1992

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.

I just got done watching 1992 (2024) and I liked it a lot. This is also another win for Lionsgate in 2024.

Positives for 1992 (2024): First off, I've gotta give props to Tyrese Gibson for his performance in this movie as it's one of the few less comedic performances in his career. I do enjoy Tyrese as Roman from the Fast and Furious Franchise, but it was nice to see him do something different from his usual shtick. I also really enjoyed both Ray Liotta (RIP) and Scott Eastwood in this movie. It was actually very interesting to see a movie that explores the Rodney King riots during that time. And finally, there are some decent action sequences in the movie.

Negatives for 1992 (2024): The movie doesn't really do a deep dive into the Rodney King riots and that's coming from someone who doesn't have a lot of knowledge about that. Also, the movie feels a little bit generic with its execution, but that's something to expect from a Lionsgate movie.

Overall, 1992 (2024) is a great little action thriller with some great performance that is held back by its execution at times, but I'm still recommending this movie for anyone who watches to see the last on screen performance by Ray Liotta.

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.

This movie captures various themes and genres. At some point or another the movie is a heist movie set against the backdrop of the Rodney King riots of 1992. Along the way it's also a coming of age movie, an exploration of father-son relationships, and race relations.

Having seen the movie in a theater, to be fair, the movie has the cast, look, and feel of a better than average straight-to-streaming movie. The fact that it was given a "limited theatrical release" might just be giving the movie too much credit.

Tyrese Gibson, who plays a convincing father and "OG Merc" back in the day, finds himself thrust in the middle of a heist of valuable platinum bars, led by Ray Liotta (in his final film) at his villainous best.

What on first blush is an engaging heist movie rapidly evolves into a movie extremely derivative of "Die Hard" - nearly plot point by plot point. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it does become quite formulaic.

Of course, the heist "crew", as always, includes "the muscle guy", the "smart" leader guy (Liotta), and the "clueless reluctant impressionable" guy (almost always related to the boss/leader) that you wonder why he was even brought along on the job in the first place.

A key plot point is that Gibson is bent on bringing his son to his workplace factory after-hours to "distance themselves" from the riot mayhem. What were they going to do? Spend the night there? Why not drive out of town altogether? I felt that was a fairly weak contrivance.

If you're a fan of Gibson and/or Liotta I think the movie would meet your expectations. Giving the movie a "10" (as others have done) is inexplicably generous.