I greatly enjoyed this film and have no idea why all of the IMDb reviewers seemed so bitterly scorned by this production. I found so much of this movie to be funny, sad, or at least entertaining. I thought the writing felt honest and sharp, and i found the acting to be superb, because IT FELT LIKE I WAS WATCHING REAL HUMAN BEINGS. Everyone else who commented seemed to have a problem with the performances but i thought they felt authentic. I think we could probably all agree that some people working in the fashion industry might on occasion behave in a way that is a little over dramatic. So when the characters in this film are portrayed behaving in an overly dramatic way, as many of them are, it makes complete sense to me. I thought this was a really unique (I'm saying this because I haven't seen any other movie shot with only actors sitting infront of blue screens) way to tell a story and I was really glad I picked it up. A fellow reviewer complained that Rage was plot-less, but it felt as ambiguous as something a teenager might put together but still had cohesive elements strong enough to leave you, or at least me, with a sense of what transpired off camera, which I believe was the aim of the director. I mean, so it is rather beyond the scope of possibility that some teenage black kid got to interview all of these people, repeatedly, and did so while they were not trying to be interviewed. But I think the statement that, "Rage shows how ugly and downright wrong it is to allow the production, fiancé and distribution of 'anything goes' cinema," is a horrible and self indulgent criticism of a artistic work you didn't like. There are a lot of things down right wrong in this world; creative expression typically isn't one of them. And also that isn't how you spell finance.
