Durante le rivolte di Los Angeles del 1992 dopo il verdetto di Rodney King, un commerciante deve affrontare le pericolose strade per salvare il figlio rimasto intrappolato in città.Durante le rivolte di Los Angeles del 1992 dopo il verdetto di Rodney King, un commerciante deve affrontare le pericolose strade per salvare il figlio rimasto intrappolato in città.Durante le rivolte di Los Angeles del 1992 dopo il verdetto di Rodney King, un commerciante deve affrontare le pericolose strade per salvare il figlio rimasto intrappolato in città.
Christopher Ammanuel
- Antoine Bey
- (as Christopher A'mmanuel)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ray Liotta makes his cinematic curtain call in Ariel Vroeman's 1992, but it's a sadly superficial stock villain in a mediocre thriller that doesn't say or do much for the actor, who leaves a towering legacy behind him. In the violent mess of the Rodney King riots, single father Mercer (Tyrese Gibson) attempts to hide out with his teenage son at his workplace, a metalworks factory, during the chaos as it's in a much safer neighbourhood than his own. Of course it's an out of the frying pan into the cat and mouse situation as this just happens to be the night when vicious ex-con Lowell (Liotta) and his two sons (Scott Eastwood & Dylan Arnold) decide to rob the place, using the fact that most of the city's cops are distracted by the riots as cover. Cue a dimly lit parade of yelling, standoffs, shootouts, uninspired dialogue and thinly drawn characters facing off towards an eventual conclusion where lots of them get shot. It's almost comical how the script attempts tiny bits of social commentary regarding the riots and that infamous verdict before *immediately* getting distracted again by pedestrian thriller elements. Liotta is his typecasted self here: angry, volatile, scary and fired up, he doesn't get to do much else or display any depth beyond surface level menace, and it's unfortunate. The same can be said for the film overall, wherein a bit of atmospheric tension and feverish energy is mounted with the riot backdrop, before sinking disappointingly into the run of the mill conflict at the factory.
'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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe last movie Ray Liotta filmed, and the last to be released in theaters. Liotta had completed filming all his scenes before his death in May 2022.
- BlooperWhile the movie talks about an incident happened in 1992, you clearly can see a white Honda Civic model 2018 around (06:50).
- Citazioni
Mercer Bey: You know what scares me about you? I don't want you to grow up to be like me.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is 1992?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 2.906.073 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1.418.905 USD
- 1 set 2024
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 2.943.477 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 37 minuti
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.39:1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti