I've been looking forward tremendously to "Rage" and pretty much knew for certain that I would like it, even though the film is rather obscure, unsung and quite difficult to come across. It certainly isn't a hidden gem or undiscovered classic, but I have a personal weakness for "rural" and politically themed drama/thrillers from the early seventies period; especially when a few interesting names are involved. In this case, it's one of the rare movies that George C. Scott directed himself, next to also starring in the lead role. Scott stars as Dan Logan, a widower and sheep herder living on an enormous ranch in the secluded countryside of Wyoming together with his teenage son Chris. During a crystal clear summer night, father and son decide to camp on their estate, but the next morning Dan finds his son in a critical unconscious condition. At the local hospital, Major Holliford already knows that they were both accidentally contaminated by a new type of military chemical/nerve gas due to a leak in the tank of a plane. The whole situation is covered up and handled with deep secrecy; so much even that Dan Logan isn't informed about his own son's death. Although suffering from the symptoms himself, Dan escapes from the hospital and sets out on a violent journey to unravel the ugly truth. The subject matter of "Rage" is truly compelling and also quite unsettling, since the events don't seem too far-fetched or unimaginable at all, but it doesn't result in the most spectacular action movie. The entire first hour is mainly talkative and slow, with protagonist George C. Scott lying sedated in a hospital bed and military doctor Martin Sheen professionally misleading Logan's regular physician and the rest of the medical staff. The final half hour is more lively and exciting, but it nevertheless remains somewhat unsatisfying. Dan Logan goes out on a furious John Rambo type of quest for vengeance, complete with stealing dirt bikes and setting off explosives, but eventually never achieves his mission. He kills a bunch of people, but they are all innocent marionettes (like policemen, security guards and even a playful ginger kitten!) while the real military harm-doers remain untouchable. As the director, Scott most certainly demonstrates that he's able to insert stylish little details and visionary touches, particularly through unexpectedly odd camera angles and enchanting slow-motion shots. "Rage" certainly isn't fundamental viewing, but still comes warmly recommended in case you enjoy conspiracy thrillers and/or the works of George C. Scott.
35 Reviews
The smell of cover-up
bkoganbing29 August 2015
George C. Scott has only one competitor as a player who can do a better Rage than him and that is Kirk Douglas. It's kind of fitting that one of them have on his list of credits a film entitled Rage.
I remember seeing this in the theater back in 1972 and it was one of those first films that showed the American government as something less than wise and benevolent. All the more so because Scott is one of those middle American characters who is a true believer in the Stars&Stripes and all it stand for.
Scott is a widower who owns a small sheep ranch and he and his son Nicholas Beauvy who is better known as one of the young men mentored by John Wayne in The Cowboys. As they decide to camp out with the sheep an army helicopter is flying in their vicinity. The next day Beauvy is very sick and Scott takes his son to a nearby hospital.
Where all kind of people from the military as represented by Dr. Martin Sheen and the Public Health Service as represented by Barnard Hughes are very interested in his case. Scott is admitted too and the smell of cover-up proves too much for Scott's personal physician Richard Basehart.
I can't go beyond this other than Scott's given an unbelievable amount of justification for declaring a personal war on the army and the government it fights for.
Scott hits several levels with his performance. His Rage and anger to be sure, but it's all mixed in with both sorrow and betrayal. Director Scott did well by actor Scott.
In many ways Rage is a film for today's audience and I recommend it highly.
I remember seeing this in the theater back in 1972 and it was one of those first films that showed the American government as something less than wise and benevolent. All the more so because Scott is one of those middle American characters who is a true believer in the Stars&Stripes and all it stand for.
Scott is a widower who owns a small sheep ranch and he and his son Nicholas Beauvy who is better known as one of the young men mentored by John Wayne in The Cowboys. As they decide to camp out with the sheep an army helicopter is flying in their vicinity. The next day Beauvy is very sick and Scott takes his son to a nearby hospital.
Where all kind of people from the military as represented by Dr. Martin Sheen and the Public Health Service as represented by Barnard Hughes are very interested in his case. Scott is admitted too and the smell of cover-up proves too much for Scott's personal physician Richard Basehart.
I can't go beyond this other than Scott's given an unbelievable amount of justification for declaring a personal war on the army and the government it fights for.
Scott hits several levels with his performance. His Rage and anger to be sure, but it's all mixed in with both sorrow and betrayal. Director Scott did well by actor Scott.
In many ways Rage is a film for today's audience and I recommend it highly.
Unpleasant and not as effective as it could have been.
planktonrules20 April 2017
George C. Scott plays a rancher who, along with his son, is exposed to a chemical weapon due to a mistake the Army made. However, instead of being up front about it, the military places doctors on the case (Barnard Hughes and Martin Sheen) who lie continually to the man...not letting him know that his son had died and that his prognosis is grim. When he does discover they've been lying to him, he decides to go out in a blaze of glory...with a series of violent attacks in order to try to get the faceless military to pay for their crimes.
While the plot is good, the execution isn't. It's simply a guy going Rambo and killing a few people in a somewhat pointless rampage. The overall feeling is grim and awful and it's a movie no one can enjoy. Now I am NOT saying a film about chemical weapons need to be fun....but it should have more depth than this. Violent and depressing.
While the plot is good, the execution isn't. It's simply a guy going Rambo and killing a few people in a somewhat pointless rampage. The overall feeling is grim and awful and it's a movie no one can enjoy. Now I am NOT saying a film about chemical weapons need to be fun....but it should have more depth than this. Violent and depressing.
A Slow Fuse
dougdoepke5 September 2015
While camping out, a Wyoming sheep rancher and his son are accidentally sprayed with a secret poison. The boy dies while the military covers up its mistake, enlisting civilian personnel in the cover-up. But will the father find out, and if so, what will he do.
It's important to keep in mind that the screenplay is based on a true 1968 occurrence. The Pentagon covered up poisonous contamination of several thousand sheep in Utah, and only admitted it after overwhelming evidence. I assume they were wary of being seen experimenting with poisonous chemical at a time when the Vietnam War was going badly. The movie itself is very methodical. The first part dealing with the cover-up shows how deception is spread among medical and military professionals. Surprisingly, however, no higher justifications such as national security are cited. It's more like an embarrassment than a security breach.
Anyway, Scott really low-keys it throughout, being good-citizen cooperative even as he's fed one lie after another about his son. Even after he finds out the truth, his rage is more intense than histrionic. I guess I was expecting him to explode in the scary way that only he can. Apparently, the actor wasn't happy with his performance (TCM), blaming it on his divided roles as both director and lead performer.
All in all, the movie's like a slow fuse being lit until it finally goes off. Just how sane Logan (Scott) is during those climactic moments is, of course, anybody's guess. Considering what's happened to him, his actions are understandable, if not excusable (innocents die). At the same time, the lessons are, if anything, more relevant now than then, especially with the rise of our national security state and its mass surveillance program.
(In passing—this is one of the few films I've seen to actually portray death throes as the person expires. Kudoes to Scott for including such a disturbing detail that traditional Hollywood avoided like the plague. More of that and audiences might take a different view of movie violence.)
It's important to keep in mind that the screenplay is based on a true 1968 occurrence. The Pentagon covered up poisonous contamination of several thousand sheep in Utah, and only admitted it after overwhelming evidence. I assume they were wary of being seen experimenting with poisonous chemical at a time when the Vietnam War was going badly. The movie itself is very methodical. The first part dealing with the cover-up shows how deception is spread among medical and military professionals. Surprisingly, however, no higher justifications such as national security are cited. It's more like an embarrassment than a security breach.
Anyway, Scott really low-keys it throughout, being good-citizen cooperative even as he's fed one lie after another about his son. Even after he finds out the truth, his rage is more intense than histrionic. I guess I was expecting him to explode in the scary way that only he can. Apparently, the actor wasn't happy with his performance (TCM), blaming it on his divided roles as both director and lead performer.
All in all, the movie's like a slow fuse being lit until it finally goes off. Just how sane Logan (Scott) is during those climactic moments is, of course, anybody's guess. Considering what's happened to him, his actions are understandable, if not excusable (innocents die). At the same time, the lessons are, if anything, more relevant now than then, especially with the rise of our national security state and its mass surveillance program.
(In passing—this is one of the few films I've seen to actually portray death throes as the person expires. Kudoes to Scott for including such a disturbing detail that traditional Hollywood avoided like the plague. More of that and audiences might take a different view of movie violence.)
Scott's Directorial Debut
G-Man-2514 November 2002
George C Scott stars and makes his directorial debut in this tense but ultimately pointless drama about a peaceful rancher who goes on a rampage of revenge after a botched military nerve-gas experiment conducted over his land leads to the death of his young son. You can feel Scott's character's frustration as he's lied to and stone-walled from every angle by the military bureaucrats who want to cover up the incident. Scott knows how to keep things moving and shows some stylish touches in the director's chair, but he can't keep the ending from being disappointing and unsatisfying. Still, all said, it's a fairly absorbing ride while it lasts. It's a movie that will likely stay with you long after the end credits roll.
Classic late night cable tv entertainment
szovati27 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I was born the year this film came out (72). As a kid I remember seeing the end scene of Scott Floundering on the ground as his death slowly happened. Thanks to Warner Archives, I've now seen it as an adult and can tell you it's another gem for Scott's resume. It's also directed by him - including wtf slow motion spitting and coffee cup emptying. Also, why is he wearing thick eyebrows?? He shouts a cat with a what looks like a long barreled German Luger LoL. Why is everyone wearing thick, dark brimmed Buddy Holly glasses?? This film is worth watching for all of its quirkiness alone. It's basically a revenge drama about a father going agonist the government after his son is killed by an accidental poisonous pesticide. Martin Sheen also stars. Classic 70's stuff.
Good, but could have been better.
Hey_Sweden16 July 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The legendary actor George C. Scott's theatrical directing debut is a decent revenge tale, one with some flaws, but it's still a slick, professionally made, and reasonably compelling yarn. Scott plays Dan Logan, a nice guy farmer out camping with his son Chris (Nicolas Beauvy) when they are accidentally exposed to a nerve gas that the Army was testing. It becomes clear that all the military wants to do is cover up the incident, and keep Dan in the dark, even when Chris dies. And naturally, once Dan learns the ugly reality of the whole situation, he determinedly seeks brutal revenge. Scott, working from a screenplay by Philip Friedman and Dan Kleinman, knows how to reel us in, with an extended pre-credits sequence serving up some heartwarming father and son bonding and then introducing the element of the nerve gas. Scott occasionally goes for some stylistic touches, particularly when it comes to slow motion, but mostly just sticks to telling the story in a straightforward manner, taking advantage of the Panavision aspect ratio in the way people and things are arranged in the frame. Fred J. Koenekamp does the beautiful cinematography and Lalo Schifrin supplies a wonderful music score. Now, it should be very easy to sympathize with Logan and root for him to hold the Army accountable, and it is at first, but his descent into cold blooded murder and nastiness is a pretty abrupt one, making it hard to really be on his side the entire time. Also, the authorities striving to keep things quiet do slip up more than once, which is rather contrived considering all the steps one would think they would be taking. And a key moment where Logan learns the truth about his own fate is not shown on screen and one would have to wonder why it would be left out. In any event, Scott keeps this watchable throughout, delivering a quietly intense performance and not resorting to much in the way of histrionics. He also ably directs a top notch supporting cast including Richard Basehart (very warm as Logan's physician and old friend), Martin Sheen, and Barnard Hughes, with familiar folk such as Stephen Young, Kenneth Tobey, Robert Walden, William Jordan, Dabbs Greer, John Dierkes, Lou Frizzell, and Ed Lauter in smaller roles. Overall, even with its flaws it's still pretty entertaining. Six out of 10.
