Sure, I suppose the top Soviet spies in the early 1990's could have been strategically placed in random mechanic shops and real estate offices, when they were not hired out to sub-contractors as day laborers building subdivisions of new homes. Perhaps a coast-to-coast string of 23 murders featuring satanic wall graffiti drawn in the victims' blood would NOT be tied by the Los Angeles media to the first couple similar incidents on their beat (though I seem to remember Charles Manson making a pretty big splash in exactly this fashion). However, once four uniform cops are added to the death toll of 27 civilian victims, I would expect all of California would be under the sort of siege mentality seen back in the days when the Symbionese Liberation Army was running amuck. Implausibly, it's still bungling-as-usual in the precinct of snooze-meister detective Sam Dietz (Leo Rossi). Too bad actress Patty Hearst was not added to DEAD ON for old times' sake. Was John Waters the only director who had Patty on his pre-Blackberry rolodex?
11 Reviews
Dead on: do not apply directly to the forehead
movieman_kev27 January 2009
Detective Sam Dietz (Leo Rossi, reprising his role from the first film) is trying to juggle getting over the attacks on his family from the first film & trying to catch a new serial killer (Miles O'Keefe) while teamed up with an unhelpful FBI agent and dealing with a home life that's crumbling around him due to his relentless pursuits of his job. Meg Forster also returns but is relegated to bitching at her husband most of the film.
Instead of focusing mostly on the villain like the previous Relentless did, the sequel unwisely chooses to follow Detective Dietz who comes off as a slightly pompous self-loathing windbag. The first film was (moderately) entertaining strictly because of Judd Nelson's dead-eyed portrayal of that films killer (and William Lustigs direction to a lesser extent) Where as this film gives Miles O'Keeffe's Gregor, the stone cold killer (who could've been a great character, the back story was intriguing enough) the short shift, and while this sequel is still somewhat watchable, it is definitely the lesser because of it.
My Grade: C-
DVD Extras: Trailers for In The Cut, Secret Window & Panic Room
Instead of focusing mostly on the villain like the previous Relentless did, the sequel unwisely chooses to follow Detective Dietz who comes off as a slightly pompous self-loathing windbag. The first film was (moderately) entertaining strictly because of Judd Nelson's dead-eyed portrayal of that films killer (and William Lustigs direction to a lesser extent) Where as this film gives Miles O'Keeffe's Gregor, the stone cold killer (who could've been a great character, the back story was intriguing enough) the short shift, and while this sequel is still somewhat watchable, it is definitely the lesser because of it.
My Grade: C-
DVD Extras: Trailers for In The Cut, Secret Window & Panic Room
Treading a different path.
lost-in-limbo29 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I can't remember all that much of the original film, but I somewhat recall the hub was more so on the serial killer played by Judd Nelson, whereas the investigating detective (Leo Rossi reprising his role from the original) gets more of the spotlight in this follow-up. "DEAD ON: RELENTLESS 2" is rather a cold, tight, calculative action-thriller that has our detective teamed up with an FBI agent after a serial killer who moves around a lot (from D.C to Arizona) killing their victims by strangulation, followed by mutilation to use their blood for satanic symbols smeared on walls. Yet what started like a routine serial killer case begins to open up that maybe these killings are politically involved.
The plot engages in parts, while interesting in its procedural build-up (thanks mainly to Rossi's for better or worse larger-than-life presence), it's not as tense, or even exciting due the mundane espionage angle and the director's tiresomely pointless choice to over-stylize scenes. I found the first 30 minutes to be well-done, even the killer's first victim (Sven-Ole Thorsen) installed an impressive beat down. But once everything within the story started unraveling and the director had forgotten he was making an action-thriller by sticking to his moody visuals (and he sure did like the killer in the ice-bath moments). I was starting to wish that it had stuck to the straight-forward serial killer angle than the brooding political cold war assassin trump. It got kind of got bogged down in the third act. I know, in doing so it's trying to set itself apart from your usual serial killer outing, but here it comes at a cost and in the end doesn't eventuate up to much. You could say it does take away from that cold-blooded persona of the killer (after the first couple deaths), as now Miles O'Keeffe's killer is faceless, even shapeless, becoming less threatening in the story's developments. This is specially shown in the unexpected bowling alley sequence, showing his true mindset and surprisingly it's never mentioned about afterwards.
Like I mentioned earlier, the focus lies on Leo Rossi's character. We learn that he's still haunted by the events at the end of the first film, and this had caused a rift in his marriage that he lives elsewhere. The drama is beyond clichéd with Rossi pouting (cop first, husband and father second), but nice to see Meg Foster return. Another combination that works is his one with Ray Sharkey's stringent FBI character. Watching them was like two dogs fighting over the same bone. One straight-on, while the other sly with unknown agendas. There are some amusing lines of dialogues, which for most part comes out of Rossi's mouth.
