Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

XoWizIama Excellent adaptation.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

KineticSeoul 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

ameypuranik1 I gave the movie 10 stars not because i feel it's the best, but just to get up the overall average rating of the movie.So that everyone should see the movie. I myself only saw it after my friend recommended it to me. I honestly believe that the movie is underrated and everyone should watch it once at least. Opinion about the message that movie gave is a different issue. Everybody is entitled to have there opinion on what director wants to say with the move or is it really good or bad. I myself think of the movie is worth watching. I haven't seen the first movie, but I think I will watch it soon . This was my first movie of uwe boll and me myself and other people are really surprised,because other movies of uwe boll are not that good i guess.

The Scrub First off, I enjoyed this film. Quite a lot. Although there's a lot of 'movies with a message' out there, I think few convey their point quite as well or as accurately as Boll's second Rampage film. Its point was made, of course, at the expense of action time and plot, but its position as a sequel allowed it to do that relatively effectively. I also enjoyed the particular irony of this particular nihilistic, anarchist message being conveyed through the medium of a movie which is essentially designed to earn Boll lots of money. There were a couple of small, minor nitpicks I had.First off, it WAS a little preachy. Don't get me wrong, it was effective, but there are more subtle ways of getting a point across than the tell, tell, tell technique that Boll enjoys so much. Secondly, while I enjoyed Fletcher's acting, I feel that his character was a little...shallow? Unrealistic? Even providing one has strong ideological beliefs, it takes a serious psychopath to carry out mass murder with such inhuman callousness. I would have either liked to see a little more self-conflict or signs of mental instability in Fletcher's character. The news anchor, and Boll's producer character. Their acting. Wow. It was, to be honest, painful to watch, and detracted a lot from the film's serious nature. Boll's character was actually comedic, in my opinion. Finally, the killing sequences. I liked Fletcher's dialogue during this (it seemed pretty realistic), but the supporting actors seemed too calm in a situation where most people go into hysterics/hyperventilate etc. The shooting was also pretty unrealistic; body shots to the stomach and shoulder don't instantly kill people - the only such areas are the brain and the heart - so it was irritating to see people flop over motionless after one shot to the guts, when in reality they'd be screaming. And the guns...semi-auto, one-handed, without aiming, hits perfectly every time? Nice try, Boll. It could've been just as good if he used a rifle realistically.

Andrey Sokolov 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.