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.

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.

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 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 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.