Toxic...
moonspinner5528 July 2007
Scrappy, ultimately pointless scare-tactics drama with George C. Scott playing a rancher who, along with his son, is accidentally sprayed with toxic chemicals by the military while on a camp-out. Scott made his directorial debut here and does a fine job handling the actors, as well as himself. Unfortunately, Scott's continuity as a filmmaker is spotty; worse, his vision of this material is singularly unimaginative, with routine action and set-ups which don't involve the viewer. The anti-military undermining isn't so much provocative as it is half-baked, and the narrative of the film strays. Martin Sheen, Richard Basehart and Barnard Hughes are all worth-watching here, and Scott as always is a magnetic screen performer, but this 'message film' is awfully tepid. ** from ****
Who is angrier than George C. Scott? No one, that's who!
raegan_butcher13 April 2006
***THIS COMMENT MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*** Maybe its me but there was something about this film that worked on my nerves like a tongue on a rotten tooth. It's based on a true incident in Utah in which an Army truck dropped a cannister filled with nerve gas and a butt-load of sheep bought the proverbial farm. But if the wind had happened to be blowing in the direction of Salt Lake City that day...
George C. Scott (wearing what looks distractingly like fake eyebrows) directed and stars in this fictionalized account of a farmer and his young son who are accidentally poisoned with nerve gas by the Army.
Perhaps its my own experiences at the hands of prison doctors that makes the many scenes of bloodless technocrats abstractly speaking about the opportunity to study nerve gas symptoms and blithely LYING with their every breath so quietly, eerily effective.
After being lied to in the worst possible way by all responsible, George C. Scott's doomed farmer wreaks some almost Rambo-like revenge! I had heard about this movie for years and always wondered just what sort of havoc Mr Scott would wreak went he went into his RAGE... It was quite something to see him shooting security guards in the face and generally going postal. One can certainly understand where he is coming from. A film like this would never be made today, especially with a major movie star both directing and starring. George C Scott knows how to handle actors--this is probably one of Richard Baseheart's best performances--full of great conflicted emotions and heavy themes to wrestle with--and what a voice that man had! I think that one of the strengths of the story is the semi-documentary feel to the events. There is no giant conspiracy, just an average army-style Cover-Your-Ass situation, with those responsible already well insulated by their positions of power. The revenge enacted by Scott's character is as understandable as it is ultimately ineffective, a message nicely telegraphed by the final image, which I won't divulge here. Suffice it to say, this is one of those strange cinematic oddities from the 70's that has become, unfortunately, once again relevant. After all... if the wind had happened to be blowing towards Salt Lake City that day...
George C. Scott (wearing what looks distractingly like fake eyebrows) directed and stars in this fictionalized account of a farmer and his young son who are accidentally poisoned with nerve gas by the Army.
Perhaps its my own experiences at the hands of prison doctors that makes the many scenes of bloodless technocrats abstractly speaking about the opportunity to study nerve gas symptoms and blithely LYING with their every breath so quietly, eerily effective.
After being lied to in the worst possible way by all responsible, George C. Scott's doomed farmer wreaks some almost Rambo-like revenge! I had heard about this movie for years and always wondered just what sort of havoc Mr Scott would wreak went he went into his RAGE... It was quite something to see him shooting security guards in the face and generally going postal. One can certainly understand where he is coming from. A film like this would never be made today, especially with a major movie star both directing and starring. George C Scott knows how to handle actors--this is probably one of Richard Baseheart's best performances--full of great conflicted emotions and heavy themes to wrestle with--and what a voice that man had! I think that one of the strengths of the story is the semi-documentary feel to the events. There is no giant conspiracy, just an average army-style Cover-Your-Ass situation, with those responsible already well insulated by their positions of power. The revenge enacted by Scott's character is as understandable as it is ultimately ineffective, a message nicely telegraphed by the final image, which I won't divulge here. Suffice it to say, this is one of those strange cinematic oddities from the 70's that has become, unfortunately, once again relevant. After all... if the wind had happened to be blowing towards Salt Lake City that day...
First Blood
SnoopyStyle22 September 2021
Wyoming sheep rancher Dan Logan (George C. Scott) and his son Chris are tending to their flock. An Army helicopter flies by. Next morning after sleeping outside, Chris is in dire medical distress and there are dead sheep. Dan brings him to the hospital. He struggles to find any answers. Dr. Holliford (Martin Sheen) asks all knowing questions and immediately puts Chris in isolation. He gives their family doctor Dr. Caldwell (Richard Basehart) a secret handshake. The Army had accidentally released some nerve gas. Dr. Spencer (Barnard Hughes) from Public Health Service helps with the cover-up.
The Army aspect should be held back to give this story more mystery. I'd rather not have the Army folks do an extended exposition. The audience should discover the truth along with Dan. The reveal should be a shock. Spencer should be the one giving the full exposition. As for his vengeance, it would be nice if all his victims actually deserve it. Dan has a bit of Rambo in him but an unhinged Rambo can be very disconcerting.
