What makes it different from others?

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

At some point in the future, world governments have everyone under strict control (hmmm...) so Wade (Hauer) and Merrick (Dacascos) work as smugglers. While in Russia on what seems like a routine smuggling operation, Merrick shoots Wade and leaves him for dead. What Merrick forgot is that this is the future, so, using some form of biomechanical technology, Wade is resurrected. All Wade wants is the money he lost to Merrick during their smuggling, and if there's time, maybe some revenge. He then teams up with a woman named Katya (Scio), and off they go on their mission. Coming up against a large criminal syndicate, they get into a lot of shootouts and fights. Will Wade finally draw a REDLINE in the sand? Not to be confused with any of the other myriad movies with the name Redline (most of which are about cars), this one, of course, is the Nu-Image production starring Rutger Hauer and Mark Dacascos. Tom Berenger, "Turbo" and the rest of the gang from Cutaway (2000) are nowhere to be seen. Sure, Redline shopped for its influences at the same store as everybody else: Robocop (1987), Total Recall (1990), Demolition Man (1993), and, of course, Blade Runner (1982) - but thanks to healthy doses of violence and nudity, it's a largely entertaining watch. At worst, it's a painless one, anyway.Rutger Hauer is an underrated actor and a fan favorite, and he looks a lot like Robert Redford in this particular outing. Actually, better than Redford looks now. Of course, Wade is ex-CIA and since he's the hero, he's subjected to his Prerequisite Torture, but on the bright side, when he comes up against what can only be described as Corey Haim-style Rollerboys, it appears he calls the lead Rollerboy "Butthead" and they all go blading away in fear for their lives. It helps a lot that his sidekick is Yvonne Scio, and that she shoots and beats up the baddies with the best of them. Fellow fan favorite Dacascos, here as the antagonist, complete with goatee and accent, provides good balance to the film overall, though he only displays his Martial Arts abilities in one scene. He previously teamed up with director Takacs with the prior year's Sabotage (1996), and evidently Takacs liked what he saw, so he used him again here. It worked out well.Yes, there is a lot of clichéd dialogue and many scenes are very darkly lit, but because it was a movie about the future that was made in the 90's, naturally we get some VR. It wouldn't be complete without the VR, of course. Plus, Redline was ahead of its time with scenes of drones attacking people, characters use FaceTime, and a woman who looks suspiciously like Hillary Clinton is "The President". Hopefully not all their predictions come true. But all in all it has a nice pace, especially considering its running time, so it adds up to being one of the better Nu-Image titles out there. It compares favorably to other 90's Rutger future movies such as Split Second (1992). The end result is better-than-average DTV fare, especially for its late-90's vintage (not the best time for DTV, for those who don't know).Featuring the enjoyable and wonderfully incongruous end-credits song "Dub 1 Dub" by the Axel Boys Quartet, if you see Redline on DVD cheap, don't be afraid to add it to your collection.

Gee, what's not to like about this movie? The acting? It's serviceable enough considering this isn't a big budget film. Rutger Hauer's finest work is not demonstrated here, but still this is a Rutger Hauer film which means that it will be a bit different from the regular straight-to-video junk you see. The shootouts were laughable? Of course they were! Shootouts are always laughable in every movie in which a hero survives totally unscathed. The two notable exceptions are "Saving Private Ryan" and "Tombstone". There are a few others, but at least Hauer and Scio aren't sliding down glaciers on a car fender or something of that ilk.Let's put things in proper perspective. When you have a movie that sounds good before it goes on paper, but doesn't look nearly as good after the ink has dried you find ways to make it not a complete waste of time. So you do the following: 1. Get Rutger Hauer2. Buy lots of bullets (hero resistant, of course!)3. Get a beautiful actress (and in this caseYvonne Scio is a 10!)4. Buy some more bullets5. Show lots of skin (Nude female bodybuilders withsoft muscles...hmmmm)6. Have sex ...lots of it7. Buy a few more bullets8. Kill all the bad guys (but only after you revealthat some good guys are bad and worse than thebad guy you were originally after who turns outto be easier to kill than expected)9. Throw in convoluted ending (like my previousparenthetical remark)10. Have more sexFor Pete's sake, people this is a cable channel movie. Enjoy it for the adrenaline and the visual pleasure. Don't get hung up on thinking about it. I'll watch this one again, if there isn't anything else on, or I need an Yvonne Scio fix.

