guy this is loosely based on actually got sentenced to the death penalty. There are some misdeeds by the psychiatrists that is pushed too far. Essentially the defense psychiatrist is pushing another psychiatrist to fake documents. I can't really buy his stated motivation of an anti-death penalty crusade. He's actually shown to be a little crazy while testifying. He's just another part of the push by the movie against insanity pleas. Also Charlie was supposedly released by a lower function doctor six months before the first murder. In which case, wouldn't the prosecutor call that person to the stand. Where is his testimony? There are a lot of unlikely things going on in this movie. His escape is insanely stupid and it's not even filmed that well. After so many deaths, no jury would ever consider an insanity plea no matter what the law says. The talk in the jury room sounded fake and manufactured. Also since he's in custody, he would be closely monitored for the pills to be taken. Wouldn't he be tried for the killings during his escape after the verdict anyways? That takes away the drama for me even if he's declared not responsible. He's going to have another trial anyways.

Directed in his usual heavy-handed over the top style, Friedkin simply fails to garner any interest in the story and characters and reaches into the realms of pantomime.

In more sophisticated hands there could have been a decent film here. There's enough in the source material. You get the feeling that the novel was probably quite good.

Sometimes the camera sits back and does not get involved in what's being said at all, as though without interest. The camera framing is without flair. Like a low grade TV movie. In other moments the direction is embarrassingly cliche. (The doll falling to the floor in slow motion).

The version I saw was the Director's cut so cannot compare it to the original.

Sometimes Friedkin's approach has worked wonders. The Exorcist being the obvious example and Sorcerer but here the killings and screaming are farcical as are the reactions of the grieved. His approach has been his undoing more often than it's worked for him.

Bug was another film where the subject matter required that over-the-top approach and worked but most of his films are simply heavy handed. He has no understanding of the word subtlety.

I really wanted to like it as I quite like Michael Been and have been searching for this film for years but it was very disappointing. Not a single decent performance or scene of note. The entire production felt forced and false.

It feels like a good story was ruined via the funnel of the director.

Simply put this is a great movie. And one that was years ahead it's time dealing with the now so popular "serial killer" theme. But most interesting about the movie is the way it makes you think about the moral aspects of the death penalty. Friedkin simply shows and lets the viewer make up his /her own mind about it. That's why it succeeds: it doesn't want to teach you a moral lesson or oversimplify like most Hollywood fare does. And on top of that it has a wonderful Ennio Morricone score.

From the brilliant mind that brought us "The Exorcist"...and "Cruising." "Rampage" is unfortunately more like the latter. It's an overall messy movie that has a major made-for-TV vibe going for it. The whole film pretends to hinge on the question, "What if the 'Boy Next Door' was a serial killer?" but instead it winds up being an uninspired courtroom drama and meditation on the the insanity plea and death penalty that makes little sense. The movie is very loosely based on the Richard Trenton Chase case, culling a few facts here and there to make a fake character and a different outcome. One of the main points of the film seems to be that ending the life of a terminally braindead child and ending the life of a murderer are somehow analagous. "Sometimes you just have to choose," says the lead character. Yeah, sometimes you have to choose to pull the plug...on your TV!

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.

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.

Yet another movie based on a true crime much like "Reasonable Doubt" where script writing and direction takes a turn down fantasy road.

Reasonable Doubt portrayed Susan Smith completely different from how she was in the book on the subject and left out that it was mainly her sister who pushed for answers regarding her disappearance that helped bring down Mark Putnam.

So here we are treated with a ridiculous escape and assault by Charlie from a police van and jumping through a church window to assault a minister.

And with that I had no choice but to deduct 6 stars from my review on this movie.

One and done.

After five people have been viciously murdered in suburban California, the police arrest Charles Edmund Reece for the crimes for which he slaughtered two families and drank their blood for cleansing. Liberal district attorney Anthony Fraser is put onto the case, where he has to convince the jury that the killer wasn't insane during those acts, so he can be found guilty of the charges to receive the actual death penalty. However the religious Anthony doesn't believe in that justice, but after seeing the aftermaths, and the victims of the ordeal, he goes out to nail him.

Talk about an admirably confronting and dreary cold-blooded thriller with no easy way out, but one that raises many ethical questions on the insanity plea to escape the death penalty. William Friedkin's "Rampage" has a routine set-up to its premise (taken of William P. Wood's novel), but there's enough emotional engagement and fascination that demands your interest. Friedkin who also wrote the sedate screenplay tries to delve a little deeper into the circumstances with some background and motivation. The way they look into the mind of the killer and try to explain his way of thinking is unnerving and unpredictable. While the stirring script wants to be thought provoking, it still could have used a touch up as some unconvincing details enter. This one plays out more like a bitter courtroom drama with the damaging effects of the incidents engulfing those who happen to be involved one-way or another, as the psycho-thriller part of the story coming off as seconds. However these moments are highly potent with unsparingly disturbing, intense and callous images and feelings finding their way in. What makes these scenes effective and stay in your mind is that they aren't cheap jolts. Ennio Morricone's simmering low-key score lends to the chilling and glum nature that blankets the air, and the sweeping doco-style camera-work gives it a bit of leering authenticity. However like some others have mentioned, it does feel like a TV-movie. Alex McArthur's casual performance is disquieting and really creepy, especially how he goes about killing his victims and seeking forgiveness for his actions. Michael Biehn is in exceptionally fine form as the public attorney. Friedkin's dependably gallant and dark direction covers most bases and steers to a psychological graduation of perfect timing. One solid aspect is that Friedkin truly makes you feel as if you're apart of the jury, as if your mind-set has an important say in deciding the fate of this man.

Provocative, but not entirely perfect.

