2:22 (2008)

Just perfect...

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Good concept, poorly executed.

Better Late Then Never

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".

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.

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.

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-upthe blacked-out "through" shots as you see individual safe deposit boxes being pulled out, which then reveal someone's face in a multi-faceted patternthe two match cut scenes where someone strikes a lighter, and then later where Willie is getting hit and Finn is shown taking the fallOne 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?!)