Rampage: Capital Punishment (2014) User Reviews

It's all about the message

[Deadiron29 · 7/10 · 30 August 2014]

The first Rampage was a shocker for most people because of its crude violence, as we rarely see these days and was a wind of fresh air for those of us who are tired of a movie industry that is too afraid of doing anything remotely controversial.

Rampage 2 succeeds because it doesn't take the easy route, which will be just to replicate all we already saw in the first movie. Here,we have less killings, but in exchange of that, we are taken into a ride where the main character explain why he thinks that this society is rotten to the core and must be cleansed. Bill essentially deems every political party and corporation as responsible for the injustice in the world. Topics as censorship, corruption, religion and invasion of privacy are constantly brought up by the main character as prime examples of how decadent the society is in his eyes.

Regarding the action scenes, they are more or less on the same level that we saw on the original, nobody should expect anything new or ground breaking on this department, but hey, why fix what's not broken is just more of the same but the death toll in this movie is not even close to the one on the first one, mainly because in this movie take place inside a T.V station and is a hostages situation, not a killing spree out in the open.

If you are interested on the character's motivations for his extreme actions, peppered with some good shooting segments, I think you will enjoy this movie, but if you expect a carnage just as big or bigger than the one on Rampage 1, you better start looking for another movie to quench your thirst of blood.

The film doesn't pull any punches.

[starfleetengineeringcorp · 7/10 · 18 August 2014]

First, I have to admit that this movie kind of excited me when I first heard of it. I thoroughly enjoyed the first film, and if you like "Assault on Wall Street" you'll enjoy this one even more. I liken it to "Fight Club", but just a lesser budget version. There's narration and clips which I feel add to the movie.

Sometimes the film contradicts itself. The star of the film uses an iPhone and guns which he says are part of the problem, (among other things). That said, the message he's conveying isn't all that insane, and it really mimics a lot of the social attitude in the United States today. The message cannot be missed in this movie.

It also has it's usual action and carnage which is exciting. I firmly believe Uwe Boll has learned from past mistakes. It's pretty refreshing to see a director who isn't cranking out the next crappy "Transformers" movie, and isn't afraid to mix things up a bit. This film shows that he's found his footing and is making decent movies. I sincerely hoping Uwe Boll makes a third film. It for sure merits one.

bold and thought provoking

[erniecolorado1 · 7/10 · 27 August 2014]

I do not agree with murder in any way, shape or form, and this is the irony of the movie. But you have to admit most of what he is saying is true, and that government and corporations are at the center of evil and corruption in many ways in society and have been for a very long time, for thousands of years. However, for example, Assange and Snowden would never say to go murder people just to get the attention of others or to expose evil. Neither of them did that. The other side of the coin is many people are losing their lives all over the world because of much of what our own government agencies and United Nations has done, and that has actually been proved. These are not just conspiracy theories either. One example he brought out was the 50 children who died by drone for one terrorist who was not even proved a real terrorist. There is something to say about that also from the Obama drone killings. I also know our government is connected to the phony war on terror, which has been connected to the Mossads being the false Al-Qaeda. War is bred from all sides for one order of evil, and this has been seen in history with Rome, Babylon and pretty much everywhere. This movie of course should never be seen as a justification to murder people, as this is clearly wrong, but one reason why things are going sour in a lot of places is what he is talking about, and that is very real. I give it 7 out of 10 for that. Uwe Boll just has some real guts making movies like this considering shootings that have sadly happened, but I can tell you mind control is not far off from that either in connection. We know how to clone, make robots, send out satellites, etc. etc., so how hard is it to think we cannot control a person or groups with any method, especially seeing in the past projects like MK ULtra and the current Project Monarch? Think about that. Dark movie, but good points are made.

Almost as great as the first movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 17 August 2014]

I enjoyed the first "Rampage" movie for the senseless mayhem and violence that Uwe Boll had unleashed upon the world, and I was thrilled to find out about this sequel.

And now having had the chance to sit down and watch it, I must admit that I was entertained. And I still don't get the fuss about Uwe Boll being a bad director is all about. I enjoy his movies, because they are filled with action, got some interesting political and social aspects that are usually not seen in other movies. I mean, the way that "Rampage: Capital Punishment" ended with a very young girl walking down the street with a gun after having been told to use it on her parents and then on herself, that is not something you see every day, most certainly not from the American cinema.

"Rampage: Capital Punishment" was almost as great as the first movie, but where as the first movie was more based on random violence and senseless killing of random people, the sequel does take up a more political statement about the laws of guns in USA and the results of such laws.

