I think the two leads in "Deep Cover" were miscast. When we first meet Laurence Fishburne's character, he is being described as a guy who is an easy fit for a criminal role in an undercover operation because of many criminal character traits he possesses. I was surprised to hear that being said of a Fishburne character. When did he ever play a bad guy? He's a straight arrow in every movie I've seen him in.
It would have been so much more involving to have him playing a straight arrow here at the beginning of the movie, and show him gradually getting corrupted, and coming close to that, by the criminal acts he is required to commit. As is, his character barely seems to change. Maybe that's the point? It certainly makes it less interesting to watch.
Jeff Goldblum is an actor you either get or you don't. I get him: he's one of the most charismatic screen presences I've ever seen. Here he is kind of restrained, less wisecracking, less of an ironic distance. The whole point of his role - and indeed, the movie - is that you can't keep a distance in the life of drugs, guns and money. I didn't really get his character. Is he supposed to be cut out for the criminal life, or not? Sometimes he seems like a rich kid in over his head, other times he seems like he could be the next drug baron.
Both performances seem off the mark, but they're still good, I guess because Fishburne and Goldblum are heavyweights that are good in anything. And I still liked "Deep Cover", though it's not particularly memorable.
It would have been so much more involving to have him playing a straight arrow here at the beginning of the movie, and show him gradually getting corrupted, and coming close to that, by the criminal acts he is required to commit. As is, his character barely seems to change. Maybe that's the point? It certainly makes it less interesting to watch.
Jeff Goldblum is an actor you either get or you don't. I get him: he's one of the most charismatic screen presences I've ever seen. Here he is kind of restrained, less wisecracking, less of an ironic distance. The whole point of his role - and indeed, the movie - is that you can't keep a distance in the life of drugs, guns and money. I didn't really get his character. Is he supposed to be cut out for the criminal life, or not? Sometimes he seems like a rich kid in over his head, other times he seems like he could be the next drug baron.
Both performances seem off the mark, but they're still good, I guess because Fishburne and Goldblum are heavyweights that are good in anything. And I still liked "Deep Cover", though it's not particularly memorable.
Tell Your Friends