The plot engages in parts, while interesting in its procedural build-up (thanks mainly to Rossi's for better or worse larger-than-life presence), it's not as tense, or even exciting due the mundane espionage angle and the director's tiresomely pointless choice to over-stylize scenes. I found the first 30 minutes to be well-done, even the killer's first victim (Sven-Ole Thorsen) installed an impressive beat down. But once everything within the story started unraveling and the director had forgotten he was making an action-thriller by sticking to his moody visuals (and he sure did like the killer in the ice-bath moments). I was starting to wish that it had stuck to the straight-forward serial killer angle than the brooding political cold war assassin trump. It got kind of got bogged down in the third act. I know, in doing so it's trying to set itself apart from your usual serial killer outing, but here it comes at a cost and in the end doesn't eventuate up to much. You could say it does take away from that cold-blooded persona of the killer (after the first couple deaths), as now Miles O'Keeffe's killer is faceless, even shapeless, becoming less threatening in the story's developments. This is specially shown in the unexpected bowling alley sequence, showing his true mindset and surprisingly it's never mentioned about afterwards.
Like I mentioned earlier, the focus lies on Leo Rossi's character. We learn that he's still haunted by the events at the end of the first film, and this had caused a rift in his marriage that he lives elsewhere. The drama is beyond clichéd with Rossi pouting (cop first, husband and father second), but nice to see Meg Foster return. Another combination that works is his one with Ray Sharkey's stringent FBI character. Watching them was like two dogs fighting over the same bone. One straight-on, while the other sly with unknown agendas. There are some amusing lines of dialogues, which for most part comes out of Rossi's mouth.
I like the "Rentless" series a lot!
crystalart4 August 2011
For several years I've enjoyed the other two "Relentless" films, but for some reason I missed this one until tonight.
It's not easy to find these films on line, but it's worth the effort.
The villains in each film are well cast. They present a frightening collection of killers!
Leo Rossi does an excellent job playing a frustrated cop trying to solve a case. He doesn't get much help from superior officers, or the FBI agent with whom he's required to work.
If you're somewhat jaded you will enjoy the killing techniques used...including cable ties.
Finally, you'll see some artful shots of ice cube baths, etc.
Enjoy!
It's not easy to find these films on line, but it's worth the effort.
The villains in each film are well cast. They present a frightening collection of killers!
Leo Rossi does an excellent job playing a frustrated cop trying to solve a case. He doesn't get much help from superior officers, or the FBI agent with whom he's required to work.
If you're somewhat jaded you will enjoy the killing techniques used...including cable ties.
Finally, you'll see some artful shots of ice cube baths, etc.
Enjoy!
Oh dear...
TomFarrell6327 November 2022
I sort of enjoyed the first one, so bought the DVD of the second to watch, wish I hadn't bothered.
Apart from the odd bit of fairly restrained violence, this plays as a bland made for TV movie type thing, and the acting is truly awful.
For me, films like this need a bit of sleaze, and there's none on offer here at all.
I'm really surprised that some people hold this one in higher regard than the first. At least director William Lustig managed to create a bit of atmosphere in the first.
Don't think I'll be bothering with 3 and 4 of the series as I can't see them being an improvement on this.
Apart from the odd bit of fairly restrained violence, this plays as a bland made for TV movie type thing, and the acting is truly awful.
For me, films like this need a bit of sleaze, and there's none on offer here at all.
I'm really surprised that some people hold this one in higher regard than the first. At least director William Lustig managed to create a bit of atmosphere in the first.
Don't think I'll be bothering with 3 and 4 of the series as I can't see them being an improvement on this.
Better Than The First 'Relentless'
ccthemovieman-124 May 2006
This was much better than I anticipated. I had watched the first "Relentless" movie and thought it was "fair" but this was much better, not as frightening perhaps as the original but better start-to-finish. This kept you guessing.
Once again (it's overdone in Hollywood), we see another dishonest cop or government agent (played very well, however, by Ray Sharkey). The film also has a bit too much sleazy atmosphere for what I'd like to see.
Still, it's definitely worth watching if you like these serial killer crime movies. I am shocked there is only one other review of this. I had to be somewhat popular to have the original and then two more sequels.
Once again (it's overdone in Hollywood), we see another dishonest cop or government agent (played very well, however, by Ray Sharkey). The film also has a bit too much sleazy atmosphere for what I'd like to see.
Still, it's definitely worth watching if you like these serial killer crime movies. I am shocked there is only one other review of this. I had to be somewhat popular to have the original and then two more sequels.
Less Effective This Time
refinedsugar19 November 2023
'Dead On' picks up mere months from where things left off. It's still very much a cop's hunt for a killer, but other elements are new. Question becomes is it enough to break up another routine story & does the cast stand out? This first sequel - two more follow - doesn't have a lofty bar to hit. I was hoping it would at least match the original's level.
