User reviews

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?!)

The trouble with 2.22 is that it got bogged down in odd scenes that were going for a sort of Tarantino noir or suburban domestica after wetting the audience's appetite with daring deeds to come. And the cameras they used seemed tinted unnecessarily. I've given this movie a 6 for these reasons, but it's not a stupid movie. It's worth a look if you like portrayals of 'honest crime'.

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.

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.)

A heist movie that has some style but the disjointed editing and the unbelievable premise smear the situation so that the view is overcast and the place is overly populated. The setting is just not believable and is an imposing impediment.

Some quirky characters and visual gymnastics are a treat, but there is some superficial spoiling. There probably are a few to many psyches on display here that in the final analysis it's like a diagnosis dialed back from a 1-900 psychologist.

This has pieces of talent at work and some artistic flair. However, while the initial viewing is visceral enough, the complete work will eventually melt away like ice on a windshield.

A good effort from a low-budget crew and a feeling of better things to come.

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.

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.

There were a couple of minor things that bothered me during the denouement of this crime/heist thriller, but it played out well and logically. There were good performances from the actors and the music wasn't offensively bad. I would say overall this was a decent movie, but there was an overarching sentiment throughout that I just could not get past as a viewer.

It just felt like the screenwriter/director/creative type in charge had a difficult time with the script. A lot of the reveals felt forced, Val Kilmer's bit was funny but a couple scenes with him were completely unnecessary, and it I was never able to fully commit to this story. I couldn't sympathize with the characters or the drama is it began to unfold.

Rating: 16/40

I bought this movie at a low price because I thought that the plot idea was intriguing and because Val Kilmer was starring in this flick.

In the end, many great ideas and a lot of potential wasn't well used. The title seems to underline the importance of a certain time that was finally completely redundant. The connection between several events in the hotel like the suicide of an old man and, the strange sex scenes between a television star and his bodyguard and the meeting between one of the gangsters and the ex-wife of the investigating police officer. Many scenes are rather redundant, especially in the first thirty minutes or so when the thieves are introduced, sometimes is a completely boring way and sometimes in a crazy and exaggerated way. When the thieves get out of the hotel you expect an intriguing investigation story or some fatal encounters or coincidences but instead of continuing on a high level after the intriguing hotel sequences, the movies slows down and goes nowhere before a dramatic and tragical conclusion kicks off.

Sometimes, I think that the movie wants to be too many things at the same time. For a thriller, there is not enough tension in it and not enough surprises as we quickly now what will happen in the next one and a half hour. For a tragic drama, the characters are not profound and touching enough, even in the fatal ending. For an action movie, there are not enough special effects a part of the shooting scenes. For a comedy movie, there are only a few entertaining slapstick scenes that happen in the hotel. The problem is that the movie has many ups and downs and all the mentioned elements are used in a rather incoherent way without any dominating genre. The mixture doesn't create an original melting pot but rather a strange and mixed up potpourri that fails to work. Let's also mention that the great Val Kilmer has only two little scenes and a redundant role of a paranoid diamond dealer and is one of many unnecessary sidekicks that add nothing to the main plot even if you exactly expect that in the beginning and his role could have rated up this movie by much.

In the end, we have a diversified and entertaining movie here that has some good ideas but a bad executions and too many ups and downs. The good elements are the entertaining hotel sequences and the diversified soundtrack. One could have done a movie of three hours with all the different characters but chose to concentrate on only a couple of elements that are randomly chosen.

The ending is disappointing and too simple. The acting is too wooden and the characters itself not profound enough. The plot scratches on an interesting surface but doesn't go deep enough. Many sidekicks turn out to be completely unnecessary. There are too many missed occasions and wrong expectations in this movie. The movie is worth being watched once because of its interesting story basis but that's more than enough.

This is really one cool movie, granted I found it a little slow at the beginning but I quickly got drawn into the characters and their lives, it's refreshing to watch a film today that isn't full of MTV quick cuts and jerky camera work.

