Unlawful Entry (1992) from Tuna

Unlawful Entry (1992) is an urban paranoia Crime/Thriller. Imagine that someone in authority wants to destroy you and take your wife. Kurt Russell (nightclub developer) and his wife Madeleine Stowe are having an evening at home when someone breaks into their home. To escape, he holds a knife to her throat. The police arrive, in the person of Ray Liotta, LAPD, and his partner. When Liotta arrives the next day and installs a security system, they see the beginnings of a friendship.
Russell decides to go on a "ride along" with Liotta. At the end of the shift, Liotta takes Russell to bust the burglar that broke into his house, and offers Russell the chance to beat him senseless. When Russell declines, Liotta does it for him. Russell, realizing that Russell is deranged, tries to break off contact, but Stowe, happy that the creep is off the streets, doesn't agree. Once Russell convinces Liotta that he really doesn't want him around, Liotta tries to ruin his life and claim Stowe for his own. 


Stowe shows her breasts in a dark love scene with Russell

Sherrie Rose also shows her breasts while having sex with Liotta in his car. 

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1, a little dark and grainy

  • Full-length director commentary

  • featurettes

  • trailers and TV spots

Whether or not the plot works for you depends on your acceptance of the fact that Stowe would side with Liotta, who she just met, over Russell, who she supposedly loves and has known a long time. When Russell tells her what happened during the ride along, she wants to be convinced, and he essentially tells her to just shut up and avoid Liotta. This, to me, justifies her going against Russell. No wife wants to be told what to do, or that her husband doesn't care what she thinks.

Liotta is brilliant as the bad guy. Russell did a credible job, although I didn't really feel his claustrophobia as Liotta tightened the noose. He kind of went from angry to whipped dog in one easy step.  

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: three stars. Ebert 3/4, Maltin 3/4

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 6/0 
  • With their dollars ... it was a success. Grossed $57 million domestically, and a subsequent $26 million in rentals
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a B-.

Return to the Movie House home page