Sure, there wasn't as high a body count in the sequel compared to the first movie, but the dialogue in the sequel was more intense, and there was a lot more thought put behind it. So this movie have potential to get people worked up about the gun laws and the result of people having easy access to firearms.

Once again Brendan Fletcher steals the screen in the role of Bill Williamson, and he does it with flying colors. He really carries the movie quite nicely, and he is actually a nice actor. It seemed that he was really committed to the particular role.

And I must say that I am looking forward to a third movie in the "Rampage" series, if one is to be made.

The reason I am rating the sequel 7 out of 10 stars, and not 8 as I did with the first movie, is because I had expected more action and violence from the movie. But what it lacked in that department, it made up for with a well-thought through storyline with some interesting social and political statements.

Decent Thriller is worth a watch

[liam-campbell8-965-818974 · 10 July 2015]

I know Uwe Boll gets a lot of hate for his movies and to be honest I quite enjoy his movies, House of the Dead was fun zombie mayhem and Assault on Wall Street was a fairly tense thriller.

I liked the first Rampage and was fairly curious when a sequel was announced, the trailers looked decent and the reviews I heard were actually not bad

So how does "Rampage: Capital Punishment" hold up? Well I must admit I thought it was a decent film, Brendan Fletcher is great once again and the film manages to convey effect tension and fear again. Though this is not a film for everyone, there is a pretty big political message running through out the film and it seems that our lead character believes that killing people is the ultimate solution to all our problems.

Though looking through all that I found the film to be well acted (apart from Uwe Boll's hilarious cameo), well shot and effectively paced

Rampage: Capital Punishment is a fair thriller, worth a rent

THERE IS NOTHING RATIONAL WE CAN DO ABOUT IRRATIONALITY

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 5 September 2018]

This is another Uwe Boll film which always promises plenty of blood shed and a political message. In this production Bill Williamson (Brendan Fletcher) goes on a well planned killing spree and holds a news station hostage in order to get out his message.

Bill is a psychopath who has been influenced by the far right, far left and anarchist dogma. His heroes are Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Karl Marx. The movie is all about the message. Bill is upset that the rich have wealth and power and no one is killing them...hence the duo meaning of "Capital Punishment." Bill has a mixed message of government controlling our lives, i.e "the illusion of freedom", yet in the US there is no gun control or no universal health care system, i.e. government controls. Obama is guilty of violating the principles of the Magna Carta and he should have prosecuted the Bush administration for war crimes. He justifies killing people, any person by stating the planet is over populated and we need to reduce the numbers. He wants to use the Hitler technique of killing people rather than the slightly more humane methods or sterilization, family planning or forced abortion to achieve this goal.

Uwe Boll uses Bill to get the message out that we need to kill the rich. The DVD cover was apparently done by someone who doesn't know the difference between capital and capitol as this film apparently takes place in California (?), filmed in Canada.

Fans of this type of film might want to see "Harodim," "John Doe Vigilante," or something with "Purge" in the title.

Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.

Boll at his Best

[Eric_Cubed · 6/10 · 25 September 2014]

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

A jumbled message weakened by gratuitous violence

[richard-splichal · 5/10 · 29 September 2014]

This is my first review of a movie in a long time, so long in fact that my previous user name was forgotten. More recently I've noticed a trend on IMDb that reflects the dawning of a different pedigree of reviewer than previous generations. I felt that I should "take it back" as I have had more and more misgivings about the ratings from this site. Maybe I'm just getting older or maybe the internet generation has wildly different norms than mine. I feel like it is my duty to balance the scale!

I'm neither a fan, if they exist or a hater of Uwe Boll but I believe the rating on this film is higher than it should be. Anyone familiar with Uwe Boll knows that he could care less what people say about his films, which in of itself is both good and bad, at least as a director. Most of his films are NOT very good at all but neither are they as bad as people who hate Boll say.

That said the movie is basically a commentary on particular views of the state of the US, corruption, power, overpopulation, exploitation, and a few other things. Some of it is fairly idiotic though. You could literally summarize most of the key points in a paragraph and not watch the movie unless you were interested in seeing the violence instead, to which you could easily find better. I agreed with most of the points made but the violence the main character seemed to indifferently inflict took away so heavily from the message that rooting for such a deranged character became pointless. This is not saying that I have never imagined myself in a similar scenario, but it makes for a shitty movie when the protagonist shoots anyone he likes just because it makes him feel good. Pretty much a bad guy despite the attempt by Boll to turn him into a anti-hero instead. To give you an idea, this character shares some of the same beliefs as the Joker from The Dark Knight but is not nearly as entertaining, even though acting for the most part was pretty good. The main character is simply one-dimensional, the violence that was meant to be shocking is really not. The only thing left that makes the movie stand is the message. And as I've said it could be summarized into a short paragraph. I have a notion the type of people who would like this film will be angst ridden teenage boys/young men who harbor anti-establishment views and want to ride a chariot of fire. I should know, I was one, but I find the presentation of this adolescent and somewhat psychotic. There is little wisdom here and more nihilism than anything else.