Det. Sam Dietz (Leo Rossi) solving the 'Sunset Murders' damaged his family. He's separated from his wife & son (Meg Foster, Brendan Ryan) and has become much more of an obsessive detective. When random victims start showing up linked together by method of death & bloody symbols drawn on walls it appears to be another serial killer (Miles O'Keeffe) at work. This time he's teamed up with FBI Agent Vassone (Ray Sharkey) who says it's the work of a guy who already has 22 bodies to his name and is moving across the country from East to West.
There's no getting around the obvious. Dietz has gone from a cop begging to be able to do good police work & a measure of respect to being a downright A-hole. It's kinda off-putting. Especially when the hurt is shown caused to his estranged family. Meanwhile the flick is pretty face up about Vassone being deceptive so you have to play the waiting game to get the obvious reveal. Lastly the killer isn't given any personality. Only when the ending comes does he get fleshed out in back story 101 and have dialog.
'Relentless 2' is stomping pretty familiar grounds. Cops not getting along, family troubles and murder most foul. The cast is sufficient, but there's no standouts. Betrayal & political intrigue gets injected, but much isn't very good. Dietz's thinking becomes a stretch & I was left wondering how much of the end sentiment will be irrelevant come 'Relentless 3'.
Det. Sam Dietz (Leo Rossi) solving the 'Sunset Murders' damaged his family. He's separated from his wife & son (Meg Foster, Brendan Ryan) and has become much more of an obsessive detective. When random victims start showing up linked together by method of death & bloody symbols drawn on walls it appears to be another serial killer (Miles O'Keeffe) at work. This time he's teamed up with FBI Agent Vassone (Ray Sharkey) who says it's the work of a guy who already has 22 bodies to his name and is moving across the country from East to West.
There's no getting around the obvious. Dietz has gone from a cop begging to be able to do good police work & a measure of respect to being a downright A-hole. It's kinda off-putting. Especially when the hurt is shown caused to his estranged family. Meanwhile the flick is pretty face up about Vassone being deceptive so you have to play the waiting game to get the obvious reveal. Lastly the killer isn't given any personality. Only when the ending comes does he get fleshed out in back story 101 and have dialog.
'Relentless 2' is stomping pretty familiar grounds. Cops not getting along, family troubles and murder most foul. The cast is sufficient, but there's no standouts. Betrayal & political intrigue gets injected, but much isn't very good. Dietz's thinking becomes a stretch & I was left wondering how much of the end sentiment will be irrelevant come 'Relentless 3'.
First killer was unpredictable. This one is unstoppable
face_of_terror2 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When i first saw the poster for this movie, i knew this movie simply "CAN NOT" be bad. Relentless 2 has a great tag line - "First killer was unpredictable. This one is unstoppable". Thats pretty much is true. Miles O'Keeffe looks like a new terminator model on that poster, so i decided give this crime thriller a try.
To make it short: If you liked the first Relentless (directed by William Lustig), you will like this one too. A huge improvement over the first is the villain. Basically, Miles O'Keeffe steals this movie with his murderous Russian Specnaz character Gregor. Killer from the first movie Bud would be ripped apart by Gregor. O'Keeffe's character doesn't talk, doest blink, doesn't move a muscle on his face, all he does is killing. Leo Rossi returns as a likable but mostly helpless detective Sam Dietz, assigned on the case of the murders.
What i liked is that Meg Foster was brought back as Rossi's wife (there's also a cameo of a photograph with Rossi and Robert Loggia from the first movie), and the music is a perfect fit for the film. So, if you like crime thrillers, give this a try. If you want to see one of the better cold-blooded killer performances, also watch this movie. And, if you are a Miles O'Keeffe fan - by all means go watch this movie!
To make it short: If you liked the first Relentless (directed by William Lustig), you will like this one too. A huge improvement over the first is the villain. Basically, Miles O'Keeffe steals this movie with his murderous Russian Specnaz character Gregor. Killer from the first movie Bud would be ripped apart by Gregor. O'Keeffe's character doesn't talk, doest blink, doesn't move a muscle on his face, all he does is killing. Leo Rossi returns as a likable but mostly helpless detective Sam Dietz, assigned on the case of the murders.
What i liked is that Meg Foster was brought back as Rossi's wife (there's also a cameo of a photograph with Rossi and Robert Loggia from the first movie), and the music is a perfect fit for the film. So, if you like crime thrillers, give this a try. If you want to see one of the better cold-blooded killer performances, also watch this movie. And, if you are a Miles O'Keeffe fan - by all means go watch this movie!
Surprisingly good sequel.
jhpstrydom15 September 2009
Leo Rossi reprises his role of Sam Dietz and this time he's paired up with a shady FBI agent to find a another serial killer, only this killer has a hidden agenda that isn't just about killing people.
