User Reviews (26)

Add a Review

  • Well, it doesn't break any boundaries or try to be anything particularly special, but Wedlock takes influence from films such as The Running Man and ends up with a fun and entertaining little thriller. As you would expect, the film offers little in the way of surprises; so it's a good job that getting from A to B is fun to watch. The film's main gimmick is the idea of a futuristic prison in which the inmates have to wear collars. This ensures that all the prisoners are constantly watching each other, as if your collar gets one hundred yards away from your partner's collar - both your heads explode! Naturally, no one knows who is whose partner, so the prison is pretty secure (I can't be the only one who thinks this could work in REAL prisons...). The film focuses on Frank Warren; a would-be robber who is double crossed by his girlfriend and ends up in the futuristic jail. Before getting double-crossed, our hero was smart enough to hide the diamonds that he stole. The head of the jail wants these gems for himself, and after Frank and his partner escape from the prison - a game of cat and mouse ensues.

    The film relies a lot on it's lead star Rutger Hauer, and while this isn't his best performance of all time; it's suitably different from his more popular roles (Blade Runner, The Hitcher), and he makes for an offbeat action hero. He is joined by Mimi Rogers, who is good in support; as well as Stephen Tobolowsky, who steals every scene he's in. The action doesn't come thick and fast; but Wedlock benefits from this, as the action is good when it comes and the scenes between the lead characters are always interesting enough to keep the film worth watching. Standout scenes include a bus chase and obligatory exploding head scene. The title is something of a metaphor for our lead character, as his luck with women isn't exactly enviable, and the way that the collars lock the two main characters together makes for some interesting drama. The main problem with the plotting is that it constantly hints at what's going to come next; and even the central twist isn't all that shocking when it comes about. However, if you go into Wedlock expecting just good entertainment; it's a lot of fun, and therefore comes recommended to B-movie fans!
  • I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I thought it was a clever premise with interesting, off-beat characters. An "A" B-movie. The pacing is relentless; the action set-pieces are uniquely thrilling; the dialogue crisp and witty; and Richard Gibbs score is perfectly haunting. Joan Chen is a great villainess and has all the best lines. All in all: a small gem, a rousing thrill-ride with lots of surprises.
  • I have to admit that the pairing of Rutger Hauer (at 47, chubby, charming, and, unfortunately, locked into 'B' movies) and Mimi Rogers (at 35, gloriously sexy, and about to appear her most controversial film, THE RAPTURE) is the best aspect of this light but entertaining 'heist/chase' flick, set in the near future, which is aired as both WEDLOCK and DEADLOCK.

    The premise is basic; a non-violent jewel thief, Frank Warren (Hauer) teams with his fiancé (a hyperactive Joan Chen) and best friend (sadistic James Remar) to break into several safety deposit boxes at a high-security bank, stealing, among other goodies, $25 million in diamonds. Despite Remar's tripping the bank's alarms, Hauer manages to escape and stash the diamonds...only to be betrayed, and shot, at the rendezvous point, by his partners (who must have been pretty remorseful when they discovered the diamonds weren't on him!)

    Flashforward to Warren's arrival at Camp Holliday, a prison that utilizes explosive-filled 'wedlock collars' (a la THE RUNNING MAN) to maintain order. Each wearer has an unknown 'partner', and if they are separated by more than 100 yards, Ka-BOOM!, two headless prisoners. The genial Warden Holliday (Stephen Tobolowsky) brags of his 'perfect' record, but takes an immediate interest in the welfare of Warren (prison name, Magenta), and more importantly, his (as yet undiscovered) stash of diamonds.

    When sexy convict 'Ivory' (Rogers) informs Warren that she is his wedlock 'partner', he is justifiably skeptical, but the pair manage to escape Camp Holliday, heads intact, and are soon on the run from Holliday, the police, and Warren's ex-partners...while still wearing the bombs around their necks.

    Is Ivory actually Holliday's pawn? What is her purpose for escaping THIS weekend? Will Warren's ex-partners capture and torture them to recover the diamonds? And, most importantly, how long will we have to wait before Warren and Ivory admit their mutual attraction, and find a way to rid themselves of their collars?

    With some genuinely funny moments, a tongue-in-cheek approach to the fairly standard plot elements, and, best of all, Hauer and Rogers' easy chemistry together, WEDLOCK is more enjoyable than you might expect.