I know what you're thinking...

[alkalinetrio1010-108-844328 · 8/10 · 22 September 2014]

An Uwe Boll movie with a rating over 6 stars (currently anyways)? You must be asking yourself if the planets have aligned just right to give this guy some competence? Is the Armageddon approaching? Don't fear though, even the biggest idiots say something smart at least once in their lifetime right?

I watch Uwe Boll films to have a good laugh, don't we all? This one was a little different (although I did let out a few hardy chortles at Uwe's acting in this film).

Now, this is no masterpiece of film-making, but i'd say it's still worth a watch. I can't believe i'm saying this about a Boll film... I must be losing my mind.

The film has a pretty clear, in your face, kind of message (maybe a little preachy). I think the message can be taken all kinds of ways, and it might alienate some of the audience. However, if you just take it for what it is, and go along for the ride it is pretty fun.

Every single movie has flaws, even critically acclaimed masterpieces. In bad movies it's easy to spot the flaws because you aren't invested in the story. Good movies, with engrossing stories distract you (at least the first time watching) from all the mistakes, minor plot holes, camera-work, and things of that nature.

This movie had me fully invested in the story. I think Brendan Fletcher's performance is what kept me invested. I mean damn, he is a extremely talented actor. It really is thanks to him that this movie was so fun to watch. You can tell he really gave a s*** about his role and put a lot into it. I believed his character every single step of the way. I'd recommend watching it just to see him act.

Now this movie is violent (I mean it's called Rampage for Christ's sake) but it isn't full of gore and it give you a break from the violence every once in awhile.

Again, it's got a pretty clear message and I don't think its really saying anything different or new, but Fletcher's performance does make the message pretty powerful (to me anyways).

Look, Uwe Boll blows dogs for quarters, but he took a break from doing that and actually made something decent. Check it out, even if it's just to watch a very talented actor put a lot of hard work into a performance.

I always appreciate it when you can tell someone really had a lot of passion for their role. That someone actually cared about a vision they were trying to bring to the public. Brendan Fletcher does just that.

A complete 180 compared to the first film.

[rushknight · 6/10 · 29 September 2014]

Mr. Boll's first Rampage was a pointless rage against humanity. He spent our precious minutes throwing some swill our way about how humanity was expanding past the point of sustainability, and that the only solution was to kill some people off. And that was the whole of it. Kill people. No justifications and no reason for them. Just kill lots of people.

While I disagreed with the premise, the plot had a simple purity and made for a pretty viciously entertaining movie.

When I heard about a sequel, my first thought was, "Oh please don't ruin it by trying to develop this madman." Unfortunately, Mr. Boll has done just that by opening his big mouth.

Mr. Boll apparently has the social and political comprehension of a child, and he displays his ignorance proudly in this movie, which can best be described as a simple tantrum.

I think he might believe that this second movie expounds upon the "fine points" of the first film, but in reality all it does is drown them in paranoia rhetoric that contradicts itself even as it spews from the mouth of the main actor. Mr. Boll attempts to bury us in just about every politically motivated, paranoid conspiratorial bit of garbage he can dig up from any sort of anarchistic whacko out there.

Far from being convincing, it made me roll my eyes. Oh good grief. I've heard all this ridiculous ranting before, and from the mouths of better men. His ranting contributes very little to the plot of the film, and instead confuses the hell out of the viewer. I pity anyone who listens to this garbage and accepts it on it's face value.

WHAT POINT EXACTLY is Mr. Boll trying to make with this.. art? That democracy is dead and we'll all be better off if we behave like the anti-hero? Shooting people just for fun? Mr. Boll wants us to kill the rich? Sure. As long as Mr. Boll knows that he falls into that proper category. President Bush is evil? Heard this before a million times while he was in office. I'm hearing it more and more now that he's out of office, with the current administration trying to blame the previous president for everything it can't sort out for itself. The U.S. has NO GUN CONTROL?? Mr. Boll, are you completely oblivious?