I thought the story was really well written with lots of unexpected twists & turns coupled with a few surprises that I didn't see coming.

I really liked the music and the director Phillip Guzman did a great job overall. Love Val Kilmer. I totally loved the feel & texture of this movie, the cold & the snow really added to the atmosphere. Cool stuff.

I am overall very disappointed with this film and go along with the second comment posted on this forum - I think I must also be dense, having watched the film against my better judgement a second time to try and understand it. there is a hollowness to the film and a shabbyness to the ending which made the half hour really drag. I just didn't get it what happened when they completed their task at the Hotels and got off with the heist. These are supposedly four experts who have worked together before and who knew what to do, didn't seem like it to me, it was all rather amateurish although the concept of the theft/heist itself on New Years Ave and the inter-action with the Hotel Guests in the middle of the night created genuine intrigue admittedly. this for me is a poor mans Ocean 11/12/13 and doesn't come close. The acting is very average and you would hardly notice Val kilmer at all. Overall a bit down. As for the title, well, the film itself lent itself to a more imaginative one than to simply call it after the time when they entered the Hotel to do the Heist. If you rave about this movie, you haven't seen a good movie in ages I suggest.

The script is shallow, the editing choppy and discontinuous. Contains multiple scenes of animal abuse and child neglect which would be OK if they had some bearing on the story, but they are written as if to offer some kind of bizarre comic relief.

The characters lack depth and the photography is mediocre.

The editing seemed to include scenes that could or should have been deleted for lack of contribution to the story. The sound track is also horrendous - after one rather depressing scene it cuts to a fast driving scene with upbeat music and the transistor is jarring to say the least.

Avoid like the plague or you will walk away disappointed and disturbed.

I do understand how a writer or director can use various mechanisms to help the viewer establish the moral code of the characters in a film. Like Tarantino did in the opening scenes of Pulp Fiction, Samuel Jackson's character is established in a way that we understand - violent, dangerous and with a detachment to what he does that establishes that he operates with his own moral code.

This movie opens so slowly. To establish the dark side of one of the characters we are subjected to someone who feeds his dog treats and then slugs the animal as a way of showing us that he is truly a bad person. Later, because the baby is crying and the dog is barking, the same character drags the animal outside and shoots it. This is probably one of the most ham-handed ways of establishing a character point that I've seen in a long, long time.

Rather than being subjected to more of the writer's creative genius, I turned off the movie. I suggest you do the same.

I would have rated it less than zero stars if I could. Unbelievably bad. Things must have been really bad for Kilmer to take down a paycheck to play in two scenes in this unwatchable "film".

2:22 is a low budget derivative and disappointing heist thriller.

The cast are a bunch of largely unknowns with cameos from Val Kilmer and Gabriel Byrne.

Gulliver Mercer (Mick Rossi) leads a band of crooks to break into a high class hotel on New year's eve to break into safety deposit boxes.

Their target is to steal the jewellery. The diamonds will be recut by the wacky Maz (Kilmer.)

Only they are disturbed by the hotel guests, some who they abduct. One of them a drug dealer called Curtis, vows to get revenge on the gang.

This is a low rent version of Heist and countless knock off Tarantino movies. The film gets bogged down during the safety deposit box break in.

The hotel did not once convince me it was high class.

...stupid a plot to involve good actors (most notably Val Kilmer as a crazy crooked gem cutter/cleaner: "They come in dirty. They go out clean." is his oft-repeated motto and mantra.) and clever camera work, creating a unique kaleidoscopic underworld atmosphere. Or is Toronto really such a one-horse cowtown that a luxury hotel full of stuffed safe deposit boxes doesn't have carousers coming and going at all hours all night on New Years' Eve?

Although the introduction was a bit long, I won and when the assault actually begins, the film also engages and becomes a great suspense, with some good scenes of shots, punches, threats and chases, crime doesn't always pay off, great plot...