William Friedkin follows up To Live and Die in L.A. with yet another forgotten masterpiece. Rampage is inspired by the true story of the Vampire killer murders, which took place in the late 70s in Stockton and Sacramento, California. I've seen both versions of the film and i can't manage to come to terms on which one i prefer. Michael Biehn leads a stellar cast as they battle between the case of insane and legally insane. It's well photographed by the talented Robert Yoeman, who went on to become Wes Anderson's cinematographer. He previously worked with Friedkin as a second unit cinematographer on To Live and Die.

This film is dark, lurid, creepy, disturbing, and shocking. It has an intense sinister tone and mood like many of Friedkin's other classics. The film was made in 1987 when the death penalty debate was a hot button issue. However due to it's legal predicaments, it wasn't released until 1992; by then the topic was gone. I would say this film has Michael Biehn's finest performance. The 2nd version of the film is now available on netflix. I hope a restored DVD or BLURAY version of this film comes out soon. A great undiscovered gem from Bill Friedkin.

I may be biased because Friedkin is one of my favorite directors so I am giving this film a 10. Friedkin is one of those rare directors who creates cinema with true compact urgency. He seems to be a throwback to John Ford or Howard Hawkes. His films are stripped to the bone and economical. Exciting.

Rampage is no exception. This is the tense (though admittedly dour) story of the capture and trial of serial killer Charlie Reece (a character based upon real-life serial killer Richard Chase), most of which is orchestrated by a district attorney character played by Michael Biehn. To be honest I have not watched this film in a number of years but I felt compelled to write about it because i so vividly remembered Alex McArthur's portrayal of the psycho, which is superb. He is frightening, especially those close-ups of his eyes in the courtroom scenes.

This film is interesting because we don't really see much killing on screen. Almost all of it happens off screen. Surprisingly, this makes it almost more unbearable because Reece's (and the real-life killer's) crimes were particularly hideous (he thought he was a vampire).

Additionally, I lived in Sacramento during the time Richard Chase was active and remember it quite well (my parents remember even better). This was not a pleasant guy. He was dangerous and what he did was unnerving. And I think the film captures that.

The courtroom scenes in this curiously un-involving Friedkin flick seem muted or rushed. Perhaps a mini-series format would have covered the ground more expeditiously.

The changes made to William P.Wood's novel must have had the poor man frothing all over his copy of 'Guns And Ammo'. Bill's version was a heartfelt if almost rabidly right wing polemic in favour of not letting liberals and wooly headed psychiatrists get in the way of the death penalty. He makes a reasonable case against spurious claims of diminished responsibility but comes a cropper in a ludicrous scene whereby the DA enters the jail to kill the murderer rather than see him get off. After invoking the spectre of the Nazis so often throughout the courtroom arguments, this 'means justify the end' solution seems almost wilfully hypocritical by the author.

Friedkin throws out the entire point of the book, however misguided, by opting for a more ambiguous approach. At first dismissive of the possibility that the murderer is mentally ill, a brain scan subsequently makes the DA more undecided. He does not end up judge, jury and executioner. For some reason this makes the film less compelling than the book and the undistinguished nature of the film making suggests a troubled production. Either way, it eventually achieved less visibility than the average gnat so I doubt if Mr Wood is losing much sleep over the matter.

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

Charles Reece (Alex McArthur) is a well liked human begin. He's a good looking guy, who cares from his mother (Grace Zabriskie) and he does charity work. He seems to be the perfect all-American boy until one day, he decided to kill people for the thrill of it. After he caught by the police, Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn) is a liberal-minded district attorney is assigned to prosecute Reece. His objective is to put Reece on the death penalty. Although Fraser believes is a punishment that goes against his personal beliefs. As Fraser goes deep and deeper on the case, He has the difficult goal to convinced the jury that Reece is legally sane. Although Reece seems to be criminally insane. But Fraser and Reece do have one thing in common:Sometimes a life must be taken.

Directed by Oscar-Winner:William Friedkin (Bug, Deal of the Century, The Exorcist) made an interesting thriller with elements of horror and court-room drama. Barely released in the fall of 1992, since it was originally filmed in 1986 and 1987. It was released mostly in Europe. Because the studio, who produced the film "DEG" went bankrupt. Since "DEG" produced flop after flop. Perphas their most memorable films produced was "Blue Velvet" and "Evil Dead 2", although it came out in an phony Disturbution company...since "DEG" couldn't released an Unrated film.

It taken me years to finally found this movie, since i read an article on this movie in Fangoria back in 1992. I truly wanted to see this movie and i finally order it on eBay on VHS. Since it's never been released on DVD and the new digital video format:Blu-ray. McArthur is the best thing about the movie, he is extremely creepy in a memorable underrated performance. Mc Arthur's role is chillingly effective. Biehn is also good in this movie. "Rampage" is a strong movie, very rough at times, even the Court-Room sequences are admittedly powerful.

If "Rampage" has flaws...The third act, when Reece escapes from the Police Van. It seems to be coming from an different movie. The movie could have use more back story from Reece's character. The ending seems rushed. Although Friedkin changed the ending for the brief limited release back in 1992, when Miramax Films finally brought the right for theatrical release and video release. Only the original ending was seen in European Version. Even the back cover of Paramount VHS Cover, there's two scenes are not in the movie. When Fraser goes to the graveyard to visit his child's grave and When Reece is visited by his mother in jail.

Overall "Rampage" is a very good movie, it is the least seen from Friedkin's work and i would love to see this movie be released on DVD and Blu-ray with an running commentary track by the director, deleted scenes and the original ending. If you were curious to see this movie for years, try to find it on VHS and LaserDisc. Screenplay by the director from an book from William P. Wood. An quiet, bleak music score by Ennio Morricone (John Carpenter's The Thing, Once Upon a Time in America, The Untouchables). (****/*****).