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
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.
7wigz
Judd Nelson rules in this flick. I'm surprised nobody seems to know about this one. If you see in the store, give it a try. I think you'll be entertained. Rossi is pretty good in this too. His banter with Loggia is straight out of a buddy-cop movie encyclopedia, but it works.
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.
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!
There have been a million wackos on the loose with two determined cops on his trial type of movies, but this one at least tries something new with the murders. They are your standard knifed or strangled variety but the killer doesn't just do it. He makes the victim help out somewhat, by putting the knife, piano wire, etc. into their hands and then forcing them to effectively off themselves.
Judd Nelson rules in this flick. I'm surprised nobody seems to know about this one. If you see in the store, give it a try. I think you'll be entertained. Rossi is pretty good in this too. His banter with Loggia is straight out of a buddy-cop movie encyclopedia, but it works.
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.
Give this movie a go, its a pretty good one.
8/10
Judd Nelson rules in this flick. I'm surprised nobody seems to know about this one. If you see in the store, give it a try. I think you'll be entertained. Rossi is pretty good in this too. His banter with Loggia is straight out of a buddy-cop movie encyclopedia, but it works.
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.
Give this movie a go, its a pretty good one.
8/10
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
- Runtime
- 1h 32m(92 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content