The Army aspect should be held back to give this story more mystery. I'd rather not have the Army folks do an extended exposition. The audience should discover the truth along with Dan. The reveal should be a shock. Spencer should be the one giving the full exposition. As for his vengeance, it would be nice if all his victims actually deserve it. Dan has a bit of Rambo in him but an unhinged Rambo can be very disconcerting.
A wasted opportunity
Rodrigo_Amaro4 September 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This directorial debut of George C. Scott is not a disappointment in his direction of actors and himself; he conducts some effective dramatic sequences, some interesting thrilling scenes and almost creates a relevant story. In simple words: he plays Dan Logan, a rancher who wants to avenge his son's death during a failed military experiment where both were exposed to a nerve gas that also killed Dan's livestock. By hearing this summary, one might get easily involved with it but the movie plays it in the wrong way by sticking to a pointless revenge instead of making us relate with the main character.
Since we live in a most politically correct era (I think!), most of the ideas perpetrated in "Rage" are dated, only works because of the 1970's context where the nation's leader at the time was Nixon and that same man years later would say that when a president does something that is considered illegal by the eyes of the public then such man isn't doing anything illegal. Blame all his wrongdoings on the politics, the system and its seduction. The same can be said of Dan. Blame it on the gas exposure, that's why he reacts in such an uncontrolled way. The example comes from above.
Some viewers have said that they lost sympathy for him after all the innocent he killed (policeman, security officers and such). He lost my attention when he shot a cat that was protecting its owner from Dan's threats. It gets worse: by the time he's committed in blowing the laboratory responsible for creating the gas, he enters a room where several animals are locked in cages, future guinea pigs for the company. And do you think Dan sets them free? No, he leaves the place and stick to the plan, probably thinking "You've killed my livestock, my sheep's, you'll lose yours as well". It's understandable that he was under a lot of stress, he feared for his son, didn't get much information about his condition as he got worsened and wasn't warned about his death by anyone. But why no try to go through the proper channels? Why not spreading to the media about what was going on? Why not sue the people who got involved in this tragedy?
It breaks my heart to see such a story with plenty of potential going to waste turned into a simplistic and almost silly film. Everything would be in a great tune if it wasn't for a script that prefers to focus on a dumb revenge instead of being an intelligent picture with a great message to present.
I don't think Logan was pushed against the wall all that much, and if the character was smart he would find ways to make the military look bad. And here's a weird plot hole: how in the world the media people knew about his son's death, broadcasting on the radio about it when the military tried to hide the story at all costs? Just arrest the screenwriter.
Scott's effort as a director were quite impressive, nice staging of scenes, filled of powerful dramatic moments (the scene where Chris, Dan's son, goes on shock, twitching in bed was quite scary), and the cast did a good job (Richard Basehart, Martin Sheen, Barnard Hughes, Nicholas Beauvy and Ed Lauter). But the message and the lack of idealism kills any possibility of making "Rage" something worth seeing. 5/10
Since we live in a most politically correct era (I think!), most of the ideas perpetrated in "Rage" are dated, only works because of the 1970's context where the nation's leader at the time was Nixon and that same man years later would say that when a president does something that is considered illegal by the eyes of the public then such man isn't doing anything illegal. Blame all his wrongdoings on the politics, the system and its seduction. The same can be said of Dan. Blame it on the gas exposure, that's why he reacts in such an uncontrolled way. The example comes from above.
Some viewers have said that they lost sympathy for him after all the innocent he killed (policeman, security officers and such). He lost my attention when he shot a cat that was protecting its owner from Dan's threats. It gets worse: by the time he's committed in blowing the laboratory responsible for creating the gas, he enters a room where several animals are locked in cages, future guinea pigs for the company. And do you think Dan sets them free? No, he leaves the place and stick to the plan, probably thinking "You've killed my livestock, my sheep's, you'll lose yours as well". It's understandable that he was under a lot of stress, he feared for his son, didn't get much information about his condition as he got worsened and wasn't warned about his death by anyone. But why no try to go through the proper channels? Why not spreading to the media about what was going on? Why not sue the people who got involved in this tragedy?
It breaks my heart to see such a story with plenty of potential going to waste turned into a simplistic and almost silly film. Everything would be in a great tune if it wasn't for a script that prefers to focus on a dumb revenge instead of being an intelligent picture with a great message to present.
I don't think Logan was pushed against the wall all that much, and if the character was smart he would find ways to make the military look bad. And here's a weird plot hole: how in the world the media people knew about his son's death, broadcasting on the radio about it when the military tried to hide the story at all costs? Just arrest the screenwriter.
Scott's effort as a director were quite impressive, nice staging of scenes, filled of powerful dramatic moments (the scene where Chris, Dan's son, goes on shock, twitching in bed was quite scary), and the cast did a good job (Richard Basehart, Martin Sheen, Barnard Hughes, Nicholas Beauvy and Ed Lauter). But the message and the lack of idealism kills any possibility of making "Rage" something worth seeing. 5/10
RAGE is worth checking out
udar5530 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While on a camping trip, Wyoming rancher Dan Logan (George C. Scott) and his son are inadvertently exposed to a secret Army chemical. Both of them end up the hospital and are lied to about their condition by a mysterious doctor (Martin Sheen) who is hoping to protect this top secret project. Of course, when Logan does find out he goes into a slow burning rage and kills everyone in sight. This relentlessly bleak thriller marked the first and only directorial feature from actor George C. Scott. He actually has quite a good eye and captures the Wyoming landscape beautifully with some well orchestrated helicopter shots. One might wonder if Scott was also crafting an anti-war parable. In the end, no one responsible for orchestrating the project has been killed and only innocent underlings have suffered Scott's rage. The script by Philip Friedman and Dan Kleinman marks their only work and it is too bad. It features an anti-authoritarian "don't trust the government" tone and pulls no punches (Scott's 12 year old son dies in the first half hour and the film ends with Scott suffering the same fate. Imagine that happening today).