    While it isn't BLADE RUNNER, it isn't BATTLEFIELD EARTH, either!
  • Rutger Hauer's movies tend to be better than one would expect from genre pieces, often because of a special feel for atmosphere and quirk. Deadlock was one of the first movies to feature the newer, heavier Hauer, who uses his heft to the advantage of his characterization, creating a slightly ridiculous figure (who goes from a ludicrous pony-tail for his duel-to-the-death to a sort of swami outfit to something that looks like it ought to be upholstering a chair in a whorehouse) who is not quite up to the circumstances he finds himself in, but perseveres anyway. Smart, but hardly a criminal mastermind, his Frank is teamed with an especially charming Mimi Rogers. Hardly surprising that they go from insults to clinches, but it is appealing that the main thing keeping them apart (their abysmal track records in romance) is what, thanks to empathy, helps bridge the differences between them. The sci-fi gimmick here is really beside the point. What counts is the presence of several skillful actors and their deftly drawn characters. Stephen Tobolowsky is especially amusing, and he has the movie's best line: "You nonconformists are all alike."
  • DEADLOCK (1992 - MADE FOR CABLE TV) **1/2 Rutger Hauer, Mimi Rogers, Joan Chen, James Remar, Stephen Tobolosky.

    Pretty good futuristic action/crime story with prisoners (Hauer and Rogers, make a fine couple) fitted with collars that can cause their heads to be blown off (a la Schwarzenegger's "The Running Man") as they pursue their double-partners in crime. Best scene : after days of solitude the greedy warden, wanting to know where Hauer has hidden some stolen loot, opens a door where Hauser - up to his neck in water - tells him: "North Pole...ask for Santa" and laughs maniacally.
  • Enchorde17 March 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    Recap: Part of a trio that is supposed to rob a jewelry mart for 25 million dollars worth in diamonds, Frank discovers that he has been had as his partners turn on him after the job. The only that saves him is that Frank has hidden the diamonds. Unfortunately for his partners Frank get sent to a prison where a new system is being tested. Each prisoner get a necklace with explosives in it, and each prisoner is paired up with another, unknown to them, prisoner. If more than 100 yards separate the necklaces, they both blow up. If the prisoners stay within the prison grounds they will be fine. However, Frank's diamonds are of great interest, to everyone. His ex-partners wants them, inmates want them and the warden wants them bad...

    Comments: Not the greatest movie ever seen, but not bad either. But you need to get your expectations right. Basically it is in two parts, one prison part and one fugitive part. Neither part is special but contains your basic parts in the genre. Fighting inmates and gangs in the prison, car chase and police in the fugitive part. Nothing new really.

    What I had expected more of is the Sci-fi part. I had imagined that it was set in the future with lots of change in society. It seems that the budget didn't cover more than the necklaces though, as they are the only things that doesn't exist now (or in the early nineties).

    However, lacking in some parts, and nothing new in others, this movie is not bad. Not bad at all. Not if you like typical Hauer movies anyway.

    What has it got then? Some decent action, actually. And even if the movie is quite predictable the suspense isn't bad either. The story is a little thin but you don't ever feel a need to worry about that. Simply put, this is good entertainment a lonely evening.

