Rampage: President Down

dope

Brendan Fletcher is always great but the FBI agents were cringy as all hell, they were unbelievable characters played by unbelievable actors. Lots of silly plots holes too like trying to hide from the FBI but texting a bunch of people as well from an iPhone? Guy kills the president while the FBI sit around doing no actual work and have cringy hot topic arguements similar to that of 16 year olds. But like I said, Brendan Fletcher is the best.

I have a tremendous amount to say about Rampage 3 so bear with me. Rampage: President down is the third and hopefully final movie in a Uwe Boll created franchise that is very uncomfortable viewing. Written by him and lead star Brendan Fletcher the story of all three movies is essentially an angry young man who dons body armour and automatic weapons and goes on rampages killing countless innocents. And he's the lead, therefore it's very hard to care about the protagonist or rather the films don't have one. Throughout the films he spews his reasons which are a combination of left and right wing politics. Now to be clear much of what he says makes perfect sense and I agree with him, but they are in no way reasons to kill innocent people let alone bring about the finale of this film. This is the movie creator Uwe Boll went on a rant about online. Because he couldn't get in funded on Kickstarter he attacked the public verbally claiming they were stupid for watching Hollywood films and being sheep. Boll was already hated, this didn't help his case. Now I don't mind him, I think the man is an idiot but as a film maker he's fine. Yes he's made some stinkers, some really bad films in fact and I think this franchise is the crown jewel of crap. Next something has to be noted. As I mentioned our leads rants are a combination of political stances, and for that reason it was inevitable you'd have people make the whole film politically motivated (Which it clearly isn't). The highlighted review on the IMDB page is a gentleman claiming the entire film is "Leftist" propaganda. This demonstrates to me that he doesn't understand left stances and certainly doesn't have a clue what propaganda is. A movie involving a character talking about subjects that you disagree with is no more propaganda than Black Panther was for African American succession. Have you ever noticed how people treat left/right like football teams, vigorously defending them to the point of hostility? Have you noticed how all the derogative terms come from one side? Leftist, Libtard, Snowflake all aimed at the Left from the Right. The side that supports guns, has a history of bigotry, homophobia, racism and theocratic views is the hostile one? Does this surprise anyone? This movie isn't propaganda for either political stance, to claim so is pitiful and screams agenda. The person in question who made such a ridiculous claim has a profile made up of the VAST majority of films getting a 1/10. Hateful individual which again isn't much of a surprise. Get a grip. This final movie is well written and certainly has talking points but as a form of entertainment it is very much lacking. I fail to see the point of 90 minutes of a man killing innocent people. The Good: Matt Frewer Well written for the most part A great movie for "Talking points" The Bad: Uncomfortable viewing Who am I supposed to be rooting for? Things I Learnt From This Movie: White people CAN be referred to as terrorists Claiming real living celebrities are dead in a movie is really rather unpleasant

