Wedlock - Les prisonniers du futur

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!

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.

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!

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.