If there's anything that I've come to expect from a Cynthia Rothrock movie, it's action, acting, and direction that's blunt and over the top, if not also inauthentic and ham-handed. These qualities were sorely missed from this title's predecessor, as 1990's 'Martial law' was played weirdly straight, and the screenplay made the bizarre choice to deemphasize martial arts as it languished under a lethargic pace and meager plot development. As sequel 'Undercover' begins, though, it offers hope: the opening scene, filled with kicks, punches, and throws, forces a bewildered reaction, and the opening credits are accompanied by a wholly unnecessary training scene. To my pleasure, as the movie begins it sure looks like screenwriter Richard Brandes - perhaps with the aid of co-writer Jiles Fitzgerald - has learned from his mistakes and seen what pictures of this tenor are supposed to be. From one scene to the next we continue to be treated to elements that are awash in the forthright, overt, gauche flourishes and stylings we're used to, and it just feels right.
The acting is intentionally exaggerated, whatever the mood of a moment, even as the assembled actors demonstrate glimmers of range and nuance. Paul Johansson absolutely chews scenery as antagonist Spencer, while recognizable Billy Drago, and more ham-fisted star Jeff Wincott (replacing Chad McQueen from the first film as protagonist Thompson), alternate between deliberately restraining themselves, and totally leaning into the silliness. Supporting cast members are allowed greater room to illustrate their capabilities - though some, like Evan Lurie (clearly used to employing his muscled physique more than Shakespearean fancy), are distinctly (though pardonably) wooden. And of course, as has been true in more than one of her other features, Rothrock is (sadly) no more than second fiddle in a title where she gets top-billing. Director Kurt Anderson, competent as he is, arranges some shots with purely unnecessary airs of artistry, while the editing and sequencing is a tad overzealous. Composer Elliot Solomon, also returning from the 1990 movie, shows a measure of growth with a more refined score that carries similar sensibilities of 80s rock, and sometimes jazz - while the use of his excellent music throughout some scenes is just as jarring and mystifying as some of the other choices on hand.
I'm not going to say that 'Martial law II' is a must-see second-tier martial arts classic, but it's unmistakably an improvement over 'Martial law,' and a good bit of outlandish fun! There's a welcome increase in the amount of martial arts we get this time around, sometimes more than would be sensible or advisable in a more straight-laced action-thriller - just the way I like it in pictures of this nature. Some other points in the scene writing bear some swell, cheeky levity, while the screenplay also shows more dexterous capabilities in progressing the narrative, or enriching the experience and keeping audiences engaged broadly. In a similar vein, the plot is much more mindful of its constituent parts, tighter and more balanced as it keeps a steady and levelheaded pace and avoids pitfalls that would reduce its momentum. I think the attention to lighting is admirable - naturally, the fight scenes are genuinely outstanding - and the technical craft and rounding details all look pretty great so far as I'm concerned. To the same extent that this feature's antecedent was lacking and dull in its relatively sober approach to film-making and storytelling, 'Undercover' comes across as one of the more earnest and carefully made movies in Rothrock's history, or the credits of many of those involved. I'm actually a little impressed, I think.
The unlikely push-and-pull between serious crime thriller and outrageous martial arts romp does have an unfortunate effect of preventing the production from feeling entirely whole, or even-handed. Put aside all the action and fun-loving touches, and the plot is a hair thin, with less going on from beginning to end than the finished product would have us believe. However, ultimately these are the only specific criticisms that come to mind - much more than I could say for the picture that unconvincingly preceded this one. All the curt directness of any shot, scene, or story beat - any of the overblown aspects, whether acting or stylistic choices or anything else - are totally conscious decisions, conjured and realized only with the aim to have a good time. And rest assured, that's just what 'Martial law II' provides, in spades. For any peculiarities and subjective flaws one may perceive, the movie is engrossing and even exciting, with wonderfully strong fight choreography and music as the chief draws. I certainly had low expectations as I began watching, if nothing else than just based on the 1990 film, so I am over the proverbial moon to speak to just how worthy and solid this turned out to be. From wild exposition, to viscerally satisfying climax, through to a surprising and jolting sudden ending - I kind of love this.
Anyone who isn't on board with the type of bombastic fare that martial arts films can represent at their B-movie best or worst probably won't find anything in this flick to change their minds. For anyone simply looking for an entertaining slice of action-thriller cinema, on the other hand, this is a pretty good way to spend 90 minutes. Not essential, but far more meaningfully enjoyable than I could have anticipated when I started watching, 'Martial Law II' gets two bruised, calloused, possibly broken thumbs up from me!
0 out of 1 found this helpful