1992

1992

I wasn't sure what to expect when I sat down to watch a movie set during the LA riots after the ridiculous non guilty verdict delivered to the cops who beat Rodney King on camera. 1992's main character is a man who had been out of prison for 6 months for an undisclosed crime, but related to gang violence. He has a 16 year old son that lives with him due to the deaths of the kid's mother and grandmother.

The twist here is that a group of criminals use the riots as a distraction for their heist of platinum from a plant. For 1992 it's a pretty advanced plot to break into the safe while only one security guard remains. As Ray Liotta's final film before his death, he plays the head of the heist, even though his 2 sons, and one of their war buddies did all the work.

I was glad to see that most of the first half of the movie deals with watching what the riots were doing in the neighborhood. Mercer, no stranger to violence, works to get his son to the same plant being robbed, for safety. The film does elicit the anger that the country felt to see such a miscarriage of justice.

The rest of the film is very Die Hard as Mercer fights against the thieves, as he watches in horror as his son is used as a hostage. It's fun to see Mercer take them out, and then it's fun to see the twist when one of the thieves realizes that the heist was going to far.

The one Black man in their crew is the first casualty when a forklift causes the amputation of his legs. The irony is not lost not he audience that during the riots, he is hurt by the remaining white crew, though unintentionally.

It's not a fantastic movie, though Tyrese Gibson (Mercer) does a fantastic job playing a scared father that has an ability, he is not proud of, to defend his family. He also is subject to the humiliation of suffering an incident with the police as he is driving to the plant, all while keeping his cool to avoid escalation. Watching a white family get sent through the barricade with no inspection just ticked me off.

I also wished the ending returned to the repercussions of the riots, but it did wrap up the heist plot. 30 years after the riots, I guess it was inevitable to use a real life event as an identifier of time and motive, but I almost felt it was going to be a more historical drama. But it's not, and I also remembered that the 2018 Black Panther movie did the same thing, at the beginning of the film.

'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.

1992 had real potential. With strong performances, particularly from Tyrese Gibson and the late Ray Liotta, and a powerful historical setting during the Rodney King riots, the film sets the stage for something impactful. Unfortunately, it falls short in execution.

The film suffers from an inconsistent tone, shallow engagement with serious social issues, an over-reliance on genre clichés, and a lack of emotional and narrative depth. Rather than focusing on a single, well-developed thread, it attempts to blend a heist thriller, a father-son redemption story, and a commentary on racial injustice all at once. The result is a muddled, unfocused narrative.

Structurally, the film follows a predictable formula: a man trying to do the right thing, a heist that spirals out of control, and a final moral confrontation. These elements might have worked if developed with nuance, but here they unfold in ways that feel familiar and uninspired.

Ultimately, 1992 becomes a frustrating blend of compelling ideas and underwhelming storytelling, a film with the right pieces, but the wrong assembly.

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.