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.

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.

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.

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.

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.