Neurosis asesina

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.

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.

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?

I saw this William Friedkin 's film back in 1987, when it was released in Paris, and was not that excited. Maybe I left the theater before the ending, I don't remember. Today, thirty eight years later, I tried again, just to check...And I still encountered the greatest difficulties to make it till the end. I don't like this film, I won't say it is a bad film, but certainly not the best from FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST director. I am even sure most audiences forgot it too; only the William Friedkin's hard fans may remind or like - love - it. It may be interesting for many audiences, of course, but for me it is such a bore.

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.