IMDb > The Rage (2007) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Rage
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Rage More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]
Index 36 reviews in total 

10 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Crazy, cheap, bloody fun.

Author: BA_Harrison from Hampshire, England
28 March 2008

Fans of trashy horror rejoice, for Robert Kurtzman, the 'K' from awesome effects team KNB, has given us The Rage: a demented, dumb gore-soaked film that manages to go from simply mad in the first half, to completely insane towards the end.

Featuring terrible acting, dodgy CGI effects, and bucket-loads of cheesy gore, this film sure isn't going to be to everyone's taste, but those who dig crazy schlock horror will have a blast: Kurtzman throws in everything but the kitchen sink to guarantee an enjoyable ride for gore-hounds.

Andrew Divoff (who also starred in Kurtzman's The Wishmaster) stars as Dr. Viktor Vasilienko, a Russian scientist who decides to punish capitalist society after a money-hungry drugs conglomerate steals his cure for cancer (because their 'preventative' medicine is far more profitable than a cure), discredits him, and sends him to an insane asylum. Vasilienko eventually escapes and plots revenge, creating a virus called The Rage, which turns victims into uncontrollable bloodthirsty maniacs; only when his cancer cure is publicly acknowledged will he release the antidote.

Things go awry, however, when one of the mad scientist's test subjects escapes into the woods, dies and become vulture fodder: the birds also contract The Rage, and become airborne killers, which is not good news for a bunch of 'twenty-somethings' (including Erin Brown AKA Misty Mundae, star of many a soft-core sex flick) who are travelling through the area in their RV.

With shonky vomiting mad-vulture puppets, a death-during-sex scene (always a winner), a killer hunchback dwarf wearing the face and hair of a little girl (and grunting silly phrases such as 'kiss the monkey'!), giant leech attacks, and CGI feces (seen as a pole is rammed into the ass of a bald, blind 'zombie' called Gor!), The Rage is sheer low-budget lunacy from a film-maker who is obviously having loads of fun entertaining us.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Highly entertaining gore festival.

Author: stormruston from victoria bc
7 May 2008

I am not sure why this movie is only at 4.4? Sure its the quality of the re-animator or from beyond, but those where great "B" movies. So is this and the effects with the exception of the vultures are pretty good! This movie is gruesome from start to finish and only truly tasteless once.

The sort of bad:

The vultures? Who the hell thought up those and how much was spent on them? Not much! But the juxtaposition between their violence and comical look actually added to the sur-realness of the mayhem.

The pretty good:

Plenty of gore and blood in this little gem of a "B" movie. And good scene chewing by Andrew Divoff, he is great! The rest of the cast are pretty good too. Everything about this movie is over the top and every death is a gory one.

There is a lot of entertainment to be had in this movie if you do not take it seriously, and who could? But just watch it for what it is: a classic "B" gore fest along the lines of the re-animator.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Somewhere above average?

Author: lucius_420 from Austin, Texas
28 February 2008

Seriously demented. Love it! I think those were maybe giant mutated zombie leeches cause they came out of the water? When she pulled it off and looked at it, that totally made me think of the leeches from the movie Slither. Kind of similar to that film in the way that there are different types of threats. The mad doctor was probably the best actor, he was great. His character seemed the most developed also, he had the most background story -complete with flashbacks! Decent cinema-tech. Cool gore. Zombie vultures that throw peoples heads around. Igor and Frankenstein's Monster. The main heroes seemed to have either had a very bad script or a director who thought it was alright for them to say "Come on, we have to keep going" so many times that I lost count, but the good parts of the movie made up for the super cheesy lines. It seemed that most of the budget for this movie was spent on the gore and computer animated effects? Lots of blood. I recommend this movie! The part where the uncle sees the little girl all messed up and then you see him take out his nephew with a large branch was up to snuff as far as horrific goes I think. Who wouldn't be creeped out by the kid scene? There were definitely a few shout outs to more than a few horror films and classics.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

It isn't all the Rage

Author: movieman_kev from United States
30 March 2008

A crazed Russian doctor (Andrew Divoff of Wishmaster) experiments with a deadly new virus that turns people (and birds) into bloodthirsty mutants gets in hot water when the virus gets loose and starts infecting those in the surrounding area creating havoc for a group of teens who were out partying at an outdoor Mushroomhead concert in the nearby woods. Woodenly acted from an awfully stupefying script. The movie quite knowingly seems to be a homage to '80's cult films (mainly Evil Dead & Re-animator), but lacks the wit to pull it off as a good movie itself, despite the presence of otherwise talented Divoff, Erin Brown, and Reggie Bannister (the latter in more or less a cameo). May be perfectly acceptable fodder for 2:15 AM after a night of bar-hopping, but watching it unintoxicated is not really recommended.

