This is my first review of a movie in a long time, so long in fact that my previous user name was forgotten. More recently I've noticed a trend on IMDb that reflects the dawning of a different pedigree of reviewer than previous generations. I felt that I should "take it back" as I have had more and more misgivings about the ratings from this site. Maybe I'm just getting older or maybe the internet generation has wildly different norms than mine. I feel like it is my duty to balance the scale!

I'm neither a fan, if they exist or a hater of Uwe Boll but I believe the rating on this film is higher than it should be. Anyone familiar with Uwe Boll knows that he could care less what people say about his films, which in of itself is both good and bad, at least as a director. Most of his films are NOT very good at all but neither are they as bad as people who hate Boll say.

That said the movie is basically a commentary on particular views of the state of the US, corruption, power, overpopulation, exploitation, and a few other things. Some of it is fairly idiotic though. You could literally summarize most of the key points in a paragraph and not watch the movie unless you were interested in seeing the violence instead, to which you could easily find better. I agreed with most of the points made but the violence the main character seemed to indifferently inflict took away so heavily from the message that rooting for such a deranged character became pointless. This is not saying that I have never imagined myself in a similar scenario, but it makes for a shitty movie when the protagonist shoots anyone he likes just because it makes him feel good. Pretty much a bad guy despite the attempt by Boll to turn him into a anti-hero instead. To give you an idea, this character shares some of the same beliefs as the Joker from The Dark Knight but is not nearly as entertaining, even though acting for the most part was pretty good. The main character is simply one-dimensional, the violence that was meant to be shocking is really not. The only thing left that makes the movie stand is the message. And as I've said it could be summarized into a short paragraph. I have a notion the type of people who would like this film will be angst ridden teenage boys/young men who harbor anti-establishment views and want to ride a chariot of fire. I should know, I was one, but I find the presentation of this adolescent and somewhat psychotic. There is little wisdom here and more nihilism than anything else.

I enjoyed the first "Rampage" movie for the senseless mayhem and violence that Uwe Boll had unleashed upon the world, and I was thrilled to find out about this sequel.

And now having had the chance to sit down and watch it, I must admit that I was entertained. And I still don't get the fuss about Uwe Boll being a bad director is all about. I enjoy his movies, because they are filled with action, got some interesting political and social aspects that are usually not seen in other movies. I mean, the way that "Rampage: Capital Punishment" ended with a very young girl walking down the street with a gun after having been told to use it on her parents and then on herself, that is not something you see every day, most certainly not from the American cinema.

"Rampage: Capital Punishment" was almost as great as the first movie, but where as the first movie was more based on random violence and senseless killing of random people, the sequel does take up a more political statement about the laws of guns in USA and the results of such laws.

Sure, there wasn't as high a body count in the sequel compared to the first movie, but the dialogue in the sequel was more intense, and there was a lot more thought put behind it. So this movie have potential to get people worked up about the gun laws and the result of people having easy access to firearms.

Once again Brendan Fletcher steals the screen in the role of Bill Williamson, and he does it with flying colors. He really carries the movie quite nicely, and he is actually a nice actor. It seemed that he was really committed to the particular role.

And I must say that I am looking forward to a third movie in the "Rampage" series, if one is to be made.

The reason I am rating the sequel 7 out of 10 stars, and not 8 as I did with the first movie, is because I had expected more action and violence from the movie. But what it lacked in that department, it made up for with a well-thought through storyline with some interesting social and political statements.

This is another Uwe Boll film which always promises plenty of blood shed and a political message. In this production Bill Williamson (Brendan Fletcher) goes on a well planned killing spree and holds a news station hostage in order to get out his message.

Bill is a psychopath who has been influenced by the far right, far left and anarchist dogma. His heroes are Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Karl Marx. The movie is all about the message. Bill is upset that the rich have wealth and power and no one is killing them...hence the duo meaning of "Capital Punishment." Bill has a mixed message of government controlling our lives, i.e "the illusion of freedom", yet in the US there is no gun control or no universal health care system, i.e. government controls. Obama is guilty of violating the principles of the Magna Carta and he should have prosecuted the Bush administration for war crimes. He justifies killing people, any person by stating the planet is over populated and we need to reduce the numbers. He wants to use the Hitler technique of killing people rather than the slightly more humane methods or sterilization, family planning or forced abortion to achieve this goal.

Uwe Boll uses Bill to get the message out that we need to kill the rich. The DVD cover was apparently done by someone who doesn't know the difference between capital and capitol as this film apparently takes place in California (?), filmed in Canada.

Fans of this type of film might want to see "Harodim," "John Doe Vigilante," or something with "Purge" in the title.

Parental Guide: F-bomb. No sex or nudity.