Scott is ANGRY, and rightfully so.
jimel9818 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Let's get a few things out of the way first. For one thing, it has all the feel of a TV movie even a TV movie cast other than George C. Scott (one of the FINEST actors ever-NOT sarcasm) and Martin Sheen in his early career. Otherwise, this has made for TV all over it, even the credits have that second rate feel.
Many things happen that are very believable but there are plenty of things that make you go, "Hmmm?" Just a quick example that could be considered a spoiler, when Scott leaves the hospital, WHERE DID HE GET THE CLOTHES? And if they wanted to keep him there, I have a hard time believing his wallet would be left for him.
And why did he have to kill so many folks (a guard, two cops, at least one soldier) who were as responsible for what was going on as much as HE was? They had families but eh, screw that, "I HAVE A GRUDGE!" A righteous grudge or not, these folks didn't kill anyone, but now their families grieve. It took the hero out of it and made him a douchebag.
OK, that's off my chest. Whew.
I saw this movie when it came out in 1972 and I liked it. After I had seen "Patton" I couldn't think of a GCS movie I wouldn't like, and I don't recall seeing one either. This movie has its flaws but it makes a statement and makes it clear. If you must experiment with stuff, don't do it anywhere near innocent people and if you screw up, rush up to the nearest podium and scream, "We are VERY sorry. This was a MAJOR screw up and we are doing everything we can to rectify it!" Some would say don't do these experiments, but hey, this is the real world and this stuff, sometimes has to happen. Yeah, the REAL world where there are folks who hate us, want to kill us and will do whatever it takes, maybe like flying planes into buildings or potentially releasing gas that we really should now how to deal with.
Politics aside, GCS's character, Dan Logan was angry, and very rightfully so. He was being screwed, figured it out, and went for revenge. He apparently knew he was dying so, why not REALLY get back at those who wronged him. I understand and almost applaud his actions. I stress, ALMOST (see above). No time for a law suit when you're about to check out, right? The photography was good, the script was actually quite good but lots of clichés. Scott, that guy couldn't turn in a bad performance if it was required of him. The supporting cast did a fine job as well, even his kid who for a good portion of the movie just had to convulse and bleed. He bled well and his convulsions were to die for.
Bad joke, but I'm not deleting it.
Overall, the scariness of the potential real life stuff is there and this movie really makes you think. I caught it for the first time in YEARS on YouTube last night and I was so glad I did. Now if I could only find some more of his classics that for some reason just don't get shown. "Oklahoma Crude"? Where ARE YOU?
Many things happen that are very believable but there are plenty of things that make you go, "Hmmm?" Just a quick example that could be considered a spoiler, when Scott leaves the hospital, WHERE DID HE GET THE CLOTHES? And if they wanted to keep him there, I have a hard time believing his wallet would be left for him.
And why did he have to kill so many folks (a guard, two cops, at least one soldier) who were as responsible for what was going on as much as HE was? They had families but eh, screw that, "I HAVE A GRUDGE!" A righteous grudge or not, these folks didn't kill anyone, but now their families grieve. It took the hero out of it and made him a douchebag.
OK, that's off my chest. Whew.
I saw this movie when it came out in 1972 and I liked it. After I had seen "Patton" I couldn't think of a GCS movie I wouldn't like, and I don't recall seeing one either. This movie has its flaws but it makes a statement and makes it clear. If you must experiment with stuff, don't do it anywhere near innocent people and if you screw up, rush up to the nearest podium and scream, "We are VERY sorry. This was a MAJOR screw up and we are doing everything we can to rectify it!" Some would say don't do these experiments, but hey, this is the real world and this stuff, sometimes has to happen. Yeah, the REAL world where there are folks who hate us, want to kill us and will do whatever it takes, maybe like flying planes into buildings or potentially releasing gas that we really should now how to deal with.
Politics aside, GCS's character, Dan Logan was angry, and very rightfully so. He was being screwed, figured it out, and went for revenge. He apparently knew he was dying so, why not REALLY get back at those who wronged him. I understand and almost applaud his actions. I stress, ALMOST (see above). No time for a law suit when you're about to check out, right? The photography was good, the script was actually quite good but lots of clichés. Scott, that guy couldn't turn in a bad performance if it was required of him. The supporting cast did a fine job as well, even his kid who for a good portion of the movie just had to convulse and bleed. He bled well and his convulsions were to die for.
Bad joke, but I'm not deleting it.
Overall, the scariness of the potential real life stuff is there and this movie really makes you think. I caught it for the first time in YEARS on YouTube last night and I was so glad I did. Now if I could only find some more of his classics that for some reason just don't get shown. "Oklahoma Crude"? Where ARE YOU?
Horribly Frustrating Movie
KittyWitty91722 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Rage might have been a top script in 1972 but fast forward to watch it now and it only solidifies how in 1972 the government could come in and take over ones medical situation, while keeping the main character sedated as to not find out his son has died and he will follow him shortly....all in the Good name of science and "what's best" for the patient. A toxic chemicals were released into the air and Scott's son dies. The main doctor characters and the military are all covering up this grave error and Scott dies before he can fully get his revenge. I felt totally uncomfortable watching this. George C Scott's acting is of course suburb but the movie ponders much too slow. There is the usual cast of characters all TV watchers for the past 50 years will be familiar with and leading the cast next to Scott is Martin Sheen and Richard Basehart. The movie was produced before HIPPA rights kicked in and all characters are motivated by Fear of the army. This film would draw a skeptical and angry crowd in 2021....and it would get plenty of tomatoes thrown at the screen.