Before I get into the meat of it all, I'd like you to know that I am biased on the subject, as I very much enjoyed the last two films in the series, and I probably would not be as lenient if it was not the end of Rampage. Fans of Rampage will be happy to know that numerous elements found within the first two films have made their way to the third. Bill extensively plans his attack, and the film successfully builds a lot of tension and releases it in a bloody climax.However, unlike the others in the series, budget issues are glaringly obvious. The majority of the film seems to be shot within the same limited scenes, which, unlike the second film, does not have the interaction between Bill and his captives to keep it interesting. A great deal of action takes place off of the screen, only being referred to in text messages or by news reports, which do their job of a low budget method of building tension. Unfortunately, the hour or so the film takes to build said tension is not proportional to what it all leads up to, and left me feeling disappointed. Interestingly, a significant chunk of the movie is used to build Bill up as a human being with emotions and compassion. This is achieved through his interactions with his wife and infant son, Billy. I was honestly surprised at how tasteful it all was. It wasn't done to justify or downplay Bill's actions, and it really did give his death more impact, as a human being was killed rather than a total monster. These scenes are some of the best in the movie, being well written and acted. Speaking of which, boy, does the acting get goofy and BOY, are some of the characters unnecessary. I could go on about it for more time than I have, so I'm going to restrict my criticism to a single element. Remember Chip, the news reporter from the second film? He had a personality, character development, and was very much a major part of the movie. The reporters in this, however, seem flat and uninterested and only exist to fill us in on scenes that Boll did not have the budget to shoot, and also to be executed by the hobo from the second film. I can't help but believe that Uwe Boll wanted to make a much larger film, but didn't accommodate for a smaller budget, hence why President Down has major plot points being shown in small clips under ten seconds long, if they're even shown at all. The most glaring example of this is the use of neutron and nuclear weapons, which is what gets people to rally to Bill's cause and wreak havoc in the ending of the movie. The bombings and the massacres are both shown through news reports, and then barely mentioned again. I suppose I can forgive the latter, as it's the ending of the film, but that doesn't make it any less a disappointing ending. Despite all its shortcomings, the third installment of the Rampage series does have its good points. Brendan Fletcher's acting is some A grade stuff, and many of the positive points of the previous films, despite now being shackled by budgeting, are still alive and kicking. I also quite enjoyed the explanation of Bill's transformation between the first and second films, turning from a bank robbing mass murderer to a political terrorist. The movie manages to do a good job of creating a world without showing you it, using news reports and Bill's messages to and from outside of his hideout to show the happenings of the world and how he has affected them. That being said, it's still disappointing that these events did not get fleshed out scenes of their own. Overall, I found Rampage: President Down to be a fun watch, despite its numerous flaws. I would not suggest rushing out to buy it, but I'd personally be happy to purchase it with the rest of the trilogy.

This movie has no one of redeeming value, the protagonist is an awful human being that tells people to go out and kill anyone rich (wtf is that about). This plays out like a left wing terrorist manifesto, I was routing the hold time for the FBI not this lunatic. People like this main character are the ones that need to be shot not people that are successful in life. I understand that I don't know Bills background story as I didn't see the first 2 films. But I can not see them being able to give him a just cause for the carnage he dose, and causes. everyone of the people rising up at the end should be shot in the head. How is shooting some one that has had success in life a rightful thing to do?

I've enjoyed the first two movies in this series incredibly. However this particular film ends in utter nonsense. It is a movie about an extreme left-wing radical and yet, they make a bold claim in the final scenes regarding right-wing terrorists which completely negates the entire premise of the film. Right when I was about to finish watching, satisfied with the content, they throw this statement into the film which completely destroys the continuity of the story. That being said, if you would like to see a movie about a terrorist democrat, it's a good watch. Far from the quality of the previous two however.

There are many movies that can tip the tables in the favor one company over another. This is definitely not one of those movies. Where to begin, how about the fact that the protagonist is a terrorist but is apparently portrayed as the good guy. The movie is very anti-rich and assumes that the majority must resort to violence in order to have a say in what happens. Everyone believes the rich can only get rich because they have broken the rules to do it. However someone can get rich because they make something like the safety pin. The production value is terrible, the reused the news set for the FBI HQ. That would be fine if it weren't for the fact that the set was terrible to begin with. They didn't even change a single thing about it. And the news itself doesn't come close to something that can convince you it is an actual news network. In addition the guns don't sound like guns when they fire and when there is an explosion you don't see any damage on someone who was caught in it. The same holds true for bullets Many thing aren't addressed, such as how the protagonist was able to get things such as land mines and rpgs. The acting IS something to write home about though, but not in a good way. It is slow and dull and I don't know if this was their idea or not, but it seems like they tried to spice it up with excessive swearing. Seriously, how many F-bombs do you need? Anyway, the film ends with riots in the streets as people are killing anyone who is doing better than them (they say the rich, but no one looked like an aristocratic). Furthermore, they blame it all on "Right Wing Anarchists." It also uses the stereotype of a white bald guy with a gun as one of these terrorists. I would continue more and try and take apart this film piece by piece but 1,000 words isn't enough to tell you how bad this movie is. Plus I don't want to dwell on this movie any longer as it literally gave me a head ache. If I had a physical copy of this movie I would put it in the burn barrel, light it on fire, pour gasoline on it, light the flames on fire, take it's ashes and then burn those. I would then take the ashes' ashes, put them in a jar, send them to the director and writer and burn those. So to sum up: I don't like this movie.

