Sotto massima sorveglianza

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.

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."

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!

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"?