Category Archives: Film reviews

Film reviews

1992 Review

Leave a comment

The dangers of Rodney King’s era come with an added layer of pressure. 1992 has a trail of strain. There is a lot that goes bonkers. Directed by Ariel Vromen, the pattern is a boxing match between Tyrese Gibson and Ray Liotta (who died in 2022). The aptitude for vengeance reached for the sky in 1992. It is a film that falls in the era of the Rodney King riots. The added conflict is a heist. Who makes it out alive is the question in 1992.

Gibson plays Mercer, who has been released from prison. His priority is his son Antoine (played by Christopher Ammanuel). Mercer works at a factory. In the future, this is a rough dynamic. There is another mixed relationship. Liotta plays Lowell. Lowell has many years of a bad relationship with his sons Riggin (played by Scott Eastwood) and Dennis (played by Dylan Arnold). Its dynamics are faithful to the harsh times of the past. The reality of criminality (in the California setting) displayed a vigorous presence in 1992.

The conflict of the film is three moving parts. The riots outside, Mercer trying to keep Antoine safe, and a heist. The heist is in the operations of Lowell and his sons. Mercer feels taking his son Antoine to the factory (due to the riots) will help keep them safe. It leads them into a death match of survival. Lowell chooses to do the heist during the riots. This is the tactic because it creates a window where backup cannot stop their operation. Lowell wants to steal catalytic converters from the factory. The value is steep in the platinum of the catalytic converters. Chaos hits its anarchy once Mercer and his son are up against Lowell and his sons. It builds frequency with a clicking tock. The moving parts of the heist and the city going down under are a brawl. One that keeps audiences on the edge of their seats.

The madness of tension boils solid in 1992. The robbery hitting plateaus is the added layer of detrimental scenarios (calculated). The performance of Gibson and Liotta possesses the power of authority for the opposite circumstances. Gibson’s role is to protect his son, and Liotta’s role is to pull off a criminal operation with his sons. Both the choices of fathers lead to this unexpected circumstance. The only chance is to fight. Many punches go back and forth in 1992. The ruthlessness leaves a monumental mark of cinematic achievement.

In 1992, the stakes were critical. It begins with Mercer thinking the only safety conflict is the riots outside. He tells his son, Antoine, “We just got to stay the course.” That quote brings the dynamic to a ten-question level of safety concerns. When the audience thinks Mercer is keeping his son out of danger, they walk into it (at the factory). The rough population of the livelihood has density in 1992. Its environment with detrimental infrastructure links to resilience. “Resilience” is how choices have consequences, and how some choices of harshness must be made.

Who is more at risk? Is it Mercer’s son? Is it Lowell’s son? Do the riots create any more layers of questions? How many conflicts come around with the heist? Find out in 1992. Three-and-a-half out of four stars.

Film reviews

Reagan Review

Leave a comment

Dennis Quaid as Ronald Reagan in Reagan

The hope for a moving biography does not find fulfillment. Dennis Quaid may fit Ronald Reagan’s performance, but his character is cheesy. There are a lot of “cheesy” in Reagan. Directed by Sean McNamara, the biography approach hits plateaus instantly in Reagan. The film covers most of the important events (in Reagan’s lifetime). It does so in the most out-of-focus continuity of writing I have ever seen. Do not expect a chronological order of a compelling timeline in Reagan. Expect one of pure mediocrity with the intent to add more layers of boredom. Reagan has historical value that fails to find its program of importance.

The film intends to tell the story of Ronald Reagan’s early years and his process to reach the Oval Office. The film’s first-person focus is Viktor Petrovich (played by Jon Voight). He is an ex-KGB agent. He is the one who narrates the moving parts of Reagan’s legacy. Reagan keeps becoming a blur.