I didn't really have expectations with "President Down", I have seen the first two movies and for me there's a darkness and chill that suggests that the trilogy is closer to horror/thriller than action. Brenden Fletcher seems to look madder and scarier and as an anti-hero you get the feeling he's not that likable a person; highly intelligent yet potentially volatile, not the type of person you take home to mother... Somehow I was gripped by President Down, low budget and weak script aside, the message is powerful, the fantasy of one person making an impact whereby "the people" take back their power and follow the (somewhat jumbled) message... However, the message is powerful and although the use of violence/control to instigate a potential egalitarian society never works; the sophomoric use of action and sensationalism at least will attract some people that need the message/parable to casually sink into their subconscious. Overall it's a worthwhile watch if you want your noodles cooked (brain stimulated) but don't expect high end action or deeply choreographed fight scenes. President Down deserves a watch as the thinkers will find it intriguing...

The first Rampage had some awesome dark humor and the 2nd film had the important and effective monologues which made those 2 films just wicked. I waited 2 years to see this and was hoping that this would supercede them both. Sadly, it didn't. #2 drove home some very strong themes and the first created the real anti-hero. #3 missed a very crucial point....the killing of the head man in the White House and his second in command. That was a very important and integral part of the story from the first movie and built it up in the second...only to fall and fail in the third. Not only was that missed, but the planning stage of the assassination of the Pres and the vice pres. He also missed how Bill eluded them for 2 years and how he got to meet Crystal, his wife. There was another 1/2 hour that should have been but wasn't there and was badly needed to put the entire saga into a finale which would just blow every other film away. Yes, the budget wasn't as big as the previous...but there should have been ways to do it - otherwise some lesser known politician should have been the focal point of the manhunt and this would have played out far better. With a kill count well into the hundreds, Bill's story with him doing in 3 key people in the White House missed the mark severely, which is sad - because the entire concept has a massive potential and appeal to build a massive audience to the series. However, the forest shootout scene was very well done and the editing was clean for the FBI shootout. This film shows signs of being low budget and should have had the budget 3 times that of the previous to efficiently and effectively make this a masterpiece and a classic in the same vein as Taxi Driver was and still is. I would have loved to see what was edited out in the film, because I am close to certain that maybe would have pushed what is one of my favourite series into another few notches not only on IMDb but also in film history to be a classic and memorable and important film for decades to come. Uwe has done some wonderful films - yes, and some poor ones too, but this was to impact generations during the crisis of economics, political landscapes with dramatic new up and coming changes for the next presidency election and world matters..and this could have made a brutal and crucial impact and changes on very important topics for legislation and voting and how society will accept our new leaders and policies in these unstable times. A film as violent as the first and as dramatic as the second with brutal delivery from Brendan Fletcher to his followers in a locked TV station doesn't bring nearly as much punch to the 3rd as expected. In a way I was very let down...Bill Williamson stood for our outrage against injustice and greed and in some cases just plain old stupidity...here, he misses that important point and the story just seems to pass by without nearly as much interest or emotion or importance. There was no memorable dialogue which whacked us in the head and woke us up and no dark humor to hammer it in deeper. Thanks for the closure Uwe, but I would have wished that this piece was like the best and biggest explosion ...like a 10 megaton nuclear bomb exploding for us to sift through the rubble and pick up tiny pieces and fragments of our shattered life while we are scarred and ripped to shreds hoping for something that we can cling to for a chance of a meager last breath of life. Instead it was like a firecracker which left little destruction and quickly disappeared for us to admire....only for us wanting to see more. Well, at least it was better than Batman VS Superman!