I was actually surprised by this film, normally with sequels you get a very weak second film but this one was anything but, this sequel is actually better than the first, the killer this time is played by Miles O'Keeffe whose intense looks really does his character justice, Ray Sharkey is an actor I've never seen before or since this film but he played the role of the shady FBI agent very convincingly.
The storyline obviously is very much the same formula as the first one only unlike the first one that concentrated more on the killer, this one chooses to focus more on the character of Sam Dietz and how the incident at the end of the first film effected him and his family, as well as how his relentless pursuit of serial killers take its toll on his life and his marriage.
Not many sequels surpass their predecessor but this one is one of the few exceptions, if you're a fan of the first, you won't be disappointed with this one
I was actually surprised by this film, normally with sequels you get a very weak second film but this one was anything but, this sequel is actually better than the first, the killer this time is played by Miles O'Keeffe whose intense looks really does his character justice, Ray Sharkey is an actor I've never seen before or since this film but he played the role of the shady FBI agent very convincingly.
The storyline obviously is very much the same formula as the first one only unlike the first one that concentrated more on the killer, this one chooses to focus more on the character of Sam Dietz and how the incident at the end of the first film effected him and his family, as well as how his relentless pursuit of serial killers take its toll on his life and his marriage.
Not many sequels surpass their predecessor but this one is one of the few exceptions, if you're a fan of the first, you won't be disappointed with this one
This sequel is a disappointment
raisleygordon20 July 2012
The first movie was a "Maniac Cop" clone, sans the cop uniform. But all the excitement, and energy, and suspense of Part 1 is gone. This time around, it's basically just a police procedural, with the killer playing second fiddle to the plot. We don't see nearly enough of the killer, and what we do see of him is not particularly interesting. Instead, why not just resurrect the original character? I thought Judd Nelson was the ideal choice for the killer in the first movie. Hopefully, parts 3 & 4 will be a lot better.
Incidentally, doesn't Leo Rossi look a little like Robert De Niro?
** out of ****
Incidentally, doesn't Leo Rossi look a little like Robert De Niro?
** out of ****
A Very Well Thought out Masterpiece!
The Creeper26 January 2002
A Very Well Thought out Masterpiece. Good Plot, Well Developed Characters, and Outstanding Acting is what Makes this Film even more Worth while. It's not jut that, Though. It's just the Simple feeling of Involvement I Get from this Movie. I Feel like I'm in the Movie, One of the Characters, etc. That is how Excellent this Script is.
I Also really Enjoyed the Action and Suspense Packed Tightly into Very Heart Racing Scenes. The ending is Very Good, also. It is Important For one to Know the Very Low and Tight Budget these Producers had to Go on. The Special Effects are nothing to Jump Up on, and the Video and Audio Quality is Terrible, but that Still can not Ruin the Movie. I also Enjoy the Fact that this Movie is not Widely Known. Why? I Don't know. It just seems to me that once I Movie is Widely Known, I Hate it. My Theory is that: When Expectations go Up, Quality goes Down! I Guess I Also like not Only this Movie, but the Whole Series.
On a Scale of 10 I'd give The Plot an 8, The Acting a 7, The Suspense a 10, The Setting a 6, and The Gore a Simple 5.
As Far as The Sequels Go: Part One was Very Good and Scary. Part 2 (This One!!!) is Good, But more Action Packed than Scary. Part Three is More of a Rambo Movie than It is of It's own Series. I Have not Yet Seen Part 4, but Hope to in The Near Future.
Good Movie, 10 out of 10
People Who Enjoyed This Might like: Tomb Raider and Puppet Master
I Also really Enjoyed the Action and Suspense Packed Tightly into Very Heart Racing Scenes. The ending is Very Good, also. It is Important For one to Know the Very Low and Tight Budget these Producers had to Go on. The Special Effects are nothing to Jump Up on, and the Video and Audio Quality is Terrible, but that Still can not Ruin the Movie. I also Enjoy the Fact that this Movie is not Widely Known. Why? I Don't know. It just seems to me that once I Movie is Widely Known, I Hate it. My Theory is that: When Expectations go Up, Quality goes Down! I Guess I Also like not Only this Movie, but the Whole Series.
On a Scale of 10 I'd give The Plot an 8, The Acting a 7, The Suspense a 10, The Setting a 6, and The Gore a Simple 5.
As Far as The Sequels Go: Part One was Very Good and Scary. Part 2 (This One!!!) is Good, But more Action Packed than Scary. Part Three is More of a Rambo Movie than It is of It's own Series. I Have not Yet Seen Part 4, but Hope to in The Near Future.
Good Movie, 10 out of 10
People Who Enjoyed This Might like: Tomb Raider and Puppet Master
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
