HOLLYWOOD—I didn’t know what to expect with the heist-thriller, “1992” starring Tyrese Gibson, Scott Eastwood and the late great Ray Liotta. Was I disappointed with the movie? Not quite, but did it deliver something that wowed me as a viewer? Not in the least bit. Why? It has a potentially compelling narrative, but the movie doesn’t truly dip into all the intricacies that it could have to deliver something that would be compelling.
Gibson stars as Mercer, a man recently released from prison who is trying to get his life back together, while raising his teenage son, Antoine (Christopher Ammanuel). Antoine is a bit of a hot head; he doesn’t like to listen to his father who has a tight leash on his son, who complains about the freedom he used to have living with his grandmother and mother.
The audience doesn’t get the explanation of what unfolded with Antoine’s former home life, we are left to assume that his grandmother and mother died, but we don’t get the confirmation. That is a plot point the writers could have played with a bit more which would have given more character depth for Antoine and Mercer.
There is one scene with Mercer who attempts to stop a few disrespectful teens at a liquor store who are ready to fire a bullet into him. He has an allure of being this dangerous gangster whose name is notorious, but that is not explored. That is a serious issue with “1992” none of the characters feel fleshed out. We have our good guys and we have our bad guys led by Liotta, who portrays Lowell. He gets his two sons Riggin (Scott Eastwood) and Dennis (Dylan Arnold) entangled in his quest to steel gold from the plant were Mercer works.
There is obvious tension between Riggin and Lowell, but we don’t understand as viewers, why? Dennis is in the care of Riggin and not Lowell, which I would have loved to know why. Not to mention Dennis seems so scared of his brother and his father. He is a young adult, but it’s apparent there is a kid trapped in his body. “1992” has all these intersecting storylines, but nothing interlocks. The title alone should say a lot as it takes place in Los Angeles in the midst of the Rodney King trial where the officers were acquitted, and riots erupts across the city and state.
There is a slight element of the issue of racism the movie plays with but doesn’t go any further. It is hard to watch, but that is something that could have been explored even more. The pacing for the film is off. It literally takes almost 45 minutes for the actual heist to get into gear and when it does the action follows soon behind, but if you blink it is immediately over. I wanted more from the thriller; the stakes needed to be raised a bit higher for me to be fully invested. I was entertained watching, but the story was so weak it didn’t land the punch.
The movie “1992” is a fun watch, but not something you need to run to the theater to see, because nothing groundbreaking is being delivered to the viewer.
