Relentless 3

... it's rubbish.

How it has a 5.3 rating I can't begin to imagine!

One example should be enough to stop you from wasting your time: The baddy strangles a policeman with ONE hand, while holding down ONE of the cops hands with his other. Why was the cop not bashing the baddy's head in with his free hand, or perhaps indulging in his own one handed strangling of said baddy, you might ask ...

I have not the faintest idea.

Let's recap Det. Sam Dietz (Leo Rossi). In the original, he's a former NYC cop who moves to LA, catches his first serial killer but not before things hit too close to home. In the sequel 'Dead On' mere months have passed and already he's on the case of another. He closes it and then makes amends to his family. In 'Relentless 3' he moved away, but things haven't worked out (divorced) and now he's back in LA. Where he's asked to consult on another serial killer because as Captain Phelan (Tow Bower) puts it "you're the best we've got."

The series is strictly meat & potatoes following a bare bones formula, but logic is starting to fall by the way side. Why is Dietz considered the best? By my calculations, he hasn't been doing this very long at all. How can he have caught four killers with ex-partner Roy (Robert Costanzo) given the timeline? What's Dietz's obsession with answering the phone at the worst of times? Can he treat any woman in his life right? His son? Catching killers above all else is this what they mean by 'Relentless'?

Rossi continues holding his own. Thankfully he's been dialed back from the loudmouth jerk he was in the previous entry. I always enjoy seeing character actors such as Bower (Die Hard 2, Clear & Present Danger) and Costanzo (Total Recall, Undisputed 3: Redemption). Likewise with William Forsythe. His killer is an improvement from the last sequel, but unfortunately under developed given past history.

After 'Relentless 3' there's no getting past this basic by the numbers cop / killer routine where they don't do more than necessary. The whole angle they're trying for here isn't fleshed out & feels hollow. The ending has a very much thrown together & rushed quality to it. Slightly better than the first sequel, but that isn't saying much.

As with the second in the series, this keeps getting better than the previous film but also gets sleazier, so there is a good and bad material here. It's a rough film, make no mistake, but it's very interesting all the way. It has many of the same elements the two other films had: some grisly scenes, rough language but a fast-moving film which really goes fast considering it's only 80-some minutes long.

Leo Rossi once again stars but I liked his partner (Robert Costanzo) much better. William Forsythe once again plays a creepy killer. He seems to be typecast. The female lead is someone I haven't seen before or since: attractive Signy Coleman.

I did get confused a couple of issues such as how the detectives figured a few things out and that end. Also, whatever happened to "Marianne?" They do discuss something briefly but I couldn't get it. I don't claim this film is a great work of art: just entertaining.

Without giving anything I will say I liked the ending which wasn't the usual clichéd one. This is the only one in the series I would consider re-purchasing for DVD but it isn't available.

Sam Dietz once again returns to track down another serial killer this time played by William Forsythe that taunts the police by sending them pieces of his latest victims.

My idea of a third installment is a film that should stray more from the first and second entries to give people something they haven't seen before in terms of the series, RELENTLESS 3 doesn't stray at all but it is by no means a weak entry, in fact it is actually a good sequel for a third film in a series, the role of serial killer is once again perfectly cast, putting William Forsythe and the word creepy in one sentence works great because the man shines the most when he plays a creepy character, Leo Rossi who again plays the role of Sam Dietz gives a great performance as he did in the first and the second, but one of the scene stealers is Robert Costanzo whose character and performance added a somewhat light hearted touch to a series that's been very much serious up to this point.

The storyline is basically a detective vs. serial killer type as in the first and second, but unlike the second film it concentrates less on the character story and more on the killer like in the first one, plus the highlight of the story is the ending, if you think you can predict it you're a genius because it one of the best endings I've seen in a while.

Overall, better than the first but not quite as good as the second but its worth a watch.

The first was mediocre, the second was great, but the third entry STINKS! Leo Rossi's character here is repulsive and not likable in any way. Everybody acts unbelievably stupid here. Pre-release cuts to prevent the movie getting an NC-17 also hurt the film. The actor who plays the villain actually isn't bad, considering the material he's given.