    6/10
  • Wedlock is one of those shamelessly trashy B-movie romps that the 80's proudly churned out in droves for our viewing pleasure. Some are shitty and enjoyable, some are just shitty, and some are solid gems, provided you've been schooled a bit in this particular, acquired taste of an arena. I spent a lot of my teenage years being a scholar in this sort of lovable junk, so I have plenty of ancient data in my mental hard drive to dust off for the old blog- ski. Rutger made quite a few ventures into this field (come to think of it most of my favourite actors have. Wonder what that says about my taste lol). He's got genre written all over his acting style, and loves to play broad characters in stylized fare. Here he plays Frank Warren, an amiable jewel thief who is betrayed in an opening sequence heist by his dodgy partner Sam (James Remar), and rowdy girlfriend Noelle (Josie Packard- I mean Joan Chen). He's sent to an amusingly 'futuristic' penitentiary where they implement prisoners with a unique system: each prisoner is fitted with a collar, each collar has a twin collar, and if the two get several miles apart, both detonate rigged explosives and messily decapitate the pair of unlucky inmates. They are not aware who has their twin collar, making escape a risky notion indeed. It's exactly the type of high concept buffoonery that trademarks these type of outings, and it's played for both suspense and laughs very nicely. Frank escapes, dragging along the woman who wears the twin collar (Mimi Rogers), pursued hotly by Sam and Noelle who want to find the diamonds that he hid shortly before his arrest. It's a prison flick, it's a chase flick, with its own kooky, offbeat sense of style. Hauer is usually so intense he looks like he's gonna implode in on himself, but here he gives a very laid back, slight and funny performance, which gives the film it's refreshingly upbeat feel. Remar and Chen are bouncing balls of energy as the dastardly couple out to ice Frank, riffing off each other and cheerfully chewing scenery. Watch out for an early career appearance from Danny Trejo, as well as work from Glenn Plummer and Stepehn Tobolowsky as a hard ass warden who gets the best line of the film: "You non-conformists are all the same". That alone encapsulates the irreverent, tongue in cheek tone that's a nice switch from the usually dank, oppressive atmosphere that second tier action flicks often get saddled with. Oh, and I want the number of Hauer's wardrobe outfitter; those fluffy, technicolor wool sweaters are a sideshow unto themselves.
  • I love Rutger Hauer. He is a cool and funny actor that isn't afraid to get his hands wet and try anything out of the ordinary.

    Wedlock isn't one of his stranger ones, but it is definitely one of his best!

    Set in the near future, Rutger joins Mimi Rodgers at a new top security prison that straps bombs to prisoners necks (much like Battle Royale) so they can't escape.

    Each prisoner is 'wedlocked' to another so that if one blows, the other soon follows!

    With Mimi by his side, Rutger and co-star go on an adventure that sends them in search of the object that got him imprisoned in the first place... $25 million worth of diamonds.

    With the bad guys hot on the heels, things start to go a little 'Fletch' at times with some great action scenes, hilarious one liners and more.

    The film is great entertainment and one I had wished I watched earlier!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Amiable electronics wizard Frank Warren (a fine and likeable performance by the always reliable Rutger Hauer) gets sent to a futuristic unisex prison in the wake of masterminding a diamond heist. In said prison Frank is given an electric collar that will explode if he goes 100 yards away from sassy fellow inmate Tracy Riggs (winningly played with considerable spunky charm by Mimi Rogers). The pair escape from prison only to be pursued by Frank's duplicitous partners Noelle (Joan Chen having the wicked time of her life) and Sam (an amusingly lunkheaded James Remar).

    Director Lewis Teague keeps the engrossing and entertaining story zipping along at a brisk pace, maintains an engaging tongue-in-cheek tone throughout, and stages the thrilling action set pieces with skill and flair. Broderick Miller's clever script provides several neat oddball touches and well-drawn characters. The spiky chemistry between Hauer and Rogers along with their sharp and funny bickering gives this picture an extra invigorating spark. Stephen Tobolowsky practically steals the show with his deliciously slimy turn as the sadistic Warden Holliday. Moreover, there are sound supporting contributions from Basil Wallace as vicious trustee Emerald, Grand L. Bush as the easygoing Jasper, Glenn Plummer as the laid-back Teal, and Dennis Forrest as the wormy Puce. Danny Trejo has a small role as an ill-fated felon. Both Dietrich Lohmann's slick cinematography and the lively score by Richard Gibbs are up to par. A total blast.
  • Let's not kid ourselves : If you plan on watching this it's because Rutger Hauers face is on the box.

    And I say box not poster because I doubt anyone really ever saw this in any theater. It's the kind of movie that gets put on cheap sets where two films share a disk or tape , at least that is how I watched it.

    It being so cheap the publishers apparently reason giving it its own disk would be uneconomical is a massive plus though; you forgive all its flaws immediately because you do get far more then whatever you are likely to pay for it:Namely Rutger Hauer. And it's a good thing he's here !

    The writing is both the film's major flaw and in the hands of Rutger Hauer its best feature.

    Looking back on the writing alone feels like you are reading the overambitious project of someone who has previously only done short stories from time to time.It has some interesting ideas that normally don't work as well in a motion picture as they would in let's say a Isaac Asimov type collection of short stories. But while you can just feel that it would have turned into a absolute mess when left to others Hauer manages to emphasize every single tidbit that makes it worthwhile.

