1992 – A Middling Small Scale Thriller (Early Review)

1992 follows Mercer (Tyrese Gibson), an ex-con desperately trying to rebuild his life and relationship with his son amidst the unrest in Los Angeles following the Rodney King verdict in 1992. Meanwhile, in another part of town another father, Lowell (Liotta) and sons Riggin (Eastwood) and Dennis (Dylan Arnold) try to put their own strained relationship to the test as they plot a dangerous heist in in the factory where Mercer works to steal valuable platinum. As tensions rise in Los Angeles and chaos erupts, both families reach their boiling points when their worlds collide and shatter one another. A film with potential, from its impressive cast, to the many possible avenues of its wide-ranging premise, the result is a dull and forgettable thriller with very little to offer aside from providing the smallest number of thrills and tension.

While the film may not exactly be awful or unwatchable, it barely scrapes by, doing just enough to keep it watchable. As mentioned, the biggest strength 1992 has going for it is the cast, and though their performances here are far from their best work, they get the job done. Gibson, as Mercer, is undeniably the standout as he gets to show off more of his dramatic work, showing a different side from what so many audiences know him now for, primarily as Roman, the comic relief of the Fast and Furious franchise. He is at his best during the film’s quieter moments, but he does just fine once he actually gets in on the action. Meanwhile, it was kind of tough watching Liotta in one of his final roles as Lowell. As the villain, while underwritten, he plays him well. Eastwood and Arnold, as Riggin and Dennis, aren’t given as much to do as the two brothers. However, they are okay here in creating a fascinating relationship with their father Lowell, one that should have been explored much more. Overall, the film clips along at a nice pace and its 90+ minute runtime is perfect for a kind of thriller like this.

Outside of that, 1992 isn’t anything to write home about, leaving quite a lot to be desired both from a thriller and a dramatic standpoint. Setting the film in 1992 and using the Rodney King riots as a backdrop could have been effective, diving into social commentary that remains very relevant today, but it continuously refuses to go any further than surface level and by the end, the riots were nothing more than a mere backdrop. Any fictional or real event could seemingly have set this plot in motion which just makes it confused as to why the filmmakers decided to tie real life events like the Rodney King riots into the plot at all. The film, early on, foreshadows the exploration of multiple themes and subplots, however, they are dropped as quickly as they’re introduced as it simply devolves into a standard thriller. While a contained and increasingly intense thriller, this one isn’t well executed and one that has been done better countless times before. There isn’t much tension or excitement throughout, as it is directed in a truly lifeless way, and its action sequences aren’t very well filmed or entertaining to watch. Concluding on an unsatisfying note, one can’t help but suspect that the film had no idea how to wrap up its characters’ storylines.

At the end of the day, while 1992 is not necessarily good or bad, it just kind of exists in a dull middle ground, and will likely be forgotten soon after the credits roll. While it boasts some good performances, namely from Tyrese Gibson and Ray Liotta, they are not anything to write home about. Though it is certainly nice to see smaller thrillers such as these making a comeback, it is one that should have been something a lot better than how the film ultimately turned out.

still courtesy of Lionsgate

If you liked this, please read our other reviews here and don’t forget to follow us on Twitter or Instagram or like us on Facebook.

Connor Carey

www.connorsmoviereviews.com/