The Wasteland Reviewer

1992 (2024) Written Review

How do you make a standard crime thriller feel more interesting? You add layers and dimensions to the story through a variety of approaches including the setting, themes, and time. Ariel Vromen directs his script co-written by Sascha Penn in the form of a new thriller, 1992,which is generally a film about riots and a heist. But where the film has more depth is the specific place and time where and when the story takes place. Turn that clock back to 1992…LA…the riots in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdict. 

How does Vromen manifest the depth and intrigue of this serious issue in the narrative of the film? This could have easily just been a background discussion on the TV or something the characters discussed but it directly affects our protagonist and his son. Mercer (Tyrese Gibson) is a shopkeeper who must protect his son from the ripples of this event. The riots directly impact Mercer’s life and then cause him and his son to be caught up in a dangerous heist put on by a hardened criminal and his own son (Ray Liotta and Scott Eastwood). The heist is directly connected to the fact that LA is in upheaval and Liotta’s Lowell sees an opportunity. There are underlying themes about this crew taking advantage of such a horrible situation. There are added layers of depth in the story thanks to the father/son dynamics that exist on either side of this narrative. Both relationships are tumultuous and reflect a journey to reconnect for a father with his estranged son. The parallels create intriguing dynamics between the characters and show two different approaches to rekindling relationships. 

What does the film offer from a visual and filmmaking perspective? One of the most refreshing elements of the film is the grit that Vromen injects into the film. From the opening few shots, which are some basic environmental shots to set up LA, have a grit and grime to them. This does not feel like standard stock footage of the city but instead feels like it is there to set up how gritty the film will feel, and it truly sets the tone. There is an effective intensity that Vromen can capture throughout the film. If you are going to be a thriller, you had better get some thrills out of your audience. 1992 certainly succeeds in that. The action is not the most interesting or dynamic, but it works. Vromen keeps its simplicity yet effective. The beats of the film are familiar and expected but at least there is some added depth to both the themes and the atmosphere. 

Do the actors leave the needed impact as well? Liotta is by far the most memorable performance. He has unfortunately been floating around in films that lack the prestige and quality of his earlier work. Goodfellas was certainly his peak but 1992 offers up a strong supporting turn for him. There is presence and weight in how he commands himself in this film. The intimidation and fire in that presence is an essential part of the film. Actors like Gibson and Eastwood are both performers who feel a bit limited in what they offer onscreen. Both give some of their strongest performances in this film as they make for solid pieces for the overall ensemble. Outside of them, there are serviceable performances all around and that is exactly what you need from a film like this. 

Is 1992 a crime thriller worth your time? This won’t be a film that will last in your mind and stack up to films like Heat, but Vromen does a fine job with this story. There are surprising bits of depth throughout this film thanks to the backdrop and the father/son dynamics. You will appreciate seeing an actor like Liotta letting loose one last time. Nothing fancy but perfectly effective, this is a solid crime thriller that makes for an engaging watch.