    And if you get past the made-for-TV hammy qualities of it all there are some genuinely good concepts here. It makes you think, What gives someone the right to decide when someone is fit to be part of society?, Where is the line between rehabilitation and brainwashing ?( it is crossed in this film by the way , do doubt about it ). What parts of life can you control ?

    Honestly the next time you go to your local supermarket you start thinking : What would be the reason they put this isle next to that ?, do i really want that bag of chips? And that alone is pretty impressive. Though it may not seem like a masterpiece its really memorable.

    The casting besides Hauer seems like they all would be at least third picks for the role in most other productions.They are the kind of people that would be seen mostly in commercials from the time that this was made. As such the supporting cast's acting is far more hammy then Hauers is but it adds to the film. These people are fake ; they are wearing masks , they are forced to be something they aren't, or deliberately manipulating people into perceiving them in a way they can exploit. You can't know if a character is lying or is genuinely badly written and acted, and it's amazing.

    Furthermore whenever it gets too annoying Hauer's character does something that will make you want to keep watching ,in fact he is more annoyed then you are! He is snarly , grumpy , and stressed out, while everyone around him is either manipulated to act according to a unnatural mold, or overtly against him. And he deals with it all in a way that makes you high five everyone in the room if you watch it with friends.

    It's not the worlds best movie by any standard , but it genuinely makes you question those standards.

    If it's not a good movie its still one of the best watching experiences I have ever had. It's more entertaining than some 'better' Rutger Hauer films in fact. I mean sure Blade Runner is a great film , but let me choose between Wedlock and Blade-Runners director's cut and I choose Wedlock!

    It has a enjoyable pace and a runtime that is short enough for a fun campy evening along a few other movies. I highly recommend watching this with friends, I watched it with my roommates a few days after i saw it alone and it was even more fun! And i think that is how this film is meant to be seen.

    It may seem like cheap entertainment because of that , but it does have cultural relevance. In fact although it's not as gory and a lot cheaper , it's a lot like Robocop. It's more than meets the eye.
  • I enjoyed this movie, but then I always enjoy a good Rutger Hauer movie, or even a bad one for that matter. This movie has him as a convict in a prison who was betrayed by his girlfriend and by his buddy during a heist. He is sent to this weird prison though that is quite different from most. Here there is a mix of male and female prisoners...they even get to have a night a week they can get together. Water must be conserved, and the prisoners all get cute collars which are linked up to another prisoner and if these two get to separated they explode taking off the wearers head. Yes, only mild differences to be found here, eh? So after awhile at the prison, our hero ends up escaping said prison and must do certain things in order to find the loot that was hid and to keep themselves together or their heads are going to be blown off! So you get your differing ways for them to get separated and at times they have to get creative in keeping together. The flow of the movie is rather fast, and the ending to me was just perfect. Though one has to wonder if the exploding collar idea came from an earlier science fiction action movie "The Running Man"?
  • Uriah434 September 2018
    After a successful robbery nets approximately $25 million in diamonds, "Frank Warren" (Rutger Hauer) is then shot and left for dead by his fiancé, "Noelle" (Joan Chen) and best friend "Sam" (James Remar). Unfortunately for his accomplices, not only did they not kill him but he also managed to hide the loot before being double-crossed. Complicating matters even further, after Frank's recovery he is then sent to a special high-security prison which contains both male and female convicts and uses a state-of-the-art collar known as a "wedlock" which is electronically linked to another prisoner whose identity is unknown. As long as both prisoners remain within the perimeters of the prison they are safe. But if either of them venture beyond 100 yards from each other their collars emit a warning sound giving them just seconds to correct the situation before exploding and killing both of them. As is so happens, however, a female prisoner named "Tracy Riggs" (Mimi Rogers) has discovered that Frank is her wedlocked partner and after informing him they manage to escape the prison with several people-including Noelle and Sam-following closely behind. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a fun futuristic movie which benefitted from the brisk pace and fine chemistry between Rutger Hauer and Mimi Rogers. I especially liked the dry sense of humor exhibited by Frank throughout the film as well. That being said, I heartedly recommend this film to any viewers who might be interested and have rated it accordingly.
  • Wedlock is a movie in the good 1980ies tradition where drama, fun and thrill were intertwined. Although the ending can be considered predictable, lots of twists and turns during the movie do not let the tension diminish. Of course, Rutger Hauer and Mimi Rogers exploit also their talent in making the movie enjoyable (however, other actors are not bad either).

