User reviews

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!

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.

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."

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.

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

It didn't want to be a "Shawshank Redemption", it's not enough for a "Lock Up" or a "Running Man", it can compete with a Fortress. Rutger Hauer! James Remar! Danny Trejo. Danny Trejo for 20 seconds! Joan Chen, just rocked "The Blood of Heroes" with Rutger!

Lots of action, a (too) little jail, definitely no romance and lots of Shakespearean betrayal and human abysses. I didn't know if I already knew it, not exactly a quality rating for the time being, but I didn't regret my re-watch, the resolution of the question, at all. Decent visuals, thanks to an obviously decent budget, actors who enjoy acting and not a minute of boredom. Thank you.

'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.

"The Defiant Ones" gets updated with this slightly futuristic sci-fi thriller, starring Rutger Hauer as Frank, a jewel thief double-crossed and shot by his partners (Joan Chen, James Remar). He manages to squirrel away the jewels before getting picked up by the cops.

And that's where the plot really kicks into gear. The prisons' enterprising warden (Stephen Tobolowsky) fits all of the convicts with collars that will blow up each convicts' head REAL good if they get more than 100 yards away from the convict with a matching collar. Action and mayhem ensue when Frank escapes alongside Tracy (Mimi Rogers), who wears a matching collar.

Hauer is in typically fine form; he could make just about any B flick work thanks to his natural charisma. And he has good antagonistic chemistry with the amusingly cast Rogers. The whole cast is fine (Chen is a hoot as a completely self-serving individual); other familiar faces like Basil Wallace, Grand L. Bush, Denis Forest, Glenn Plummer, O-Lan Jones, Tina Lifford, and Danny Trejo all turn up as well.

The movie is basically good entertainment, even if it's ultimately a rather conventional chase flick. It has entertaining protagonists and effectively weaselly antagonists, and has some juicy moments of violence. Part of the reason why it works as well as it does is because it rarely stops moving; kudos to the under-rated director Lewis Teague ("Alligator", "Cujo", "The Jewel of the Nile", "Navy SEALS") for keeping the excitement level reasonably high.

A worthy viewing for Hauer fans.

Seven out of 10.

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

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 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.

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!

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.

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.

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 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!

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.

I first saw the start of this on TV as an 11 year old in 1995 and unfortunately did not get the chance to finish it. I didn't see it again on TV nor was I able to locate it on home video. Fast forward 13 years later to 2008, I managed to locate a rare copy of this on DVD and was very eager to watch this movie. By the end, I was extremely disappointed at how atrocious the movie was. The entire movie resembled something that was aimed towards children under 13 years. The film looked very promising, but the end result was really bad. The film felt very derivative and plot ideas thrown in were extremely lame. Rutger Hauer of Blade Runner and The Hitcher fame deserved a lot better, as does Mimi Rogers (Tom Cruise's ex-wife), Joan Chen (On Deadly Ground) and James Remar (48 Hrs.). Stephen Tobolowsky (Ned Ryerson from Groundhog Day) was very unconvincing as the hard nosed prison warden.

The whole movie resembled a live action cartoon filled with very lame ideas. A total waste of a movie.

1/10.

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"?

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!

While TV series could fight Cinema products and could win the viewers attention, TV movies were mostly losers in that battle. (I'm talking about 1950-90s and early 2000's, not modern streaming giants) But there were exceptions. This is one of them - I watched Wedlock in 1993 and I thought it was B+ sci-fi cinema. But TV movie? Wow. There are hundreds of big budget movies that look a lot cheaper and thinner than Wedlock. "Must have" for sci-fi collectors and Rutger's fans.

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.