The protagonist is asked a few times by other actors what solutions he suggests. His answer is repeatedly something along the lines of (I'll paraphrase), "Hey! Don't look at me! I just shoot people." Rather than being interesting, it comes off as merely offensive.

What it comes down to is that Mr. Boll tried to make a "point" with this film, which was a huge mistake. It's convoluted and redundant. The main character's motives, which were so clear and sinister in the first film, have suddenly become a pointless splatter of insipid demagoguery. He should have just stuck with killing people for fun.

It would have made more sense.

I'm still rating the movie a "6" because it was well made, and I'm not so petty that I give poor scores to well made films just because I hate the politics of the writer.

Uwe Boll's Unabomber-Manifesto

[Thom-Peters · 4/10 · 9 July 2015]

I really don't understand the Boll phenomenon. His movies are greeted with universal mockery and jeer by critics and entertainment seekers alike. Still he is emitting one Boll-work after the other. How does he manage to do that? It defies common logic. Does he have good friends in very high places? Is he a superior being, far beyond the grasp of normal men? It's probably not a good idea to criticize him or his movies.

But "Rampage: Capital Punishment" isn't really a movie, it's something completely different. The heavily armed and armored Bill, Bolls alter ego, takes a dozen hostages at a TV Station and forces the station's boss to broadcast his revolutionary proclamation, which can be summed up with "Kill the rich!". Not Boll-rich, but billionaires. Not TV bosses, but bank bosses. Actually, you can find similar ideas all over the internet, there are quite a few like-minded souls. We are treated with this rant in it's entirety (5 minutes), while the TV station's boss, played by Boll himself, comments: "The guy is totally right, you know?"

While the movie itself is completely forgettable, this stunt elevates it high above similar airtime fillers. It has to be seen to believe it. Instead of forcing TV Stations to broadcast his message, he wraps it up in a little movie, with much talk, some shootouts and explosions and they'll even pay money to send the Boll-manifesto. The nerve of that guy!

"Revolution NOW!" - Jawoll, Herr Boll!

I really enjoyed it.

[Occult_Detective · 9/10 · 20 August 2014]

I know what you're thinking. "Uwe Boll? Really?" And yeah, really. We all know Uwe Boll is king of crappy films when it comes to movies. and yet, somehow, he keeps being able to make them. How? Why? Because even a broken clock can be right two times a day. And after making so many mistakes, he finally got it. in 2009, he partnered up with two of my favorite Canadian actors, Brendan Fletcher and Katharine Isabelle, for a film most found so beyond politically incorrect. But it worked. It had all the right elements and was one hell of a film. Today, right now, a sequel has happened.

After co-producing the first film, a project he believed in, this time around Brendan sat down with Uwe and pitched idea for a follow-up. If there is a way to do a continuation, what is the most true way to do it? The answer is Capital Punishment. Not only is is a well done written, acted, and directed film on it's own terms. But it's exactly what a sequel should be. Enough call backs to the original (and in very creative ways, not just "Here's your flashback!") and yet it still stands on it's own feet, and hits you with such dangerous, unpredictable plot points.

You think a film called "Rampage" condones violence, when it doesn't. No more than films like "The Purge" tell it's audience "this crime is for a good cause." When the point the character himself makes in the film is that he's doing what he does, simply because he can, because he's allowed to. And if it's not him that does it, it will be someone else. And it's scary how true that is, about society and our government and everything. The world is a corrupt place to live in, and this character's statements about social commentary may not make his violence acceptable, but, dare I say, it makes it pretty scarily understandable? We've seen real guys like this character, and we're going to see more. It's the way the world works, sadly. There will always be violence, and movies, television (FICTION) music or video games (ENTERTAINMENT) are never going to be what causes it. Whether it exists or not, the government, people feeling screwed over by this country especially, always will continue to happen.

As much as people speak out about being against violence and crime or "mean people," they still make news and are watched by millions. It's our morbid curiosities on the matter. We don't wish harm or violence to occur, but when it does? Yeah, we'll take a peek. How many people watched the beheading video that was leaked back in 2001? More recently, how many of you watched Tony Stewart kill that racer? We shouldn't watch it, we shouldn't even want to... But we still do. And to me that's what Rampage is commentary about. About a guy who has no shame or guilt in admitting that curiosity, or confronting his lust. He does what he wants to do, because it's what people want him to do. They don't want to be involved, sure enough, but at the end of the day, his story will be the one they're watching on TV. And we're the ones watching a fictionalized movie based on such an idea.