Intense, grieving father avenging his loss with justifiable anger.
gnt-222 May 2000
Outstanding action. Ruthless vengeance on an uncaring military bureaucracy bent on covering the truth to protect themselves. This came out during the discovery of the Watergate cover-up.It was a timely tale of righteousness. Well acted,taut paced. One of the few times made for tv is not an excuse.
I don't expect him to live another week
kapelusznik185 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
****SPOILERS*** Bravo performance by George C. Scott as sheep rancher Dan Logan who by finally realizing that him and his 12 year old son Chris, Nick Beauvy, as well as his sheep were exposed to the deadly MX3 nerve gas by the US Army while out camping that he takes matters into his own hands. That by going to war against the US military in the area not caring for a moment whom he hurts or kills, innocent or guilty, that he comes in contact with. Logan hospitalized with his son at a local military hospital are kept by the army doctor Major Hilford, Martin Sheen, from knowing the seriousness of their illnesses to prevent any panic from spading in the area but that soon falls completely apart. That after Chris dies and his father Dan Logan, who's been kept in the dark about his son's condition, finds out about it!
Knowing that he himself doesn't have long to live Logan having nothing to lose goes berserk arming himself with an arsenal of weapons and explosive and heads for the facility that produced the MX3 nerve gas planning to wipe it, and those in it, off the face of the map. It's then that the US military stationed at Ft. Howard sends a complete combat unit supported by some half dozen attack helicopters to stop Logan and the carnage that he's creating! With an out of control and suicidal Logan that's not an easy task from them or anyone else who tries to get in his way.
****SPOILERS**** As expected it was the MX3 nerve gas not the military who, despite all the damage he did, were reluctant to put him down that in the end did the guy in. Still Logan made his point by exposing what happened that caused heads to roll that allowed this disaster to happen and be covered up. Great man against the system film with George C. Scott, who also directed it, at his very best as the outraged father on the warpath against the US Government. Sadly a number of Logan's victims were totally innocent of the crimes committed against him and his son Chris and towards the end of of movie, by letting a trucker that he kidnapped free, he finally realized that. That was about the only right thing that Logan did in the entire movie but only after all the damage by him was already done.
P.S Check out Richard Basehart as Logan's friend Dr. Roy Cardwell who tries to talk him out of taking it out on the US military for what it, by accident, did to him and his son as well as his sheep. Who in the end was himself almost shot, by US Army sentries, for trying to get the by then totally crazed Logan to surrender before he himself is shot and killed with in fact the MX3 nerve gas by shutting his respiratory system got to do to him first!
Knowing that he himself doesn't have long to live Logan having nothing to lose goes berserk arming himself with an arsenal of weapons and explosive and heads for the facility that produced the MX3 nerve gas planning to wipe it, and those in it, off the face of the map. It's then that the US military stationed at Ft. Howard sends a complete combat unit supported by some half dozen attack helicopters to stop Logan and the carnage that he's creating! With an out of control and suicidal Logan that's not an easy task from them or anyone else who tries to get in his way.
****SPOILERS**** As expected it was the MX3 nerve gas not the military who, despite all the damage he did, were reluctant to put him down that in the end did the guy in. Still Logan made his point by exposing what happened that caused heads to roll that allowed this disaster to happen and be covered up. Great man against the system film with George C. Scott, who also directed it, at his very best as the outraged father on the warpath against the US Government. Sadly a number of Logan's victims were totally innocent of the crimes committed against him and his son Chris and towards the end of of movie, by letting a trucker that he kidnapped free, he finally realized that. That was about the only right thing that Logan did in the entire movie but only after all the damage by him was already done.
P.S Check out Richard Basehart as Logan's friend Dr. Roy Cardwell who tries to talk him out of taking it out on the US military for what it, by accident, did to him and his son as well as his sheep. Who in the end was himself almost shot, by US Army sentries, for trying to get the by then totally crazed Logan to surrender before he himself is shot and killed with in fact the MX3 nerve gas by shutting his respiratory system got to do to him first!
Still relevant today
HotToastyRag27 October 2022
As you might be able to tell from the plot synopsis, Rage is a pretty upsetting movie to watch. Since you probably know my taste in films (if you've been reading the Rag for a while), you might wonder why I watched it in the first place. Made in 1972, it has remarkable relevancy in today's world, so I thought it might have an emotional impact. It certainly did! In fact, given a re-release, I'm sure it would be very popular at the box office.
In case you haven't read the synopsis, George C. Scott stars as a father who's teaching his young son the ropes about farming. They spend one night outdoors on their property, and in the morning, George finds his son bleeding and deathly ill. He rushes him to the hospital, but Dr. Martin Sheen soothes that there's nothing seriously wrong with the boy. Then why does Martin want to keep them both quarantined and take further tests? It turns out, there was a government experiment that went wrong, and a terrible chemical spill infected the air. With massive cover-ups in play, will George ever find out the truth?
This was a bit of a pet project for George, as he also directed the film. Perhaps he felt drawn to the 1970s "question authority" mantra, or perhaps he just liked the opportunity to fly off in a rage and get revenge on "the man". It is absolutely George's show, as he has to go through all the stages of worry, belief, grief, distrust, and vengeance. Although, I particularly liked Richard Basehart's performance in this film. He plays George's regular family doctor, and he comes across as extremely trustworthy. So, when he sits George down and lies to him about what's happening to his son, it's very eerie. If Mr. Honesty can be drawn into the cover-up, no one is safe!
Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to gruesome images and upsetting scenes involving a child, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.
