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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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). (****/*****).

There is an appropriate dark and menacing tone at the beginning of this film. After that, however, we are subjected to one hour and a half or so of scientists and lawyers trying to figure out the mind of this killer. Much of it plays like psychology and law for dummies. (Yes, schizophrenics have brains that are physically different than "normal" brains, but we learned that in college Psychology 101.) This movie drags on way too long, accomplishes almost nothing, and still manages to leave a bad taste in your mouth. To think, its creator gave us The Exorcist. (But he also gave us the the sequel and some other bad stuff, didn't he?)

Rampage, is the most disturbing film I've ever seen, that wouldn't cater to much an audience, but is recommended viewing, nonetheless. If you are easily disturbed, cross this off your list, cause you're better of renting Seven. Alex McCarthur, a David Cassidy looking guy, guns down five people, two victims happen to be a mother and her boy where the father and son are left to pick up the pieces. The other three, who happen to be an older couple + a grandma, buy it on Christmas, so D.A. defender, Michael Biehn, solid here, has his work cut out for him. The wonderful McCarthur who plays Charles Reece, the disturbed sicko here, not only shot these victims but cut open their stomachs, to get to their organs. Reason, motive, yeah there is. He believed he was being poisoned by his own blood, so he needed to get another form of supply from somewhere else, hence the victims, buying it. After McCarthur is cornered at a petrol station, of course making a run for it, he's taken in and a long draining trial begins. Even when asked who he is at the petrol station, Reece uses the name of the father, who's wife and kid had been killed, just hours hours earlier. Before trial, when under arrest, McCarthur's dialogue is creepy, some of it to a point, sick (Friedkin was credited with the tight screenplay). One line of dialogue, that has him saying, "Because you're not chosen" automatically made me think of Seven, where I wonder if writer Andrew Kevin Walker got that line off this movie for his, but there are such things as coincidences. The impasse for McCarthur, is if he is found sane, he'll fry, if he isn't, there is a chance he could one day one be released, and with that said, you want this creepy psycho to fry, where rage gets in the way of reason. But what a decision you'd have to make, especially for a group of jurors, where you already know the decision is gonna be unanimous. Too, with the public defender (Nicholas Campbell a very good actor) you can't believe he's trying to save MCcarthur, in light of all the graphic bloodshed and horror (be warned, especially in one scene with a room full of blood + brains, and intestines amidst). The movie too illustrates the mental health system, where some patients, who shouldn't be are released, are, due to financial situations, or overcrowding, that still goes on today, the problem, much worse now. Two doctors alter the story, to save their skin here, while in the courtroom, where Biehn, sharp as a knife sees through their act. Rampage is a tight courtroom drama, where we openly see both sides of the argument from our two warring lawyers. It has a number of disturbing, hard to take scenes, particularly with that father and son, which even in the last scene at that amusement park, it will do the opposite of uplift you. The scene was interesting near the end, when they tried this new procedure on Reece, that particular brain scan revealed some quite surprising results, that more than waivers the opinions of the forces who originally wanted to see him fry. This is not a pleasant movie, even though it's a good one, with good performances from everyone involved, none better than McCarthur though (Madonna's boyfriend, in "Pappa don't preach pop clip) it goes without saying. The end as to MCcarthur's resolution, I think, was too easy, but did make sense from his mother's POV. Some parts I had to skip, but I'm alright with watching it fully through now, where first viewing it in 1990, + a couple of views, it didn't have that disturbing affect on me back then. Friedkin has wonderfully shot this not so known film, too, using duller color. He should get McCarthur back on future projects.

As the film opens, we see a moving blemish on a dirt road cutting through the tidiness of an orchard that seems to perpetually expand. We encircle high above, and then director William Friedkin crashes in closer, exposing this shadow beneath the noonday sun, wearing jeans and a red jacket. We intermittently get a peek at his peaceful expression, split by aviator sunglasses outlined by long dark hair. But there's something uncomforting about this guy. Abruptly, Friedkin intercuts his idyllic angles with low ones gliding right above the treetops. Friedkin associates Reece's look of ease and harmony with the sudden, threatening low-angles. They're like Reece's thoughts escaping ahead, unbound, poisonous. An image of madness? A mentality in disarray? Reece stays gripped, unaffected. Friedkin seems to pose which is more fear-provoking, the facade of sanity or insanity? Which is Reece? Friedkin pushes us past abnormality to a level where the serene and disordered synchronize, established with images, accentuated by a lingering Ennio Morricone theme. We shift past good and evil into a true chasm.

Friedkin proceeds with what could relatively be referred to as a police procedural. We meet a cop, played by a disappointingly stiff Michael Biehn, who pursues Reece, played by Alex McArthur who on the other hand is genuinely and consistently disturbing, and then we see Reece caught in a surprisingly trouble-free way. Found at the gas station where he serves with a smile, Reece jumps the back fence and dashes away. The arguable doing of a logical person who doesn't want to go to jail.

This is not a movie about murder so much as a movie about madness, as it pertains to murder in present-day American criminal courts. Friedkin plays both ends and conspires with and against both. Reece's cruelty is beyond our grasp of possible human behavior, and then, in court, he's represented with the argument that he must've been insane, and indicted on the basis that he acted lucidly in numerous other ways so he must've been sane. The distinction between these two premises is the death penalty. We're not much swayed by the court contentions for either flank. Friedkin is shrewd and plucky in going this thorny route. Reece was sane, the prosecution maintains, because he premeditated to buy the gun and fled to evade capture. He was insane, the defense reasons, because his crimes couldn't have been considered by a sound mind. The prosecution presents an expert shrink branded "Dr. Death" owing to his unvarying conclusion of sanity. Flip, flop, flip. Flop.

In addition, Friedkin finds a thoroughly unsettling and claustrophobic effect, a tonal ambiance of ghostly uneasiness. In the courtroom scenes, the spectator area is always dark. Faces are virtually invisible. Everyone is dressed in gloomy or muffled colors. The walls are encased in murky wood paneling. Yet the judge, attorneys and witnesses all seem lit in spotlight.

Friedkin keeps the abnormality that is Reece uncertain. Only this and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer have ever truly evoked the striking normalcy of psychopathic murderers between the moments when they snap. Throughout the courtroom scenes, Reece sits silently, serenely, like another spectator, not the accused. But is he sane or not? By the legal definition, does he comprehend the distinction between right and wrong? Friedkin's purpose is to present a monster. While an old classmate and a high school flame recount his youthful benevolence, and his mother says he was a good boy growing up, though he would simply stand and watch his father beat her, we see from Reece's actions he is a monster. Friedkin takes another one of his very bold, widely misunderstood risks so that we can reach verdicts of our own as to his sanity. Mine is that whenever there are two diametrically opposed choices as to the characterization of a human being like Charles Reece, it won't make any difference whether or not he gets the chair because society as it handles its judicial system will never fully comprehend how entangled two extremes are.