Deep Cover (1992)

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Sadly Over-hyped

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

DEEP COVER is a pretty predictable film about a cop going undercover to take down some drug lords, but in execution it turns out to be a fun little film and more entertaining than it has any right to be from that premise. The underrated Laurence Fishburne is a fine choice for lead, playing a guy who must come to terms with what makes him a man while exploring the moral quandaries in which he finds himself.This is a film packed with that inimitable early '90s style, with lots of hard-edged violence and even a little humour thrown into the mix. The narrative, although familiar, is very fast paced which makes for a nice viewing experience. Plus there's a big supporting role from a typically kooky Jeff Goldblum, who brings plenty of his trademark charm to the part. The only thing I wasn't keen on was the ending, which sees Goldblum acting out of character for plot necessity; otherwise, this is solid entertainment.

It's 1972 Cleveland. As a child, Russell Stevens Jr. witnesses his drug addicted father get killed. He vows never to touch drugs. 20 years later, he (Laurence Fishburne) is a beat cop in Cincinnati. He is recruited into going undercover for the DEA by Special Agent Gerald Carver. In L.A., he is going after importer Anton Gallegos and his uncle south American politician Hector Gúzman. He connects with street dealer Eddie Dudley who gets him arrested. Drug lawyer David Jason (Jeff Goldblum) takes his case and introduces him to Gallegos.Laurence Fishburne and Jeff Goldblum are good. However I don't like Fishburne's narration which drains the movie of its tension and thrills. I don't think the story or the characters are anything original. Maybe the narration kept me from enjoying this more and finding that specialness.

Saw this for the first time just the other day. Excellent. Found the story very believable. Found the characters very believable too. And it was fun and exciting. Politics mixed in in a believable manner too. I don't often watch a film without thinking 'Well that was good but x y and z were stupid'. I liked Fishburne's character a lot and found little to fault about his approach to some tricky situations (the directors didn't make him do anything stupid or dumb just to work the plot. It made lots of sense and I like sense). There were a few weirdly shot moments (or maybe it was 'Lovefilm watchnow' being jerky. Can't be sure.) But I'm really impressed right now. Amazed it's not better known and appreciated. Might change my rating to 10 if I watch again one day and still like it, or am still thinking about it in such a glowing manner in several months. And loved the the Snoop/Dre for the ending credits.

Yes, it was somewhat violent at times, but 15 years later (post-Tarantino) it's nothing a woman who likes an intelligent, extremely well-acted, written and directed movie can't handle. I'm a late convert; I used to avoid movies that I thought might have too much violence. Considering some of the "torture porn" movies of the last few years, this one's easy on the eyes.That being said, this is now one of my all-time favorite movies. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoyed "New Jack City" plus anyone who's a fan of Mr. Laurence Fishburne and/or Jeff Goldblum. I loved the occasional poetry and especially the relationship between Fishburne's character, the undercover cop, and Clarence Williams III's character, a street cop. It was almost like a father-son type of interaction.Don't believe the few naysayers, SEE THIS MOVIE!