    The movie is definitely recommended to them who like to spend some 1h 40 minutes in a thrilling yet not oppressive atmosphere. And last but not least: the movies with Rutger Hauer's participation are usually worth watching - and Wedlock is no exception.
  • 'Sometime in the future' (probably 1997), an electronics whiz gone bad named Frank (Rutger Hauer) was f*cked over by his partners in crime and sent to a revolutionary new prison. The hook of the new prison is that there are no walls or draconian confinement measures, prisoners wander around as they please. But each prisoner wears a bulky electronic collar this explodes if someone attempts to remove it. Furthermore each prisoner is linked to another unknown prisoner in the facility, and if they move more than 100 yards apart *BOOOM!!!*, both collars explode and you can cancel the hat shopping trip.

    Bad luck I guess if your partner decides suicide is the solution…

    Of course Frank manages to uncover the identity of his collar-buddy and the two escape, spending an hour or so coming perilously close to breaching the 100 yard boundary and going pop. To complicate matters the prison warden wants Frank for more than escaping, he wants to get his paws on the 25M he and his fellow crims managed to get away with, crims that by the way are back on the scene and want to talk to Frank for themselves for some reason.

    Hauer actually gets to be a little sarcastic and dare I say salty with his dialogue in this film. Given the fact that it was always going to be a one note straight to VHS flick he hams it up merrily in some scenes, most notably when the warden initially hits him up for the diamonds. Rutger was never really very good at comedy, but at least he tries here.

    Wedlock is actually quite solidly plotted in the early going. The initial robbery is well thought out and creative, and they obviously spent a bit of time fine tuning the details in the prison where other films might've said 'we thought of the exploding collars, that'll do'.

    The relationship between Frank and fellow escapee played by Mimi Rogers is forced and arbitrary – as is to be expected in a B film where actual chemistry is less a priority than finding someone they could afford – and the supporting cast of fellow 80s and 90s bitzers only serve to further highlight the low budget nature of the film.

    Final Rating – 5.5 / 10. Wedlock will definitely not demand a spot in your DVD collection, but 20 years or so since release it still justifies the hour and a half of your time.
  • I just watched this movie again for the first time as an adult. I couldn't believe why I thought this movie was so good when I first saw it as a kid on HBO. The collars that are used are the exact same ones that were used in the opening sequence of "The Running Man" (same look, same design, same result, etc.,). I remember the black trustee in the movie from "Return of the Living Dead III". I guess I was using kid logic at the time; exploding heads=good. Rutger Hauer seems to be a veteran of this type of movie in recent years. He's kind of like that guy from the "American Ninja" movies or any movie from now defunct Cannon Pictures. If you want to see a truly good movie with Rutger Hauer in it, get some of his earlier Dutch films, Wolfgang Peterson's "Flesh and Blood" and, my personal favorite "Blind Fury.
  • Rutger Hauer can't carry a film as a leading man, he just can't; and he gets found out and looks utterly ridiculous at times. That he was doing films of this type only bears fruit to my statement, but that is not to say he hasn't been in fun action films, because he has, and this one has its moments......just.

    An interesting premise is what holds the film together, it is pure sci-fi hokum, and it is the kind of plot that keeps you interested even tho you really know what the outcome is going to be. A series of decent set pieces entertain, and there are little slices of humour to cement the daftness unfolding. The supporting cast fare no better than Hauer with Mimi Rogers hopelessly miscast as the tough Female lead, tho for the red blooded Male it has to be said she has one of the finest bottoms in cinema!! Surprisingly wasted is the talent of Stephen Tobolowsky, whilst James Remar is playing to his type as the grizzly baddie.

    All in all it just about rates average, but Blade Runner and The Hitcher seem a million miles away now. 5/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Wedlock is a good movie about how a man (Rutger Hauer) and his girl fried (Joan Chen) and his friend (James Remar) steal 25 million dollars of diamonds.As they are escaping form the cops they get separated and Rutger Hauer's character stashes the diamonds and then he meets back up with his accomplishes only to get betrayed and shot 3 times and left for dead.Rutger did not die so he gets sent to a futuristic uni sex prison where there are only a few guards and no walls but all of the prisoners have a wedlock collar on and if they cross a line on the ground there head with explode because they are 100 yards away from there unknown wedlock partner.