Eye Candy: Angela Gasparec gets topless

DVD Extras: Commentary by Director/Writer Robert Kurtzman and writer John Bisson; an 80-minute Making-of featurette; photo stills gallery; 2 music videos by Mushroomhead;and Trailers for "Trailer Park Boys: the movie" & "Big bad Wolf"

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

The kind of movie my mom wouldn't like

Author: gedanielson from United States
1 March 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A group of us watched The Rage, and thought it was pretty gory and pretty much fun. And you hope it would be, being directed by Robert Kurtzman of special effect house KNB. Kurtzman is the guy I just don't remember of the trio. Howard Berger and Greg Nicotero are the two I see all the time. They first worked together on George Romero's Day of the Dead. They met Kurtzman on Evil Dead II. As a company they have done make-up and special effects for many many great movies. Sadly, I didn't even recognize Kurtzman's name at the start of the movie. His being there certainly would explain the continuous gore effects. As the movie opens a crazy doctor with a wish for vengeance is experimenting on some kidnapped travelers. A poor family got caught, the doc's just killed mom, and now it's dad's turn to give his life to science. When the experiment goes wrong, doc gets infected with his own mutating rage virus. It both mutates you and makes you mad. Then you need to eat someone. Can doc get to the antidote in time to stop his head from swelling up? There's a juicy slam fest of a fight in the last half of that opening scene, as the doc and dad, both rapidly mutating, and mad, duke it out in the lab. And what a filth hole that place is, blood and corpse parts all over, and a cage filled with failed experiments who are eating a little girl. One is a midget who will wear her clothes, face and hair. Geeze! It seemed funnier in the movie. Anyway, things are going to hell in a beaker as the doc and his victim battle it out. They take their fight out doors, some vultures get in on the act and the virus is on a flight path to the rest of the world. We next meet some kids who are having a drug and sex filled night at an outdoor rave of some sort. Real band Mushroomhead is playing. Next day the kids meet up with the vultures and Reggie Bannister. You might recognize him if you're a Phantasm fan. He helps the hero in that movie, here he eats a little girl. It's okay, she was already dead. And that's only the first ten minutes or so. It's a blood bath as the kids run from one place to another, getting picked off one by one, before the leftovers wind up in the lab. It's still a mess and there's a basement that's even worse. It's not a movie for the viscous impaired, or my mom. Most of the sets and physical effects were pretty good. Lots of experience behind their creation. The vulture puppets were great, while still being puppets, and the CGI versions of them were fair to middlin'. We all agreed that the vultures were a great menace. They like people. For snacks. They're mad, and they bite real well. Most of the CGI was acceptable, and we believe that was the first CGI poop we'd seen. The acting was a mixed bag, some of our players better than others. The story had some goofy stuff in it and the dialog didn't alway keep us on the edge of our seats. But it has that fun sense of humor that made us laugh along with it. And occasionally at it. Not for everybody but certainly something most horror fans should find enjoyable.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Cobbler, stick to your trade

Author: kosmasp
1 February 2009

I really love the first Wishmaster movie. I even think that the second one is really good too. Both are with Andrew Divoff, who I had the pleasure of meeting personally at a convention. But more about that on a forthcoming Wishmaster review. Andrew Divoff plays a Russian scientist, that's all I'm going to say (which doesn't spoil anything), but never fully develops any of his previous screen charisma (apparent especially in the Wishmaster movies, but also in smaller roles (see Brisco County Jr. and others).

Robert Kurtzman, who also directed the first Wishmaster movie, and was part of the famous KNB-FX Group (K being his initial of course), alone was a guarantee that the movie would be good ... well at least that's what I thought ... boy was I wrong! Relying on CGI rather than on "hands-on" Special FX, which Kurtzman could've done himself (and pretty good) was one of the baddest decision he could make ... saying it looks fake, would be a disgrace to the word "fake".

The acting? Apart from the aforementioned Divoff, there's only Reggie Bannister who could work as a saving Grace. But the Phantasm star, doesn't have a chance to do so ... But then again, it's not the most original script they're working with, so I don't know, if you really can blame any of the actors (well maybe some of them at least). Of course, a movie like this does not rely on acting and or a fancy story. But as the CGI doesn't work, but against the movie, the sparse real effects, cannot elevate this experience into any level, that makes it really feel like entertainment. It's bloody alright, but you can and should expect more than that! Not to mention that the soundtrack (sounds) can and do get pretty annoying! Problem if you watch it at a theater? You can't turn the volume down, neither fast forward! But just because you can at home, doesn't mean you should try it ... I strongly recommend against that!