Don't think of it as "an Uwe Boll film." It'd be like if Tommy Wiseau suddenly came out with another movie that by all means was actually good, but due to The Room's reputation, people would go in expecting it to be horrible. I hate Uwe Boll's work, okay? I couldn't even sit through Bloodrayne or House of the dead. But this film is so far away from that. Watch it. Watch both. You know you want to.

If the Joker got his hands dirty

[KineticSeoul · 7/10 · 9 September 2016]

The first one was a huge surprise since it was actually a very watchable movie from a director such as Uwe Boll. It was a fantasy movie for nihilistic shut ins that confine themselves to their rooms while hating on people that gets ahead in life. This one takes on a more anarchy approach with the main character trying to take down the system. And this time around I can understand if some people would be on board with the main character committing massacres. Mainly audiences that hate the rich and the privilege that takes the system into their own hands. By manipulation and taking advantage of people that are less fortunate, the people that keep taking and thinks that they are above the law. Mainly because they can get away from punishment because they have money and connections. This is a nihilistic political message with a lot of violence in it, with the lead character trying to take down the system. The guy is a person if "The Purge" really did happen, he will try to take down as many rich and political figures as possible. He is the more psychotic version of the villain in "Kingsman". Agree with it or not, it does share some interesting points. This is a very cynical, skeptical, bleak and crude film. It's like "Assault on Wall Street" except there is more tension and it's way more crude and skeptical over the motives of others. The killer sort of reminded me of a less charismatic version of the Joker from the comic books. Except the dude is more of a hypocrite, actually he is like the ultimate hypocrite. He is a guy trying to push people to their limits and bring out their true colors. But if someone pushed this psycho to the limits, he is going to be the ultimate coward. The real tension comes from if the guy will snap or not depending on the situation. While the first one had more of the Rampage stuff going down with the mayhem and all, I found the discussions and interactions to be more engaging. Which is a good thing, because with it's budget this was the better approach.

7.5/10

Come on, this movie is really bad

[satin-48250 · 2/10 · 14 March 2021]

All those reviews giving it 7, 8, or 9, really??? It's a political movie. We got it. Loud and clear. The message delivered for what feels like hours (beyond preachy!) is nothing new but it's a reminder anyway. For a mentally challenged audience certainly because the guy is ranting for at least half the movie, over and over. The rest of the movie is just sick, sociopathic and boring.

Should you watch this?

[sumisuy · 7/10 · 20 September 2014]

-- No Spoilers --

In a brief sentence: the story, the concept, the underlining psychology between strangers, concepts of warped reality we hold onto so that we can function in society, it is all brought into question in this film.

Should you watch it? Yes! You won't regret it... the story and the concept are enough to spark debate... with yourself (of all people)

Would you like to read more?

So if it's so great, why not 10/10? OK, as a viewer, some of the dialog and events that unraveled seemed both irrational and unbelievable... Sorry Uwe Boll (writer/director), the dialog was actually pretty awful in some parts. If any good can come from this review, it will be that Uwe Boll continues coming up with great stories and plots such as seen in this film, but please hire somebody expensive to help write the dialog, just to polish it up and get it to a high standard that we are all so accustomed to seeing in our movies - that was all that was lacking from this being the big hit - there were moments that I felt like I was watching a high school play, and I don't think it was the fault of the actors.

And on that note, Brendan Fletcher (the lead actor) we need to see him starring in a LOT more movies! His acting was flawless even despite the lack of great dialog in some parts... enough so, in fact, that even though the character he was playing seemed inconsistent on paper, he still made it completely believable. I WILL be watching out for any other movies that this man stars in.

So, should you watch this movie despite its flaws? YES. Absolutely!

Not quite as good as the first one but good enough

[Seth_Rogue_One · 7/10 · 19 January 2016]

Uwe Boll returns to make a sequel to the 2009 movie Rampage which I thought was pretty ace.

Brendan Fletcher is as if made for the character he's playing, incredibly convincing as the intelligent sociopathic mass-murderer that we hate to love, his intensity never lets go of the screen and you really believe that he means every word he says.

There are a couple things that I'm not sure was the right thing to do which are: having so many flashbacks from the first film, it's just something I don't like to see in a sequel, if you didn't see the first one then tough luck and a lot of it wasn't really necessary either.

But I've seen worse examples of flashback-scenes in other movies, at least they were all fairly short.

And Uwe Boll decides to cast himself as a movie-producer which is a bit questionable considering that he's not that great of an actor exactly.