Reagan‘s continuity continues in its downfall tracks of not keeping its audience in attention mode. It jumps between everything. His days of Hollywood, politics, relationships, childhood, and none find their correlation. It only continues to a road of questions. Even the dynamics Reagan had with his wives are aggravating. They do not hold solid ground. The first was Jane Wyman (played by Mena Suvari), and the second was Nancy Reagan (played by Penelope Ann Miller). They are around in the film and throughout the film’s mixed events. Chemistry has no establishment.

It jumps to try and find the lights without proper build-up. Timelines are skipped, reversed, and picked up. The many accomplishments audiences may expect are ones they are bound to not see in Reagan. Expect the film to transition to the showcasing days of Reagan. For clarification, the entertainment industry is the factor that shines faithfully. Overall, it still is a bust.

Reagan’s biography seems to be a jumble of historical events without a clear purpose. It presents a disjointed outline of events and jumps around randomly. What’s the point? Why are some events emphasized over others? Where is the faithful recounting of his life? It seems as if Reagan’s biography had intent for entertainment rather than historical accuracy.

I feel the central historical side was hearing the narration from Voight’s performance as Victor. It seemed that narration delivered more believability than the events of Reagan. His narration leads to a voice of having the audience in tune (while the rest of the film continues its plummet). It soars with the seriousness of Voight as Victor. It falls rapidly with Quaid as Ronald. The characterizations are in their lanes.

I do not hate Reagan, and I do not love it. I question its pattern of continuity truly. Can there be moments of examples to give its audience perspective on why there are sporadic events? There could be, but the development of understanding was not a focus for Reagan. It is only keen on trying to make a character of revolution. It does a poor job at that. One-and-a-half out of four stars for Reagan.

Film reviews

First Shift Review

Leave a comment

A good cop/bad cop movie and urban detective story with class, First Shift delivers! Directed by Uwe Boll, it highlights the day-to-day life of a detective in New York City. With a slew of routine duties from the perspective of a detective, First Shift ties in the notion of how emotions require tolerance. With disasters and safety issues spiraling out of control in an instant, First Shifts how cases the reality of how detective work involves many tiresome factors.

The film begins with Deo (played by Gino Anthony Pesi), a tenured detective assigned a new partner, Angela (played by Kristin Renton). Deo is responsible for showing Angela the ropes of being a detective in the big city. Deo is by the book, and Angela is very down-to-earth. She is smart, however, but is it to the level where Deo can have faith in her? Throughout the day, a variety of detrimental issues arise. For example, a man makes a scene in an alley and another is involved in a matter related to conflicts caused by drug abuse. Finally, there is a crime lord in the mix and might be interconnected to the authorities. With all these moving crises, First Shift makes its audience wonder which problem is the most pressing.

The question regarding professionalism is more of a boxing match of character traits than a thriller. There are not many layers of clarity in First Shift. The story does find a way to capture the chaos in one of the busiest cities in the world. This movie is a crime hustling ride that is trying to stay on the rails by relying more on characterization than the plot itself. It does not completely fail, because the journey succeeds in being different. The director appears to have worked hard to not make another predictable chaos film with “the law” involved. It does so by making its point through demonstrating how a pro teaches an amateur.

The chemistry between detectives is a dynamic of connections because being a city cop requires a lot of adjustment. As the heated problems ebb and flow, the audience experiences the evolving relationship between Deo and Angela. They are kind of like Starsky and Hutch, but more serious. Egos and sarcasm are a bit more glitchy between this duo.

First Shift keeps the personas in tune as Deo and Angela handle the challenges coming their way.   The partnership is the central focus of the film, but at times the story gets somewhat confusing and could have benefitted from improved development. The tone of suspense, fortunately, keeps it inviting despite its deficiencies.

As the conflicts gradually unfold, there is a lot to think about which causes a dilemma about who to focus on. I found myself more focused on Deo’s point-of-view of Angela than I did with the crisis conflicts that are spiraling in different parts of the film. First Shift is oblique in its cliffhangers which keeps it interesting. In the end, where does this new partnership go? Find out in First Shift. Three out of four stars.