Of course there are movies, worse than that (quite a few actually), but this also isn't an argument and/or point that works for the movie! I really hate to say it, but stray away from this movie (I didn't even get into the video quality and other stuff)

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Classic Gore-Horror

Author: daijen222 from United States
22 March 2008

Man, I love classic horror. Add monstrous, blood-soaked gore, and I am hooked.

This flick has it all!

A thorough mix of modern cinema and old-time thrill, this is my kind of movie. It's scary, violent, and sometimes vile! If you want a warm body pressed against you in the dark, this is the movie to watch. Pick your favorite partner, make a cool drink, pop some popcorn, and get ready for business.

It's a fun, bloody, classic ride from zero to one thousand in no seconds flat!

Kudos to Robert Kurtzman and Compmany.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Great gore flick.

Author: grotesqueomnidemon1 from United States
29 February 2008

This flick was entertaining in all of its bad a good glory.

It's basically about a Russian scientist with his lab in the woods experimenting with a rage serum in which he infects his human test subjects. One of the infected gets out and dies in the woods where upon vultures feed on the corpse and get infected as well. So then of course teens leaving a rave party are left stranded in the woods and are attacked by the blood thirsty birds.

The acting was not the greatest at all, barely passable, but not distractingly horrible.

The CGI effect were also lacking, but again effective. Mainly the CGI was for the vultures, but a couple of awful looking explosions and one decapitated corpse spewing blood was thrown in.

Where this movie really shined was in the gore effects, which were fantastic. Not only that but tons of it is present here. Also, the flick didn't take itself seriously, so a good laugh can be found at times.

I should also mention that movies about killer avians really throw me off to the point of where I'd rather not even watch one, no matter how good they may be. Without spoiling anything I would just have to say give this one a try, you'll find more than your typical "killer birds" flick.

Overall I was impressed and entertained by this B movie gore fest.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Uneven horror film

Author: TdSmth5 from US
19 May 2008

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A mad Russian scientist works on a potion to infest humans with uncontrollable rage and making them look rather sick and deformed. Of course, things go wrong in the lab and he is himself infected. The disease ends up spreading to vultures feasting on the corpses of the infected and in turn, vulture vomit (!?) infects humans. Things start out quite gory.

Next we meet a bunch of dope-head teenagers partying and driving around the woods in their RV. They eventually are attacked and pursued by our vicious CGI vultures. This part of the movie is the weakest. There is very little character development of these kids, not even the lovely Erin Brown (aka Misty) can save this. While CGI allows these vultures to be quite brutal, the effect is too obvious, and GCI gore is not convincing, not to mention that they are nearly indestructible. And frankly watching kids running around and being attacked by some birds is just not entertaining at all.

Eventually the kids reach the cabin of our scientist who by now is nearly fully transformed into a rage creature and still working but now with some very creepy and fun sidekicks. We've seen plenty of freaky humanoids recently, but these fellows are pretty weird. This immediately reinvigorates the movie from the lackluster RV part. We find out why the scientist is doing what he is doing, and it's a good story, actually, something I haven't seen anywhere else.

The Rage obviously could have been much better without the vulture element. It could have been a great monster/slasher film with rage creatures on the lose and terrorizing teens. More nudity was needed, the real gore is great, the CGI not so much. The acting could use improvement except for the actor in the role of the scientist who is the only interesting character in the film. It is almost as if the cabin sequences were made at a different time by a different director.

A good effort, that has some weaknesses but it's still campy and fun. A sequel with more budget would be great.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

I was giving this movie the benefit of the doubt,....

Author: HorrorInside from United States
28 July 2015

..... but after just 30 mins I had to stop watching it. I can't believe there was a $2M budget for this movie, what a waste of money. This is something you would expect to find on Syfy because zombie vultures? SERIOUSLY? SMH! I don't know how it ends and quite frankly I don't care either. It's truly laughable.

I can't believe I actually hunted and hunted for this movie to check it out and I could rant on and on about how HORRIBLE this movie is/was, but it's wasted enough of my time already. If you haven't seen this movie, DON'T bother. You would be better off punching yourself in the face for entertainment!

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 4:[1] [2] [3] [4] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history