The dialogue is a little stronger in this one, I know that in the first one most of the dialogue was improvised (which worked better than you might think) but I think in this one most of the dialogue if not all is pre-written if it isn't they did a fantastic job, either way the dialogue is good and makes you think.

But overall it was fairly enjoyable, I would rate it a 6.5/10 rounded up to a 7; pretty good but not amazing, however if you liked the first one of course you should watch this as well.

Weak!

[Murtada- · 3 April 2020]

I tried not to judge it from the beginning but I couldn't. Very weak acting, directing and writing. Such a pointless film!

Uwe Boll's personal message (of violence) to the world.

[Manuel-Hoerth · 3/10 · 27 November 2014]

The plot of the movie is thin and is easy to sum up: A deranged psychopath who kills innocent people for fun and who wears full body armor and carries a ton of guns and a ton of explosives takes the employees of a TV station hostage so as to force them to broadcast his message of violence and anarchy across the world.

There, that really IS the entire plot of the movie. I am surprised myself how easy it is to fit it into one sentence (-: Someone wrote on the message board: "Seemed like the movie an angry goth teen would make for an excuse to show a ton of random innocent people get shot." Which actually sums this movie up quite well.

But what else did you expect from an Uwe Boll movie? But I have to admit that THIS TIME it actually seemed like making money by showing senseless violence wasn't actually Uwe Boll's only intention. This time his movie actually seems to contain an ideological message too. It actually seems like the whole point of this movie was to get Uwe Boll's own little anarchistic message across which coincidentally seems to be exactly identical to the philosophy of any mentally deranged psychopath/anarchist. How do I know that it is Boll's own message? Well he wrote, directed, produced and played a character in the movie. Of course that alone wouldn't be enough to say it is his own message as you could argue that he simply wanted to show us how a psycho-killer/terrorist justifies his violence against innocent civilians as most terrorists indeed do not see themselves as the perpetrators but blame rich people or some government (and the U.S. is usually on top of such a list). So if exposing the mind of a psychopath would have been Boll's intention, he would have done a good job at it.

But that really wasn't his intention. Because for that it would have been enough to give the killer half a minute of screen time go explain his thinking - but Boll gives him like half the time in the movie to explain his "ideology" to us. Also when the killer talks, we see all kinds of newsreel footage that supports his statements. That wasn't done by the TV station in the movie, its not visible to the characters in the movie. Instead those newsreel inserts are actually kinda breaking the 4th wall, as they are only visible to us. Also the way the movie is set up is done so as to give focus to the killer's arguments. The scene where the TV anchor does the interview while being hold hostage himself, could have been an intense climax of the Movie. But Boll intentionally wasted this opportunity to instead have the TV anchor break character and make some weak arguments against the killer. Something a hostage in such a situation would never ever do, because intentionally pissing of the deranged psycho-killer by disagreeing with his stupid hate speech is the last thing a hostage in that situation would do. Also Boll's character even openly agrees with all that the killer says (and Boll is kinda playing himself in this movie anyway as he plays a producer who's only concern is how much money he can make by broadcasting all this violence :-) ) Actually I knew this movie was gonna stink after watching the first few minutes (with Uwe Boll Movies you can usually tell). But when I saw the killer pointing the gun at Uwe Boll I was like "hey this really COULD finally be a great Uwe Boll movie". (-: I guess a lot of people must have thought something like this at that moment (-: But not only does Uwe Boll's character survive, but we have to endure his terrible acting and terrible accent for the rest of the movie )-: And now I finally know that there is something worse than a movie written and directed by Uwe Boll and that is a movie which has Uwe Boll as an actor...

I give it 3 stars out of 10. I actually think it deserves much less, especially with Uwe Bolls trademark camera shakes that have you puzzled over why you feel like vomiting when watching his movies. Is it because of all the violence or is it because the camera guy is obviously an epileptic? But, I have to admit Brendan Fletcher's performance was pretty good. Anyone who can still deliver a halfway good performance when directed by Uwe Boll has my deepest admiration.

strong and daring movie

[waqarr40 · 8/10 · 20 August 2014]

Another decent little flick to arm the Boll canon Rampage: Capital Punishment sees the return of the disenfranchised and very angry Bill Williamson. Bill created a bulletproof suit of armor, then went on a shooting spree, ultimately killing a lot of people. After coming out of hiding and creating another bulletproof suit, Bill takes over a TV studio and using the employees as hostages, orders them to play a video he prepared earlier. Bill Williamson's message is simple. "Kill the rich."

