1992

'1992' was Ray Liotta's last film and it was fitting that he was playing an unhinged villain. He was one of the best in the industry to do it. He had a real edge about him that he could bring to a character and he absolutely expelled menace.

This film was a lot better than I expected. After a bit of a dusty start it found its way and became quite enjoyable. I was impressed with Tyrese Gibson in the lead role. He brought a lot to the film.

It is lacking a bit of polish and originality it would have to be said. And it could've done more with the 'Die Hard' type scenario it sets up towards the end. But all in all this was a pass mark by the barest of margins. 6/10.

Either that or they're in need of seriously broadening their horizons.

10 stars? Calling it a "Perfect" film?

To rank this alongside The Godfather, Schindler's List, Blade Runner, A Clockwork Orange, Apocalypse Now or even The Lord Of The Rings is the equivalent of walking into Mordor and we know that "one does not simply walk into..." I digress.

Let's talk about this latest effort by Ariel Vroman to convince us that he is a serious film-maker.

After delivering a blistering array of career low films for Costner and Oldman (Criminal), Marisa Tomei (Danika) and the thrilless Toby Kebbel (Angel) we have finally been given the long delayed 1992.

Vromen has turned his attention to a historically and culturally significant moment in Angelino lives, April 29th 1992 and delivered what can only be described as screen flatulence in the form of a weak heist film that all but ignores the gravitas of its setting entirely.

A younger cast is meant to give us the impression that this is a vibrant, fresh take on a well trodden path, but Gibson and Eastwood do their best with a pedestrian and predictable script, whilst the late, great Ray Liotta is buried ignominiously with the lines "I did the best that I could son. But it wasn't enough".

And it isn't enough. Not enough thrills, invention, originality, style, character, humor, depth or even sense. Convoluted at times and blunt to a fault at others, this is yet another ham-fisted effort to waste our time, some poor investor's money and the goodwill of all the people roped into making accounts just to give it 10 stars, all in the vain hope that we might mix Vromen in with his Israeli counterparts; but Avi Nesher, Amos Gitai and Joseph Cedar he is not, unfortunately he's not even in the Menachem Golan and Yoram Globus league as whatever we may think, they at least found an audience.

And this the main issue with 1992. Who is it for? Fast and Furious polish without the camp over the top action, Goodfellas violence without the gritty impact and Hip Hop sentiment but with a vanilla milkshake to wash it down.

1992 tries to be all things to all people and comes up short every time. Too slight yet too garish, it somehow manages to fall in that most terrible place, the absolute middle.

You want a heist movie with a crazy backdrop take your pick from The Italian Job (1968) or Heat (1995). If you want something closer to 10 stars grab The Usual Suspects. But whatever you do, save this film for when you've seen all the rest.

While the heist twist in this film offers a unique perspective set against a historical backdrop, it's reminiscent of the 1992 movie South Central. The early suspenseful moments were promising, but the pacing slowed down towards the conclusion. Tyrese's performance was solid, as expected, and Ray's presence added a familiar intensity...I still miss him. Although the movie's overall quality is good, some scenes, particularly those highlighting the father-child bond, felt exaggerated. Despite this, it's still a worthwhile watch. The film's exploration of family dynamics and historical events provides a great experience.

I feel like Tyrese is becoming complacent. Listening to him from one interview to the next, he comes across as someone who feels he's achieved a lot and should be revered for it. While he's undeniably an amazing singer, as an actor, I think he's just okay and got lucky with *Fast & Furious*, heavily relying on the strength of the supporting cast.

I've always been a fan of Scott Eastwood, son of the legendary Clint Eastwood, and you can never go wrong with the always brilliant Ray Liotta (RIP), who delivered a strong performance in this movie. His presence kept me engaged right until the end.

As for the script, it's clever, but the execution felt a bit second-rate. Then again, that's often what you get with a B movie. It's not great, but it's not terrible either.

Israeli director Ariel Vromen brings us a thriller with plenty of drama in a film that has some very intense moments, but they are not enough to give us a much more well-rounded film as we sometimes hoped for.

The script written by Sascha Penn manages to have moments of social drama that really manage to be a high point in the film and perhaps largely compensate for the weaker moments that the film experiences once it leans exclusively towards action that fails to reach a level that manages to give you the intensity of those more ghetto moments that feel precisely well done.

An efficient cast that gives us the posthumous appearance of the beloved Ray Liotta and a Scott Eastwood alongside Tyrese Gibson, who already know how to give us action on screen and continue to deliver in those moments when they provide it.

We find ourselves as spectators in a story where there are shootouts, a car chase, some heroism and some hard life lessons that invite us to have a good film that has its pleasant moments and those moments allow the film in general to come out acceptable and perhaps appreciated for its parts of social drama that really invite reflection.

Afterward we are left with a mixture of sensations where the film could have been much more complete than what we ended up receiving, which ends up deflating towards its final part, which leaves us with the bitter feeling that it had much more to give us.