Tag Archives: Lionsgate

1992 Review


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.

The Crow


The original version of The Crow (released in 1994) is a guilty pleasure of mine. The director of the 1994 version was Alex Proyas. In this newest edition, its director is Rupert Sanders. Redemption and power do not meet mesmerizing expectations in this current version of The Crow. There are depths of it that try with revenge and love to create a form of meaning. The background and characterizations of The Crow are meaningless.

The two characters are Eric (played by Bill Skarsgard) and Shelly (played by FKA twigs). They escape from prison, fall in love, and build their universe of romance. The enemy onto them is Vincent Roeg (played by Danny Huston). Vincent targets them both. Shelly is deceased. Eric seeks the power to bring her back. A mental state of mind brings Eric to the universes of the present and dead. The one who guides him on how to use his powers is Kronos (played by Sami Bouajila). Can Eric save the love of his life?

The beginning is Eric and Shelly having a life in prison. From there, they make their own life after escaping. The Crow has issues with its pacing. It will focus a lot on Eric and Shelly’s unconventional relationship. It will then transition to the mayhem of criminality coming down around them. Both are at the height of it, but one gains the power to do more detrimental things. With Eric having a love for art and words, his visions mean more than just love. The writing, however, is sloppy.

There is a lot of dragging. The scary powers take their time to get to their climatic scenarios do not come so smoothly in The Crow. It is even more complex to take Skarsgard seriously as Eric. He has a quiet monotone, and he does not possess tough-guy vibes.

There is a lot of turmoil. The Crow is captivating in a moment where criminality is finding light. Once that “light” finds its way to turn on, the dreads of terror come in drastically bad. It just throws it all in the bucket of vengeance (in Eric). With that, audiences can expect tons of tattoos, weird attitudes, and a strange path of poor writing in The Crow.

It misses its opportunities for invigoration. It is presented in the formality of predictability. “Predictability” of mediocrity. The 1972 version knew how to be on par with its good and bad guys. This version cares too much about making it look like a generic version of a superhero flick. It is not that though, It is just a horror with a poor script and angles. I felt there would be more to this. I had a feeling of moving parts. There were barely any. The Crow displays “moving parts” of flatness.

I do suggest revisiting the 1994 version before seeing this one. I felt lost throughout the context of this remake. It is detrimental and messy. It is a failure within the realms of structure. I do give it credit for trying to encourage its characterizations though. Two out of four stars.

Borderlands Review


I loved the Borderlands video game franchise. I had anticipated that the writer and director would bring in some galore of expertise. That filmmaker is Eli Roth. When Borderlands had a PG-13 film rating, my gut started to warn me there might be floppyness. The mediocrity holds. Borderlands is a tragedy. Mind of Roth does not have the creativity for in-depth tragedies or stellar violence. There is a limited amount of that in  Borderlands. That leaves the writing on the wall of this dreadful adaptation from the video game franchise. It is an adaptation where the writing and pacing do not correlate for forms of invigoration. It is one of those flicks where tolerance will be necessary.

The film gears on Lilith (played by Cate Blanchett). Lilith is a bounty hunter. Lilith has a dreadful past. She finds her way back to her home planet Pandora. For those who have played video games, it is clear how the planet Pandora would be. Lilith is on a mission to find the daughter of Atlas. Atlas is the hierarchy as an S.O.B. Lilith finds this task complex without assistance. Lilith assembles of a team. They are all cocky. Her team consists of Roland (a mercenary played by Kevin Hart), Tiny Tina (an adolescent demolitionist played by Ariana Greenblatt), Krieg (Tina’s sidekick and played by Florian Munteanu), Tannis (a quirky scientist played by Jamie Lee Curtis), and Claptrap (an egotistical robot and played by Jack Black). All these characters are fit for their bonker roles, but that cannot save the audience from the dreadfulness of the outline itself.

It is an adaptation that fails to see concepts all the way through. It tries to be in its direction for humor and escapism (from the mind of Roth), and it is muddy. With an adaptation like this one, I thought it would seem more interactive. I expected there to be more open-world roaming moments (to feel like the video game itself). This one tries to stay in its lane and care about the mishaps of humor with Hart, Black, and the rest of the poor film in and of itself. There is no seriousness to the hero vibes of Borderlands. There is only frustration.

Pacing is a trainwreck in Borderlands. There is a saying that goes, “She seems deranged.” Instead, it should be “This dynamic is deranged.” Borderlands is a band of misfits that keep making the boredom feel worse. Its setting is a low-grade Mad Max environment meeting a massive roadblock of inconsistency. Borderlands does not know its elements for an enthralling adaptation.

The obliviousness of characterizations works for the atmosphere of Borderlands. The characters are the added fixation to the plot. They deserve much better. Borderlands is not action-packed, and it is not exhilarating. Borderlands only relies on humor (which keeps it dry). The opening makes its audience think of the video game franchise. The rest of the film goes in its wrecking way. It continues to be full of cliches. Regardless, there is no justice of achievement in Borderlands. One out of four stars.