There were a couple of scenes that were powerfully written and worth mentioning here. The first involves a couple of bums Bill occasionally comes across, and the second arrives right at the end, and involves a short exchange Bill has with a little girl. Once you see the scenes you'll know what I mean, but as I don't want to give anything away, I'll say no more.

This, in my humble opinion, is an excellent and entertaining movie. The storyline is indeed strong, if not a little perverted. The acting and the action are wholly believable and realistic. If you are a fan of American Foreign Policy (and who is ) this movie is not for you. Nor is this presentation for you is you are of the Republican persuasion ! For most non-American viewers the the theme will only serve SOME to highlight the obvious differences between good and evil, something most Americans fail to recognize.

Solid follow up

[Floated2 · 6/10 · 16 July 2017]

Rampage: Capital Punishment is the highly anticipated sequel to the Uwe Boll directed Rampage released in 2009. Many audiences and critics found the original film to be a surprise in terms of film making since Uwe Boll has been considered a very poor filmmaker. Having seen the original and considering a very refreshing and entertaining film, one had expectations about this film. This sequel is not on the same level as the original mainly because we are already used to the shock value. Though in this film, the action (in terms of the ruthless shootings) are less, it is more centered inside a smaller plot scale. This film is still a solid watch if you were a fan of the original and the performance of lead Brendan Fletcher is still very thoughtful, and engaging. Taking place in a television studio, we see Bill continue with his rants and keeping hostages of workers in there. What happens in the end is quite clever.

Despite a wonderful performance from Brendan Fletcher, "Rampage: Capital Punishment" suffers a preachy, aimless, faulty script and a nauseatingly poor production...

[TedStixonAKAMaximumMadness · 3/10 · 16 January 2015]

I have to say I'm quite shocked by the generally positive fan- reception of Uwe Boll's latest cinematic opus- the sequel "Rampage 2: Capital Punishment." Frankly, because I thought this film marked a step back for Boll after the problematic-but-oddly-satisfying original. Yes, to me, this film felt much like Boll's more infamous early work ("House of the Dead", "BloodRayne", etc.) in that it came off as far too cheap, seems obviously quickly thrown together as a cash-grab, and suffers some bizarrely poor writing.

But hey, to each his own, I guess.

The film follows the continuing exploits of the mass murderer Bill Williamson (Brendan Fletcher in a phenomenal performance... especially for the sub- par material), a man whose world-weariness has caused him to go rogue and attempt to educate the world of its many social and political, all while making dramatic examples by killing off random people in his titular rampages. This time Bill's goal is to raid and take over a television news station, in order to publicly broadcast a personal recording and live interview so he can reach new audiences with his "messages" and ideals.

And while this does sound like a promising set-up, the film quickly implodes under the weight of its cheap production and writer/director Boll's laughable attempts at writing socio-political material.

To start, this film is extremely hard to watch. Not due to graphic violence or shocking content, mind you. No, it's hard to watch because it's just so poorly made. Production value and general mood are non-existent with an obvious lack of budget and and even bigger lack of creativity. The film is predominately confined to a single location (the television studio), which presents a good opportunity to build a sense of dread through isolation and claustrophobia, but the boring shaky-cam camera-work and haphazard guidance of Boll do nothing to build off of this. It's just clearly being thrown together without much thought, outside of "let's shake and zoom the camera every 2 seconds to try and falsely manufacture a sense of grit."

The fact that the scope is drastically reduced does also betray the material, especially after the larger, more "important" and impacting feel of the original. And the bizarre over-use of stock- footage (I would estimate up to 30% of the film is just repeated flashbacks of the original) makes it feel all the more cheap and thrown-together for the sake of a quick cash-in on the minor success of the first film. It's pretty bankrupt from a creative standpoint, and shows a lack of thought or planning.

The writing takes a rather large drastic plunge as well. While I did have some issues with the first film's messy narrative, it worked within the confines of the story that Boll was trying to tell. Here, everything is just so... forced, contrived and preachy, it feels less like an honest effort from a filmmaker, and more like the pretentious ramblings of a first-year film-student's thesis work. Dialog ranges from laughable to groan-inducing, the social-political messages are forced in with all the subtlety of a brick-to-the-face, and the aimless writing will give you whiplash with how horrible it goes through shifts in focus.

The most cringe-worthy scene being a bizarre sequence in which Bill (who Boll is clearly trying to build up as an anti-hero) goes on a bizarrely contrived rant against yoga of all things, making tenuous random thought-connections in order to justify violence against an innocent woman. Seriously Boll... you're so bitter against the world, you now have to attack yoga as though it's a death-sentence worthy crime? Not to mention, this scene and others like it undermine the entire message of the film by making everything that comes out of Bill's mouth sound like psychotic ravings, instead of intelligent thought. So congratulations, Boll... you invalidated your own darned film and everything it's trying to say.

The only saving grace here- indeed the only reason you may want to consider watching the film- is for the amazing performance of Brendan Fletcher. Fletcher is obviously having a great deal of fun with the material, and seems to have a lot of faith in the concept. This is an award-worthy role for Fletcher, and it's a shame he's so devoting himself to such bad filmmaking.

This is a tragic mess by any stretch of the imagination. It's cheap, forced, aimless and displays some truly poor examples of filmmaking.

And for that, I am giving "Rampage 2: Capital Punishment" a very poor 3 out of 10.

This is a manifesto more than a movie.

[athanasiosze · 9/10 · 1 November 2014]

It takes a lot of guts to participate in a movie like this with such a nihilistic and inhuman message. This is not a gore fest, this is not a splatter nor a horror movie, this is a call to disaster. The message is "If we can't change, we should be terminated". It has similarities to "FIGHT CLUB", but it is way more serious and one- dimensional: Uwe is not as gifted as Fincher. This is a manifesto more than a movie. The director wants us to think about capitalism, materialism, consumerism and generally, the emptiness of our modern lives, our modern times."FIGHT CLUB" for me is the best movie i have ever seen but it captures the 90's and 00's: This is 2014 and this is the movie that reflects our times better. I hope Uwe Boll is wrong, i hope there is still hope in this world and i hope the decay of the western civilization is reversible.

PS Brendan Fletcher's performance is a tour de force

This movie is like 'Man Bites Dog' (1992) on speed

[androni-m · 6/10 · 27 December 2014]

I would describe this movie as 'Man Bites Dog' (1992) on speed, just not that professionally executed.

After watching both Rampage movies, I had only one question - was there an idea or even a basic plot in this movie or was it just another wild breed of a slasher ('slashooter') genre? IMO, a bit of both, however the idea of this movie does not match with such of the main character.

What Uwe has shown is that how a modern society can create such a 'hero' that is uneducated, with no aspirations in his life, uninterested in anything that surrounds him and so antisocial, that he would be prepared to murder more than 100 more or less random people thinking that this would change society that created him. Basically because these people does not meet his 'high standards'.

Hiring Brendan Fletcher as the main actor was a very good choice. The way Brendan portrayed the image of a deeply troubled psychopath was surprisingly well done. He smiled where he shouldn't and his facial expressions actually looked very disturbing. Any sympathy you may experience to man's ideas are quickly wiped out when he starts murdering hostages by torturing and abusing them first. This best is shown when he is confronted by a woman who's sister he murdered in the first part because she was 'a really crappy waitress'.

The whole movie was shot quite well with a few holes in a story line, but trust me you probably will not even notice them.

A worthless rant from a worthless man

[adamscastlevania2 · 1/10 · 25 August 2014]

(0%) So Mr Boll, did the world really need another one of these? Well we got another and it's no surprise that it's just as odious as the dire original. This quite possibly is the most irrelevant movie of the year, there's just nothing to it at all. Brendan Fletcher returns as the world's biggest scumbag, only now he's even more loathsome than ever, as he kills a few random folk going about their business, then he attacks a TV station to get his voice out there. His voice in question is a randomly assembled rant on anything from the Bush administration to yoga, and none of it is balanced or insightful. And that's it, he shoots people, rants, abuses a few hostages, rants some more, the end. This isn't a movie, it's a load of youtube videos made by bitter weirdos mixed with scenes of tedious violence. Mr Boll, time to call it a day and retire, sooner the better.

PS Even the poster is a load of bull as the US capital building never once features in the movie. What a load of crap!

Against this f...system

[searchanddestroy-1 · 18 November 2017]

Despite the fact that the directing is definitely awkward, I also definitely like this movie, and the previous one. Bloodbathing and somewhere gratuitous violence show, I totally agree, this remains a very realistic and bold speak against the world of today, a world of hypocrisy and lies, of bribery and people brainwashing, of population slow assasinatioin thru food, starvation and medication, a world of destruction. We of course have different ways of reading this film, at the first or the second degree. Anyway that's an action feature that makes you think, as far as you have a brain to think a little. But if you are a simple sheep in the herd, you will enjoy the bullets holes and corpses, slow motion bomb explosions and gunfights...A must see, but not for all audiences, and not only because of the violence.