    And then one day a woman prisoner (Mimi Rogers) tells him that she is his wedlock partner so they escape together and they are on the run from the cops,Rutger's ex partners and they still have booms around there necks so they still can not go more then 100 yards away from each other.

    The best actor in this movie is by far Ruter Hunter i have not seen all of his movies but his best movies that i have seen are wedlock,Escape From Sobibor,Blind Fury and Surviving The Game.The are a few good scenes in this movie like how two of the prisoners heads explode and the end of this movie id good.

    Over all if u like Sci-Fi/action movies i think that u will like this movie.My rating for this movie is six and a half out of ten.
  • This movie is about a prison, where the prisoners get a special collar. They are "linked" with another prisoner (but don't know which one). If they try to escape, and are too far away from each other, the collars explode. Rutger Hauer plays a guy who robs 25 million worth of diamonds, but gets double-crossed, and ends up in prison. The first part is your basic prison movie, later as Hauer escapes with his 'collar buddy' the movie turns into a fugitive movie where they are chased through the United States. Although I like the collar idea (which isn't original; it was used in The Running Man for instance), the movie is executed very poorly. The characters lack interest, and most are played very bad. The script is boring, and so are the one-liners. You've seen it all before, only better. Some might still enjoy this movie, but I seriously recommend to avoid it.
  • Set "sometime in the future" the main character Frank (Rutger Hauer) gets sent into a new kind of prison. Everybody in the prison has a necklace, which is linked with another person's necklace. (Of course you don't know who this other person is.) If you get too far away from the person you're linked with both of your necklaces will explode. This is of course to prevent people from escaping. Compared to if the necklace was just linked to a certain spot inside the prison, the idea of linking the necklace to another person adds another dimension to it. You might be willing to risk your own life trying to escape, but do you really want to risk another person's life at the same time? Such a prison will not be set in the US in the present time of course. It would be highly controversial. That's why the believability of the plot relies on this being set in sometime the future, when views on moral have changed enough so that such a prison will become plausible. The problem here is that this "future" could very easily be mistaken for 1991, when the movie was made. This is a huge problem for me as I just don't believe that such a prison will exist in the US in the near future. I would have really wanted them to put more effort/resources into making it seem more futuristic. I guess this was a budgetary decision.

    Even if you don't care about the plot being plausible, this movie has little to offer compared to other semi-low-budget movies of the genre. The action sequences and acting efforts are pretty average, and the script follows the Hollywood formula quite well, making any plot twists obvious. I'm a bit disappointed because it actually seemed like a pretty cool idea for an early '90s action movie. Maybe I'm a little nice with the grade 4/10, but I didn't want to be too harsh when the basic idea is actually good. I might be interested in a remake with a bit higher budget so they can set it further into the future.

    I'd recommend this only for the die hard 1980s and early '90s action movie fans.
  • I watched this film on an intranet in China while wasting a few hours during one Beijing afternoon. Both Hauer and (Mimi) Rogers are competent actors and up until this film I hadn't seen a bad performance by either. All that changed with this film as neither actor is believable. I have no idea why two fine actors like Hauer and Rogers would get involved with a film this bad.

    This film proves to me that many of the people in the film industry have no idea how to actually make films that people want to watch (perhaps they should ask a few real people!). This film was too violent for no reason, had too much bad language but, strangely, had little or no sex and nudity! I must admit that I did not watch the whole film; after roughly an hour of this rubbish I neither cared about any of the characters or what happened to them! In fact, I'd almost given up on life itself! I would be interested if it made any money for the producers because it certainly didn't deserve to.

