Must See Movie...

Absolutely brilliant

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

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.

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.

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.

First of all whoever watched the first movie and this, you can clearly see that whoever directed this just came up with different plot of this guy "fighting for truth" just to continue this crappy sequel. Everything is just horrible in this movie, i understand its a movie but comon...Person who shoot out randomly several dozen of people including cops, he would be marked as domestic terrorist, authority would be all over that guy there would be no way for him to even show up on the street without being shot at. Then there is the message, OK government is corrupt and world is messed up, what a "big news". I don't even want to go there as I already typed enough for this crap. Lol just wanted to say at the end he sits and freely drinks his coffee or whatever and no one recognizes him, then kid passes and he gives a gun with some dumb message of changing the world. This movie is for imbeciles? Certainly looks like it, I want my time that I wasted of my life back.