I first saw Silent Rage while in college in the mid-80s. I think it ran on HBO/Cinemax every month. I must have seen it at least 6 times. It mixed two of my favorite movie genres – slashers and action. To me, the movie played like Michael Myers meets Chuck Norris. And I'm pretty sure that's what the filmmakers were going for. At the time, Chuck Norris had a pretty big following and slashers were all the rage. Why not mix the two?Having not seen Silent Rage in about three decades, there's a lot I had forgotten. I was surprised at how many of the (now) predictable slasher clichés there are in this movie – a killer who can't be killed, a killer who seems capable of quietly materializing near his next victim, false scares followed almost immediately by the real thing, a good jump scare right before the final credits, conveniently placed weapons, and a good guy who acts as if all this is completely normal. Silent Rage has 'em all. So, how does Silent Rage hold up? On the positive side of things there are some pretty decent fight scenes (the bar fight is especially enjoyable), a creepy killer, and Chuck Norris playing the whole thing as straight-faced as you can imagine. On the negative side, you've got copious amounts so filler (including the previously mentioned bar fight which has nothing to do with the rest of the film), a complete lack of logic, and Stephen Furst's off-putting comic relief. Overall, though, I still found Silent Rage entertaining. I think a bulk of the credit has to go to Brian Libby. His creepy John Kirby is as good and effective a killer as you'll find in any of the 80s slasher movies. It's a nice performance.

This film had its amusing moments, but there was a great big question throughout. Why didn't anyone think to chop the thing's head off? Or blow its head off? Everyone had guns. The thing would have been hard-pressed to kill people if it didn't have a head. Rather than engage it in a karate fight, wouldn't several bullets through the skull have been a better idea? It may have continued to live, but it would just be stumbling around. Then they could have chained it up and maybe charged admission.I guess I'm over-thinking this.

Silent Rage (1982)** (out of 4) Chuck Norris plays a sheriff who must go up against a psychopath who at one point was dead but three scientists brought him back to life with a new experiment. Soon the maniac is running loose and killing more people so it's up to Norris to put an end to it.SILENT RAGE isn't a good movie or a very successful one but at the same time it is a rather interesting one. The movie was a turning point for Norris who would enter into some more "violent" pictures before signing with Cannon Group where he'd make his most famous pictures. This film was also released during the Golden Age of the "slasher" era where movies like Friday THE 13TH, HALLOWEEN II and others were making a killing at the box office.This film has been called by many the unofficial HALLOWEEN III. As you know, the real HALLOWEEN III was without Michael Myers but the killer here actually has a lot in common with Myers so obviously fans decided to have some fun and include this as an unofficial entry. For the most part the film offers up what Norris fans want in a movie with him as the actor is thrown into countless action scenes. The highlight is without question a sequence where he must battle a dozen or so bikers one after another.The horror elements are rather obvious with the killer being a mix between Frankenstein's monster and any of the slasher era killers. The violence isn't overly graphic but there's no question that the filmmakers were trying to cash in on the success of such films. As I said, Norris is quite good in his role and we get some fine supporting performances by William Finley and Ron Silver. There's also Toni Kalem who is good as the love interest and Stephen Furst (NATIONAL LAMPOON'S ANIMAL HOUSE) is here for some comic relief.The biggest problem with the film is that the direction is rather flat, which leads to all of the scenes feeling as if they're just getting dragged on to the point where they become boring. At 100 minutes the film runs way too long and the pacing is way too slow at times. The opening sequence is quite intense but after that there's really no tension, which is another major issue. Still, SILENT RAGE isn't a horrible movie and there are enough good things to make it worth watching.

Chuck Norris is one of the absolute last people you would expect to find in a typical early 80's slasher movie, and yet "Silent Rage" has a lot more in common with those movies than with your usual Norris martial arts vehicle. The idea is actually rather good: instead of an endless army of disposable bad guys, Chucky is only up against one virtually indestructible psychopathic killer. And, simply to satisfy the die-hard Norris fanatics who rent movies without ever reading the plot synopsis on the back of the VHS, there are nevertheless also a couple of sequences where Chuck Norris single-handedly pulverizes a whole gang of Hell's Angels bikers. "Silent Rage" opens very atmospherically, with a mentally unstable individual axe-murdering two people before getting shot to pieces by Sheriff Chuck Norris' deputies. Whilst the Sheriff is sleeping with the doctor's sexy sister, a trio of amateur Frankensteins revive the maniacal killer and add a little option that makes him indestructible. He naturally escapes and goes on a bloody killing spree in Sheriff Dan Stevens beloved little Texas town. As mentioned at the beginning from the review, "Silent Rage" bears a lot of resemblance with the better slasher movies from the early late 70's and early 80's; particularly the original "Halloween" and its direct sequel "Halloween II". The small town setting is almost identical to Haddonfield and emotionless killing machine John Kirby could easily have been Michael Myers' distant cousin. A large part of the film also takes place within hospital walls, like "Halloween II", and there are a couple of suspenseful and slow-brooding stalk sequences. Inevitably though, since the plot is so ridiculously simplistic, there are also quite a lot of irrelevant sub plots and padding footage, like the aforementioned clash with bikers, a horrible "we fall in love" montage and a pathetic role for Stephen Furst as the fat and clumsy comic relief deputy. Chuck is awesome, Steven Keats and William Finley are impressive as the two evil doctors and Brian Libby is perfect as the silent but ultra-violent killer. Good entertainment for both fans of action and thriller.