MovieChat Forums > Rampage (2010) Discussion > Everyone missed the point of this film.

Everyone missed the point of this film.


This film is a statement against eugenics and far left environmental extremists. The killer's rhetoric sounds like Obama's science Czar's eugenics book in the 70's... the whole "the population is too great large", population control ideology, pushed by the scientific elite, the far left academia, that brainwash the youth about "population control". This movie is a huge statement against radical eugenics. Eric Holdren Obama's own science Czar, wrote a book promoting population control in the 70's.... he was a total eugenics believer, as was the killer in this film. That is the point of the film. Be careful of radical s scientific dictatorship and the pushed eugenics agenda, often pushed by academia and powerful elitists.

reply

No. The point of this movie is to anger people who respect the art of film. It's a troll and so is all of Uwe Boll's career.

Uwe Boll is the kind of guy that thinks he could be an assassin in real life because he's good at playing violent video games. Then he makes movies like this just to prove that he can.

reply

[deleted]

You're wrong. It's pro-left. Uwe Boll himself is a far-left guy (as you can see in almost all of his interviews) and he said in an interview 'Bill is a psycho... but what he says is right'. There you have it - the film is PRO population control.

reply

The right-wing, specifically the Nazis, were the only people who actually tried to implement eugenics in the real world as a state policy, to stop Jewish blood, the handicapped, and other non-Aryan descended Europeans from being part of the gene pool. In the US, the KKK which got anti-miscegenation laws and laws against mixed race marriages on the books was also right-wing. I think I know where you get all your knowledge, but apparently you need to read a history book, unless you think those are all written by left wing radicals, too. I'm sorry you think that giving teen girls access to birth control so they don't up unwed single moms on welfare is "population control," but it's a complete lie to tie it to eugenics, which you then try to tie to the "far left" even though Obama and Holder are center-right politicians. And BTW Eric Holder was Attorney General, not science czar.

reply

There's a dizzying amount of stupidity on this board (that's on a level I invariably avoid engaging in for obvious reasons), making your comment stand out as one coming from an intelligent being, thus why I'm bothering...

That said, I'm challenging the following statement:

The right-wing [...] were the only people who actually tried to implement eugenics in the real world as a state policy...


Eugenic aims, in the form of compulsory sterilization policies implement by various governments, were quite popular throughout the world from the late 1800s until after the end of WWII when, in light of Hitler's actions, such endeavours were then seen as a negative. Nonetheless, and though it still goes on today in some parts of the world, it took much time for laws to change, e.g. California repealed its eugenic laws in 1963; Alberta in 1972; Czech government held sterilization practices from 1973 to 2001. These are just a few examples, and International laws barring such practices didn't come into force until 2002 (Rome Statute).
Keep in mind that the motivation wasn't always blood; some efforts were linked to population control (#s, not race) while others targeted mental and physical handicaps, as well as asocial sexual and criminal behaviours, which could, as was believed, be genetically passed on.

So, examining the myriad cases of "real world" policy implementations, how can anyone claim this as a right-wing-related issue (or even a left-wing one, for that matter)? It seems to me--and though I don't have a ready-answer to such a complex subject--that such policies transgress political ideologies, though political ideology affects its imposition.


Ignorance is bliss... 'til it posts on the Internet, then, it's annoying.

reply

The main ideology, if you want to call it that, featured in it is cynicism. He doesn't believe in his friends ideologies at all but he has come up with a plan on how to use them to get what he wants. It's a "the system is broken" kind of message.

"In what society would a young man consider this a good plan?" could sum it up.
He's playing on something as grim as the standard m.o. of a mass shooter and how the aftermath usually plays out to hide his tracks. Implied criticism is that there is such a standard, that it's so common there can even be expectations at all.

But keeping in mind Uwe Boll is a left leaning guy it's probably safe to say he's mostly taking aim at American gun culture, low upwards social mobility, corporate special interests rigging the system, and all that good stuff. 

But when you take it to actually promoting eugenics and population control and that Illuminati sh*t you're in cuckoo banana pants territory. Do you really think Uwe Boll gets invited to the Eyes Wide Shut parties where they decide what movies to socially engineer us with? 

reply