INTRODUCTION: SHADOWS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE
Under Cover, the 1987 action-crime drama directed by John Stockwell, aims to be a gritty, undercover cop thriller but ends up a mishmash of cliches, flat performances, and tone-deaf execution. Despite its attempt to cash in on the “war on drugs” narrative that dominated 1980s cinema, the film stumbles over every trope it tries to exploit. Jennifer Jason Leigh headlines as a young officer pulled into a dangerous sting operation, but even her talent can’t rescue this disjointed mess from itself.
What could have been a tightly-wound exploration of identity, risk, and trust is instead a film that feels like it was written in one night by someone who only saw the Miami Vice pilot. The result is a sluggish, unconvincing movie that lacks both emotional resonance and suspenseful drive.
PLOT: COPY AND PASTE UNDERCOVER FARE
The film follows undercover agents infiltrating a high school drug ring, with Jennifer Jason Leigh playing a new recruit navigating the blurred line between loyalty to the badge and the allure of a dangerous lifestyle. It could have been 21 Jump Street with teeth, but instead it lands like an afterschool special dressed up in leather jackets and poorly lit alleyways.
There’s very little that surprises the viewer. Every plot development is telegraphed, every character arc traced in crayon. The story coasts on the genre’s conventions without ever challenging them. Drug dealers are cartoonishly evil. The cops are either reckless or morally conflicted. And the “youth” culture is portrayed with the kind of clueless detachment that only middle-aged screenwriters can deliver.
JENNIFER JASON LEIGH: TOO GOOD FOR THIS
Leigh is the lone bright spot in an otherwise lethargic cast. She brings intensity, vulnerability, and a flicker of believability to her role as a young woman thrust into an increasingly perilous double life. She tries to ground the film in some kind of emotional reality, and in a few moments—especially when her character must choose between loyalty and self-preservation—she nearly succeeds.
But she’s working against a script that doesn’t know what to do with her. Her character’s motivations are never clear. One moment she’s driven and fearless, the next she’s weeping in a corner with no transition. The film wants to be gritty and authentic, but never takes the time to understand its own protagonist.
DIRECTION: FLAT AND CONFUSED
John Stockwell would later show more promise behind the camera, but Under Cover plays like a student film with a decent budget. The action scenes are poorly choreographed, the editing is disjointed, and the tone vacillates wildly between melodrama and half-hearted procedural. Instead of generating suspense or tension, the film just goes through the motions.
The cinematography is especially frustrating. Dimly lit interiors, murky night scenes, and clichéd camera angles do nothing to elevate the narrative. There’s no visual language here, just visual noise. You get the sense that the filmmakers were aiming for something moody and urban, but landed squarely in made-for-TV territory.
SUPPORTING CAST: FORGETTABLE FACES
No one else in the cast rises to the occasion. The fellow undercover officers are cardboard cutouts of movie cops past. The high school drug dealers range from comically flamboyant to dully menacing. There isn’t a single memorable character outside of Leigh’s, and even the villains fail to evoke the kind of fear or intrigue that might make the stakes feel real.
There’s also a strange lack of chemistry among the cast. Dialogues are stiff, confrontations feel staged, and the romantic subplot (because of course there is one) has all the spark of a wet firecracker.
THEMES: DROWNING IN SHALLOW WATER
The film flirts with themes of identity, loyalty, and moral compromise, but only in the most surface-level way. There’s no insight into the psychological toll of going undercover. There’s no exploration of the systemic issues that allow youth drug culture to flourish. The film doesn’t even manage to work up a decent moral panic.
Instead, it wallows in broad strokes and lazy metaphors. Being a cop is hard. Drugs are bad. People lie. That’s about as deep as it gets. For a film that claims to be about life lived on the edge, it sure spends a lot of time playing it safe.
PACE AND STRUCTURE: A SLOG THROUGH MONOTONY
For a movie about crime, betrayal, and undercover danger, Under Cover moves at a snail’s pace. The first act feels like setup for a film that never arrives. The second act is a loop of redundant scenes: tense conversations, vague threats, and botched busts. The climax is supposed to be shocking but arrives more as a relief than a resolution.
Even the action scenes are underwhelming. There’s no rhythm, no energy. Just loud noises and chaotic editing. When the bullets fly, you don’t feel tension—you feel boredom.
SCORE AND SOUNDTRACK: GENERIC 80S FILLER
The musical score is aggressively anonymous. Synth-heavy, moodless, and forgettable, it sounds like it was pulled from a royalty-free library labeled “Generic Police Drama.” Not once does the music elevate a scene. Often, it actively detracts from the little atmosphere the film manages to build.
FINAL VERDICT: A WASTE OF POTENTIAL
Under Cover had all the ingredients to be a solid, gritty thriller with a strong female lead. Instead, it fritters away its potential with lazy writing, flat direction, and uninspired performances (Jennifer Jason Leigh aside). It tries to coast on the tropes of its genre but ends up feeling like a bad copy of a better film you vaguely remember.
If you’re a die-hard fan of Leigh’s early work, there might be a few redeeming scenes to mine here. But for everyone else, Under Cover is best left in the VHS bargain bin of cinematic history.
FINAL SCORE: 4/10 — Jennifer Jason Leigh deserves better. So do we.
