2:22

The movie does have a nice compelling B-movie flair to it. It works on many levels (especially if you like the movies this was obviously inspired by), but mostly in single parts. Put together something seems to be missing to make this stand out. But you can see that the guys who made this might be up to something. So as another reviewer also stated, good things will probably are ahead of us.

The actors here are doing the best they can, but a real connection seems to be missing for the viewer. While the ideas themselves are well thought of, the piecing together of those ideas, might have been a bit faster than it should've been.

It can be hit or miss for you, depending on your tastes, and depending on how much you read the other reviewers' comments here but I thought it was worth a look.

Definitely not your typical big budget Hollywood movie, but more of a slightly quirky indie tone, with its offbeat characters, few special effects and set locations, and plausible-but-never-encountered-in-typical-real-life interwoven professional-crime-crew storyline.

Beyond the story, there is something noteworthy I would like to point out - there are many examples on screen of a creative director with a definite taste for visual flair and creativity. For example, some scenes that stand out are:

• the opening scene with the cleaning-the-windshield set-up

• the blacked-out "through" shots as you see individual safe deposit boxes being pulled out, which then reveal someone's face in a multi-faceted pattern

• the two match cut scenes where someone strikes a lighter, and then later where Willie is getting hit and Finn is shown taking the fall

One thing that was slightly jarring, and reminded me that yes this was an indie effort, was how the sound sounded kind of "hollow" and "off" at times. Don't know if it was the miking or the sound editing/post-production.

Yes, the story could have been tightened up here and there but still a more-than-serviceable effort by some promising up-and-comers.

(p.s.- Who would have guessed that you would find 3 [!] exact title matches when searching for "2:22" on IMDb?!)

That part still alludes me. Why was that the perfect time? They never explain that, or a bunch of other things in this film that tries desperately to be part of the cool kids, but fails to achieve the goal. The problem lies within a script too short and full of useless bits that distract from the overall goal of the story.

2:22 has two recognizable names in it. First is Val Kilmer, the guy who played Batman. He has a small role as a Jeweler who isn't all there. Kilmer seems to be having some fun with the role, which is nice. He has two scenes. Second is Gabriel Byrne, who looks like he DOES NOT WANT TO BE THERE AT ALL. He also has two scenes, very minor, as the detective. Somehow he manages to catch the luckiest break of all time near the end and inexplicably solve the case. I like heist films and when I see one I'm usually rooting for those stealing the loot. I unfortunately couldn't give a damn with this one. Are we suppose to sympathize with the lead characters? One of them shoots a freaking dog for Christ sake.

Anyways, the plot is more absurd. They plan to steal out of the safety deposit boxes from a hotel on New Years. Why they decide to steal at the one time where they know a bunch of people are going to be staying up late? I have no idea. Second, you know a bunch of people are going to be in hotels, so this doesn't seem logical to me. Again, they plan to start at 2:22, no mention as to why. Okay, so we get to the hotel and apparently only two people are working. The guy at the front desk and some guy in the kitchen. Shouldn't there be more staff on one of the busiest nights of the year for hotels?

The guys tie them up and get to work, but ring ring. Someone is calling the front desk for some room service. So we get some comical bits with the thieves having to answer the phone and taking care of the guests needs. One guest is planning on killing himself, they continuously cut to him either going to blow his brains out, or jump off the building. You would figure this has some significance to the plot, maybe his death will alert police to come to the hotel? Maybe he will start a shoot out? Nope, nothing comes of it. Pointless beyond belief.

The second half of the film is them trying to lay low, but failing at it. One guy gets caught and rats on his friend, which leads to a death, some revenge and then the final sequence that is irritating and unbelievable.

The film is set in America, evident by the money they are stealing, yet it is clearly shot in Toronto. They don't even seem to want to hide the fact, we see the CN TOWER design on the front door of a strip club. Ads for Tim Hortons and the TTC is seen everywhere. As a Canadian I couldn't help but laugh at this. If they are going to show a Canadian city, that is very Canadian, set the damn thing in Canada.

2:22 is a poor heist film. You'll get a bit of entertainment from the heist itself, but the film lacks focus and drive. It has no idea what it wanted to do and this is clear by all the useless crap the helps eat up the run time. Two underused actors, Kilmer and Byrne, one who seems to be trying, the other looks like he couldn't give a damn. Skip it.

A word of warning to those who decide to watch this movie because Val Kilmer is prominently advertised on the DVD box. He actually only has two scenes in the entire movie, and his total screen time can't be more than three minutes. Actually, the movie has more problems than false advertising. For the first 30 minutes, the movie seemed to be going nowhere - just a bunch of scenes and characters that seemed to have no relationship with each other. If I hadn't read the plot description on the back of the DVD box and known what was coming, I would have been asking myself, "Just what is this movie about?"

But after this bad beginning, the next thirty minutes are a big improvement. Showing the hotel robbery in action, these thirty minutes are interesting, suspenseful, and even have a little humor added in. I was entertained by this whole section of the movie.

Unfortunately, the last thirty minutes of the movie quickly fall apart. This last part of the movie is slow-moving, often lacking explanation, and at one point relies on a wild coincidence to advance the plot.

This movie doesn't work, though I wouldn't call it one of the worst movies ever made. That middle section is good, and the movie has a few other positive attributes like some good acting and some atmosphere by the snowy conditions of the winter setting. But even when you put all this positive stuff together, I don't think the movie is good enough to seek out (unless maybe you are planning a cinematic thriller of your own and want to see what NOT to do.)

Caught this film in Toronto a while back. It has an excellent cast of characters, who were all well developed, the film takes the time to give background and history on the characters before jumping into it.

The storyline was good too, it had plenty of twists and turns throughout keeping the viewer guessing, and managed to avoid predictability (unlike 'Hollywood-big-budget' films) and really pulls the viewer in.

The cinematography really stands out, clever shots, great colour use in some scenes too and really brings a different kind of life to the film. Most notably for me was the alleyway beating scene, the dark plot twist/events of that scene are contrasted by the brightness and the popping colours. Definitely interesting visually as well.

Overall, certainly well worth the watch.