In case you haven't read the synopsis, George C. Scott stars as a father who's teaching his young son the ropes about farming. They spend one night outdoors on their property, and in the morning, George finds his son bleeding and deathly ill. He rushes him to the hospital, but Dr. Martin Sheen soothes that there's nothing seriously wrong with the boy. Then why does Martin want to keep them both quarantined and take further tests? It turns out, there was a government experiment that went wrong, and a terrible chemical spill infected the air. With massive cover-ups in play, will George ever find out the truth?
This was a bit of a pet project for George, as he also directed the film. Perhaps he felt drawn to the 1970s "question authority" mantra, or perhaps he just liked the opportunity to fly off in a rage and get revenge on "the man". It is absolutely George's show, as he has to go through all the stages of worry, belief, grief, distrust, and vengeance. Although, I particularly liked Richard Basehart's performance in this film. He plays George's regular family doctor, and he comes across as extremely trustworthy. So, when he sits George down and lies to him about what's happening to his son, it's very eerie. If Mr. Honesty can be drawn into the cover-up, no one is safe!
Kiddy Warning: Obviously, you have control over your own children. However, due to gruesome images and upsetting scenes involving a child, I wouldn't let my kids watch it.
Wayward but interesting
nomorefog25 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
George C Scott has always been one of my favourites and he took the directing reins over for himself in this interesting but flawed piece. Actors directing themselves sounds like a good idea, and some have succeeded in the transition. But Scott needed support to make the film comprehensible and he received this from Michael Kahn the editor, whotries to make sense of the story for the viewer by making some rather glaring plot holes more believable than they should be. The film tries to pack too much into its running time and by the end resorts to melodrama in order for the audience to feel sympathy for Scott's character after he has been poisoned, lost his son, and lied to by the military industrial complex in an obvious political cover up right out of the pages of the Washington Post c1976.
The most obvious plothole to me is how slowly Scott comes to the realisation that he was deceived by practically everyone in positions of authority as to the condition of his son, his own health, and what has happened to his farm. Whether this is done to make the story more suspenseful I don't know, but it made me consult my watch more than once to wonder long this was going to go on for before he figured out what the audience was already aware of.
Apart from this if you were brought up like me on 70s cinema like 3 Days of the Condor, Chinatown, and The Godfather Part II, there is something to like about Rage and it's examination of corruption in high places, and the continuing disintegration of the American dream of individual liberty for all.
So wrong, it's a textbook example of faulty story-telling
harpermike-258-7200519 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
George C. Scott was a man in total command of his screen presence and always a pleasure to watch. So that is how I took a chance on "Rage." I know some people have defended this film as kind of brave for not following the typical logic of a Hollywood suspense / revenge potboiler, but I don't see it that way. From the bucolic opening to the final tragic airlifting of the corpse, there is hardly a moment of effective story development. I didn't time the first act but someone else here timed it out to around 50 minutes. Given the running time of the film, that is entirely too much time for farmer Logan to finally figure out what has happened and move into act two.
One might write this whole thing off as a reflection of the distrust of government in the Vietnam era but if that is the point, then for goodness sake, at least let the protagonist do more than kill a security guard and two cops responding to the scene. The air base that is a chemical weapons testing facility has basically no real security at the gate. What the hell? The military people are introduced and then you barely see them. His family doctor told him that he was going to die but you only learn this in exposition... What? You have Richard Basehart and George C. Scott and you don't shoot the scene? What the heck? This is an unfunny version of that Ed Wood film where Legosi died during filming and Wood had to fill the blanks. I am guessing that they ran out of money while shooting and patched together the thing. If this is really what the screenplay called for, then how the hell did it get the green light?
Even Lalo Schiffrin's score is off. The folksy Americana opening is followed by endless dreary intensity only to reprise the folksy bit at the end, despite the actual outcome of the plot.
I suppose you could say that the theme of government's tendency to cover up its misdeeds lends merit to the film, but if that is the theme, then really give a full kick-the-audience-in-the-pants treatment of the theme. Some reviewers have called this film low intensity. Not in my book. Poorly written and/or directed is more like it.
One might write this whole thing off as a reflection of the distrust of government in the Vietnam era but if that is the point, then for goodness sake, at least let the protagonist do more than kill a security guard and two cops responding to the scene. The air base that is a chemical weapons testing facility has basically no real security at the gate. What the hell? The military people are introduced and then you barely see them. His family doctor told him that he was going to die but you only learn this in exposition... What? You have Richard Basehart and George C. Scott and you don't shoot the scene? What the heck? This is an unfunny version of that Ed Wood film where Legosi died during filming and Wood had to fill the blanks. I am guessing that they ran out of money while shooting and patched together the thing. If this is really what the screenplay called for, then how the hell did it get the green light?
Even Lalo Schiffrin's score is off. The folksy Americana opening is followed by endless dreary intensity only to reprise the folksy bit at the end, despite the actual outcome of the plot.
I suppose you could say that the theme of government's tendency to cover up its misdeeds lends merit to the film, but if that is the theme, then really give a full kick-the-audience-in-the-pants treatment of the theme. Some reviewers have called this film low intensity. Not in my book. Poorly written and/or directed is more like it.
Great Flick From Back in the Day
fop-616 October 2006
This was one of the films I remember from back in the day. One of those that I watched every time it came on TV. Not artsy, but despite the usual predictable elements (as is the case with most films), I found the plot both interesting and entertaining. Watching it, you could imagine the possibility of it really happening and reacting the same way Scott's character did. Unfortunately, its not out on DVD. If I recall correctly, it was not a great success in the theater, but considering all the junk that does make it to DVD, I don't know why this one isn't out. While films remembered from your youth can be disappointing, I will definitely be buying this one when it becomes available. This one, "Hardcore", "Day of the Dolphin" and "Patton" are my favorite George C. Scott features.
