Le sang du châtiment

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.