Prior to his tragic passing in 2022, Ray Liotta was a genuine titan who brought gravitas to every role. Whether playing supernatural baseball as Shoeless Joe Jackson in Phil Alden Robinson’s Field of Dreams, representing half of a failed marriage as divorce attorney Jay Marotta in Noah Baumbach’s Marriage Story, or doing copious crime and even more copious drugs as iconic up-and-coming gangster Henry Hill in Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas, he was always a bright light worth watching. Ariel Vromen’s 1992, Liotta’s final film, takes place in a harrowing time in Los Angeles history: following the massive wave of riots that emerged in the wake of the Rodney King verdict. It’s a tense, mostly successful thriller with a talented cast, but greater artistry in the thematic development and greater novelty in the plotting would enhance the freshness of the crime drama.

What Is ‘1992’ About?

Mercer (Tyrese Gibson) has one priority after serving his time in prison and leaving his former violent life behind: responsible fatherhood. As a single father, his days are spent in factory work while the rest of his time is spent keeping on the up-and-up while raising his son, Antoine (Christopher A’mmanuel). Elsewhere in the city, Lowell (Liotta) and his sons Riggin (Scott Eastwood) and Dennis (Dylan Arnold) are planning a massive score in the midst of the chaos, stealing catalytic converters for the platinum they contain. A chance set of circumstances bring Mercer and Antoine to the factory exactly when the band of thieves is in the middle of the crime, setting in motion a tense and disastrous chain of events in a burning city.

‘1992’ Is a Tense Crime Thriller With a Critical Edge
Image courtesy of Lionsgate

First and foremost, 1992 boasts an exceptional set-up. Strategically, taking advantage of certain chaos to pull a heist is a tactic that The Art of War author Sun Tzu would love. More importantly, it provides an intelligent vehicle to analyze the riots and looting in contrast to robbery and other forms of property relocation. While 1992 isn’t over-intellectualized, these comparisons are explicit. As the crew drives through the city while discussing the heist, Liotta’s Lowell comments on the escalating malaise. The situation’s injustice “doesn’t give them the right to do this, it’s not their property,” he notes while spying looting and destruction. Ironic coming from a career criminal and thief. A short time later, Mercer and Antoine have a heart-to-heart talk over divergent perspectives on the unrest. Referencing the earlier 1965 period of unrest in the Watts neighborhood of south L.A., Mercer notes that “they called it the Watts Riots, we called it the Watts Rebellion,” before philosophizing about how no one ponders “if we burn our shit down, what are we gonna have left for us?” These themes are introduced in transparent and sometimes clunky ways (certainly not novel ones), but they’re at least well-delivered questions worth contemplating.

Tyrese Gibson gives a strong performance, blunting his typical charisma somewhat to showcase a father who can sense the rising danger. He has a well-developed dynamic with Christopher A’mmanuel, who gets some meaty emotional scenes and lands them well. Scott Eastwood does well as a son taking on a score that gets co-opted and complicated by his domineering criminal father, and showcases excellent emotion in his final scenes in the film. Liotta’s Lowell, however, is the brightest light on the criminal side, with a stern and evolving ruthlessness that’s a strong overall showcase of the actor’s talents. The film could be better reflective of Liotta’s considerable range, sure, but he does exhibit a raw menace as the character evolves as a criminal in an increasingly tight spot. Initially, he tries hard to execute a clean job, becoming less hinged as the narrative escalates, and Liotta leaves a memorable impression in his final role.

Beyond the intriguing set-up and a set of strong performances, there’s strong tension in a number of moments as the riots, and the heist, escalate. That said, while the script manages to analyze these themes, they’re sometimes set up or written in transparent or ponderous ways. They’re enhanced a bit by a talented set of performers, but would still benefit from a better contextualized, more layered set-up and greater artistry in the dialogue. Additionally, there’s largely adequate tension in many moments of the film, several set pieces are well-developed, but there’s little here that feels new beyond the overall intelligence of the set-up. It’s a project worth watching, but there are situations with high dramatic potential that are resolved too simply or abruptly. Greater complexity, a little more innovation and creativity in the narrative, and greater surprise would make 1992 a much better showcase of its talented cast’s considerable powers.

‘1992’ Is a Mostly Engaging Lens Into a Harrowing Period of L.A. History
Image courtesy of Lionsgate

As a whole, 1992 is a largely capable crime thriller with a talented cast giving strong performances from the material they’re given. Frustratingly, it also often stops a bit short of meeting its potential. The performances, especially those of the leads, are good, but the characters could be written with greater complexity. Liotta brings intensity and gravitas, but one can’t help but wonder what could have been with greater nuance and a wider range of emotion in the scripting. The premise allows for interesting thematic explorations that are clearly intentional elements of the narrative design, but the dialogue is sometimes too blunt or a little too awkward to feel organic. There is tension, but it’s sometimes interrupted by situations that resolve too simply for their own good. 1992 is a good crime thriller worth watching, but, like the heist it follows, it falls frustratingly short of greatness due to hiccups in the execution.

.

1992 is now playing in theaters in the U.S. Click below for showtimes near you.

GET TICKETS