'Rage', Uneven, Well-Intentioned Polemic
waltersolley4 September 2023
George C. Scott's "Rage" (1972), his first as both director and star (his directorial debut was the critically acclaimed, multi-award winning 1970 television film "The Anderson Trial") is an uneven, if well intentioned polemic. The film begins as an idyll for a Wyoming rancher (Scott, giving a superb performance), his son (Nicolas Beauvy), and the family dog, as they tend their sheep, drive around their ranch, and camp out in the picturesque countryside. Their dream quickly becomes a nightmare, as each are accidentally exposed to a deadly nerve agent being tested at a nearby military base, his son dying from the exposure. The government immediately begins covering up the incident, using threats and coercion when necessary. Scott's passionate effort at political commentary and indictment of governmental corruption works less-well when depicting the bureaucratic machinery working against the truth, than in his quieter, more intimate scenes. His gift as a director is obviously an ability to work well with actors, emphasizing humanity in roles where often there is little. Beauvy, Richard Basehart (particularly poignant), Martin Sheen, Barnard Hughes, and Kenneth Tobey, all portray characters usually represented as stereotypes in a genre film. The subtlety of their performances add dimension to their characters, but work against the overall effect of the film. Scott's "rage" is much less satisfying by the film's end because the performance are so effective. We understand the motivations of those covering up the tragic incident and the cathartic release the audience anticipates with Scott's revenge isn't there. Instead we are left with a mix of emotions the director may have intended, but the audience didn't expect...or want.
Tragic Melodrama.
AaronCapenBanner15 September 2013
George C. Scott both stars in and directs this melodrama, as he plays a rancher who, while out camping with his son, discovers that they were accidentally sprayed with an experimental gas, that has killed his son and livestock, and sends him to the hospital, where he learns that the military was behind it, and after being frustrated by their stonewalling, decides to take matters in his own hands, even though he has not escaped the effects of the poisoning...
Though Scott gives a first-rate performance, and is ably supported by costars Richard Basehart, Martin Sheen & Barnard Hughes, this film ultimately fails because the father goes so far off the deep end with his revenge, killing the innocent, that he loses any sympathy, and the film ends inconclusively, and unsatisfactorily. A failure at the time, though can be seen on DVD from Warner Archive, for curiosity's sake.
Though Scott gives a first-rate performance, and is ably supported by costars Richard Basehart, Martin Sheen & Barnard Hughes, this film ultimately fails because the father goes so far off the deep end with his revenge, killing the innocent, that he loses any sympathy, and the film ends inconclusively, and unsatisfactorily. A failure at the time, though can be seen on DVD from Warner Archive, for curiosity's sake.
****
edwagreen1 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Outstanding film with George C. Scott, in a change of pace, not only directing, but starring as the victim here when the army and others try to cover up an accidental valve leakage that emitted nerve gas killing his son, sheep and putting Scott in a terminal situation himself.
The hospital takes part in the cover up by not telling him right away that his son has died. He is hospitalized for testing and not told of his true fate.
Being drugged so as to keep him sedated, Scott manages to escape and becomes a one man killing machine as the film goes into revenge mode. Richard Basehart is effective as the family doctor who is told to keep quiet about the true details. A colossal tragic mistake by the army leading to unthinkable tragedy and revenge.
The hospital takes part in the cover up by not telling him right away that his son has died. He is hospitalized for testing and not told of his true fate.
Being drugged so as to keep him sedated, Scott manages to escape and becomes a one man killing machine as the film goes into revenge mode. Richard Basehart is effective as the family doctor who is told to keep quiet about the true details. A colossal tragic mistake by the army leading to unthinkable tragedy and revenge.
Simple Revenge Tale ....
Theo Robertson14 December 2003
Warning: Spoilers
.... But the problem with RAGE is that it`s all a little too simple !!!!! SPOILERS !!!!! . Let`s examine the plot in detail . Farmer Dan Logan and his son are out in the countryside when a military helicopter accidently contaminates the pair with poison . His son dies so Logan goes on a sabotage spree against the company responsible for manufacturing the poison before dying . There that`s the plot . I`ve tried to make it sound sophisticated and complex but I can`t probably because it`s not a complicated , sophisticated plot . It`s also rather dated too since it was made in the wake of the Vietnam war hence its view on the government and the military being utter pigs . It also features a scene where a cat is shot dead by Logan which unless your catchphrase is " I taught I thaw a puddy cat " doesn`t endear him to anyone even if his son has died a tragic death
Wow, That Was Pointless!
jmillerdp29 August 2015
Warning: Spoilers
(FULL SPOILERS)
A lot of potential, but little worth watching. George C. Scott's first directorial effort is about a father who loses his son to the Army's chemical weaponry. He is also dying, and goes on a rage-filled tirade against the chemical factory. He ends up dead at the end, destroys the factory (although the chemicals were already removed), and the Army remains unaffected. Nothing comes to light, and no one is prosecuted for what happened.
So, what's the point? Don't know. Too bad, when you have a great actor like Scott on screen and at the helm.
***** (5 Out of 10 Stars)
A lot of potential, but little worth watching. George C. Scott's first directorial effort is about a father who loses his son to the Army's chemical weaponry. He is also dying, and goes on a rage-filled tirade against the chemical factory. He ends up dead at the end, destroys the factory (although the chemicals were already removed), and the Army remains unaffected. Nothing comes to light, and no one is prosecuted for what happened.
So, what's the point? Don't know. Too bad, when you have a great actor like Scott on screen and at the helm.
***** (5 Out of 10 Stars)
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