    The actual plot idea is quite good - a high security prison where inmates are kept from leaving by hi-tech collars around their necks. Unfortunately, not the writers, the director or the actors knew what to do with it to turn it into a good film. If you have an IQ higher than 50 or you are above 13, avoid this piece of trash like a prison sentence!
  • seveb-2517923 September 2018
    One of Rutger Hauer's better efforts. 'Sometime in the near future' it proclaims at the beginning, and then proceeds to show us a movie theatre with "Graffiti Bridge" and "Marked For Death" showing. 1990 then...(and ironically this movie also includes Basil Wallace, who featured in that Seagal spectacular as the villain Screwface, and gives an identical eye rolling performance here, sans the west indian accent). This is one of those Sci-Fi B movies that almost bridges the gap to greatness. Simple but effective concept which after a bit of a sketchy start just gets better and better, after Rutger and his 'wife' hit the road. It's helped out by having an outstanding supporting cast, including the exquisite Joan Chen, a youthful James Remar and Stephen Tobolowsky, relishing a chance to break away from comedy and play the bureaucratic villain. Poor old Rutger had a brief flirtation with stardom but he never quite made it (sigh). IMO part of the reason is that he was a bit of a lard arse and he really needed to work harder to stay in shape. Sadly he didn't and ends up looking very paunchy in this one, which is something you can get away with if your Jack Nicholson, but is never a good look for an action hero. Another is that he wasn't always able to bring his slightly unhinged "Roy Batty" charisma to his good guy roles, but part of that is due to scripting issues, as in order to deliver lines in a fruity fashion, first you must have some suitable lines to chew on.

    Best of Rutger (in Engliish)

    Blade runner Blind Justice Wanted Dead Or Alive Wedlock Salute To The Jugger Night Hawks
  • kairingler31 July 2013
    after a heist gone wrong our hero is thrown into prison, no big deal because he's already hidden all the loot from his cheating partners,, only problem is with this prison is that you are assigned a partner,, and each of you have to wear a collar around you're neck,, but the collar's are filled with explosives,, so when you get so many feet in distance between each other,, both of you're heads get blown clean off.. while in jail he meets up with a woman who says she knows who his partner is,, and she can safely disarm the collars,, also we have a greedy warden who knows about the heist gone wrong and offers our hero a chance at redemption if he will tell the warden where the jewels are,, after breaking out of prison successfully,, our hero is on the trail of the jewels,, along with his new jailbird friend,, together they must find the diamonds, before his ex partners and the law find him.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Starts out as a heist gone wrong picture, turns into a sf prison flick, then turns into a kinda neat variant on THE DEFIANT ONES, then turns into "unlikely opposites attract" sort of thing, then turns into a conventional action flick of the era (ever notice how they all climax in abandoned industrial buildings?). A lot of ideas in here, but nothing's really developed and in general it just looks and feels cheap and depressing. Hauer, who I normally really like, is just collecting a check; Remar and inexplicably Chen are way over the top. Bits of gore here and there: for some reason no nudity. Odd scene where Mimi Rogers busts up a wedding: feels like a romantic comedy from the period getting shoehorned in. Pretty sucky, avoid.
  • The actual plot idea is quite good - a high security prison where inmates are kept from leaving by hi-tech collars around their necks. I wonder if the exploding collar idea came from an earlier science fiction action movie "The Running Man" (1987) with Schwarzenegger ? There is some similarity to "The Defiant ones". One scene reminded me of "Speed" . The title is something of a metaphor for our lead character, as he didn't had luck with women in the past.

    This movie is action/thriller with a rather small science-fiction element ( probably because of the low budget) . The movie definitely suffers from small budget that didn't allow some interesting ideas to be explored ( The cars have bar-codes instead of license plates ) . The movie is supposed to be set in the future , but the world didn't really changed at all . this "future" could very easily be mistaken for 1991, when the movie was made. "Wedlock" suffers from it's made-for-video-status .

    Despite having impressive cast ( for a B-class movie ) – Rutger Hauer , Joan Chen (Chen and Hauer met earlier in "Salute of the Jugger" ), Mimi Rogers and Stephen Tobolowsky – acting is a weak side of the movie . Why so experienced actors give such bad , cartoonish-like performances I will never know. Stephen Tobolowsky was very unconvincing as the hard nosed prison warden.

    The action scenes are forgettable and the plot twists are rather painfully obvious. The dialogues are trashy. The relationship between Frank and fellow escapee played by Mimi Rogers is forced and arbitrary

    The film looked very promising, but the end result was really bad. I would like to see a remake of this one with better cast and budget. I give it 2/10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Now, I can watch a Mimi Rogers promotional still for 94 minutes. And next time, I will. Unless I missed something, there is a major logical flaw in the outcome of this film. When Frank is dying of gunshot wounds (sort of), he talks Tracy through the process of deactivation of the bombs that will go off if they are separated. Huh? If he knew how to do that, how come he didn't do it in the first place, when he had top mental and physical capability? Huh? And, after the bombs were removed from their radio control devices, how come they still detonated after being separated the requisite distance? Huh?
An error has occured. Please try again.