Two Los Angeles police detectives, cynical veteran Malloy and cocky rookie Dietz, hunt for a serial killer, an ex-cop named Taylor, who randomly chooses his victims from a phone directory.Two Los Angeles police detectives, cynical veteran Malloy and cocky rookie Dietz, hunt for a serial killer, an ex-cop named Taylor, who randomly chooses his victims from a phone directory.Two Los Angeles police detectives, cynical veteran Malloy and cocky rookie Dietz, hunt for a serial killer, an ex-cop named Taylor, who randomly chooses his victims from a phone directory.
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I am a really big fan of Judd Nelson and he ruled in this movie. He's so good at being the bad guy. Judd plays Buck Taylor, a demented serial killer who picks his victims from a phone book and calls them before he enters their house and kills them. And the victims' names resemble his. And he tears the pages out with the victims' names underlined in red with messages like "catch me if you can" that he leaves on the dead bodies for the police. Buck does these horrid things because his father was abusive and he kills to show his dad that he's good at something. I really enjoyed this movie and it showed how good of an actor Judd is. Great film!
A demented serial killer is wrecking havoc on the streets of L.A. It's up to a rookie and a veteran cop to stop him.
Sound familiar? You bet. Yet this film seems to creep up above most other films of the similar genre, thanks in most parts to an unusually effective performance from Judd Nelson. Most of the times I don't particularly like him, but here he fits the bill perfectly.
The supporting performances are also quite good. Robert Loggia plays it straight as the veteran cop and Leo Rossi has never been as appealing as here. Director William Lustic creates a reasonable amount of suspense and keeps things moving at an adequate pace. But mostly, this film will be remembered (by me anyway) as the best Judd Nelson film, and his best performance. He plays a psychopath to a tee.
Sound familiar? You bet. Yet this film seems to creep up above most other films of the similar genre, thanks in most parts to an unusually effective performance from Judd Nelson. Most of the times I don't particularly like him, but here he fits the bill perfectly.
The supporting performances are also quite good. Robert Loggia plays it straight as the veteran cop and Leo Rossi has never been as appealing as here. Director William Lustic creates a reasonable amount of suspense and keeps things moving at an adequate pace. But mostly, this film will be remembered (by me anyway) as the best Judd Nelson film, and his best performance. He plays a psychopath to a tee.
This one's funny because it's your basic procedural potboiler about a hotshot rookie detective and his grizzled old partner tracking a murderer, which, yeah, is pretty standard, except here the grizzled old partner doesn't really do anything. He doesn't help solve the case, he doesn't mentor the rookie in any meaningful way, he doesn't offer any profound insights into life
all he does is sit around and bitch and moan about how work sucks and how the boys at the crime lab can take care of it. It'd be like if Morgan Freeman had spent the whole run-time of 'Seven' playing cards with that crew in the library and let Lab Tech #1 do all the work.
The first entry in this series is mediocre. Although it's okay to watch if you have nothing else to do or watch, it really isn't more than that. Resembles a made-for-tv movie.
This crime story has some scary scenes, with an especially memorable one early on with a woman hiding in a clothes dryer. In fact, the first half of this is excellent but it peters out that point with two typical Hollywood clichés of crime movies of the period.
They are: 1 - the good cop (Leo Rossi as "Sam Dietz") going it alone despite the orders of his superior; 2 - the killer going to the good cop's house to kill his family. Too bad it stooped to these obvious story lines because this could have been an outstanding serial-killer movie. As it is, it would up being slightly better- than-average. By the way, what's with Meg Foster's eyes? It looks like they have no pupils. It's eerie to look at that woman's face.
This movie spawned several sequels and the sequels were better and better as they went along.
They are: 1 - the good cop (Leo Rossi as "Sam Dietz") going it alone despite the orders of his superior; 2 - the killer going to the good cop's house to kill his family. Too bad it stooped to these obvious story lines because this could have been an outstanding serial-killer movie. As it is, it would up being slightly better- than-average. By the way, what's with Meg Foster's eyes? It looks like they have no pupils. It's eerie to look at that woman's face.
This movie spawned several sequels and the sequels were better and better as they went along.
Did you know
- TriviaWilliam Lustig was originally going to direct True Romance (1993) before Tony Scott. During that period, Quentin Tarantino and Lustig discussed Tarantino writing Relentless 2 and Tarantino was excited. The two thought they would be like Scorsese and Schrader writing Taxi Driver (1976) together. However, the relationship soured when Lustig demanded rewrites on True Romance.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Dead on: Relentless II (1992)
- How long is Relentless?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- Fuera de sí, sin descanso
- Filming locations
- 884 Palm Avenue, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, USA(Ken Lerner's Apartment)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $4,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $6,985,999
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $2,838,177
- Sep 4, 1989
- Gross worldwide
- $6,985,999
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content