Rutger Hauer always entertains regardless of budget and he again serves up another laid back performance in this unusual Sc-fi movie. Still wearing his now trademark long coat from 'The Hitcher', Hauer with the aid of the kung fu kicking Yvonne Scio, seeks revenge against his deceitful ex business partner. Filmed in Eastern Europe, it looks stunning, and there are plenty of unusual touches, such as tramps with kalashnikovs, a nude female assassin & a very amusing spoof of a 'real crime' TV show. Now available on bargain DVD, it's well worth a look

Merrick (Dacascos) and Wade (Hauer) are smugglers in near future Russia. Merrick betrays Wade, kills him during a deal and muscles in on one of the main gangs locally. Wade is brought back to life by a shadowy Government conspiracy and sets out to seek revenge enrolling the help of a call girl on the way.I'm a big fan of Mark Dacascos, I don't know why but I just like martial arts and think he's got the charisma that should make him a bigger star. Probably one of the reasons for his lack of star power is that he regularly appears in stuff like this. It's interesting to see him playing a bad guy for a change but he really doesn't have anything to do. He gets to do a few big kicks etc but other than that it's all down to his ability to act menacing and bad.....and how does he portray his "bad" side - by having a black goatee beard. It's that simple, he does do evil things but it's like the beard is the main thing he does to make his character menacing. Hauer is as bad as he always is in these cheap thrillers (Omega Doom anyone?), at times it does feel like he doesn't care anymore and is just sleepwalking through this role because he needs the work. He isn't believable in the least as the man driven by revenge who returns from the grave, the whole film he has the demeanour of a man who is popping out to buy a paper on a Sunday morning - he could have put some emotion into the role!The plot doesn't exactly help the actors do their work. The essence of 'man hunting other man' doesn't really stretch out a whole movie so they bring in lots of Government/police conspiracy involvement and gang war stuff to the party. This just serves to make a rubbish plot too complicated rather than adding value. They also add the Point Blank/Payback idea that Hauer is doing all this just to get his share of the money that he was owed from the deal. But the double crosses all get a bit silly and boring - especially towards the end where the scriptwriters clearly realises that what he's writing has no excitement or point to it and decides to throw in as many twists as he can to cover it up. Other issues in the film are left hanging - why is Hauer brought back to life? It's never really explained and eventually is used to create another double-cross. What about the brain plugins? They used several times in the film but there's not detail of them and they're not used any better in the plot than a TV or radio? There are several other strands that are not covered well, but I got so fed up with the constant double crossing that I've left them.The direction and detail of the film just makes it even more annoying. Other reviewers have mentioned nudity, I didn't think there was that much but I know what they mean; topless female boxers, topless assassins etc it doesn't rely on sex to sell itself but it doesn't see the harm in using titillation even if it doesn't fit into the plot. Secondly the shootouts (of which there are several spontaneous scenes) are terrible - they don't even try to be close to reality. Imagine Hauer and a call girl on an open rooftop (with no cover), both have handguns. They are under fire by a large group with automatic weapons firing continuously from shielded positions. Both out heroes manage to dispatch the group and escape with great ease and without even one shot coming close to them. This is what most of the scenes are like - Hauer just casually shoots at all enemies and all shots at him hit the scenery all round. It really sucked all the excitement out of these scenes and just made it all look lazy.The insulting bit is that the director still thinks he's making a clever film. In the middle of the film he puts a scene that is straight out of the Battleship Potemkin (a la "The Untouchables"). Is this an attempt to show us that he is a clever director that has seen classic movies and is using them to enhance his own style? Or is it a clumsy attempt just to look smart? The scene is so out of place as well and just makes the director look stupid - the fact that it is out of place just shows how shoddy the rest of it is. Did the same reference seem out of place in The Untouchables? No! because De Palma's film was all quality and the reason for the scene was not just to make a film reference (as is the case here).Bad performances, bad plot, bad script, really bad action. I'd read the reviews before I saw it and thought it would pass the time and that Dacascos would multiply the value of the film. Unfortunately any number multiplied by zero is still zero.