2:13 (2009)

Very well executed

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

I'm convinced that since none of these players is ever likely to be cast in a film adaption of the Bard's work, the chance to show off some classical training with some lines from As You Like It and other works. This film concerns a serial killer who has reappeared and who does his best work at 2:13.Mark Thompson stars and wrote the story which makes no sense at all in terms of who the culprit is. Thompson is a cop/profiler who has some heavy duty childhood issues he's dealing with and the killer struck in his childhood.Why 2:13 is of significance if you care to watch this surprisingly dull slasher flick is up to you.

Unless you're game for checking out anything you see in a store, or on TV, "2:13" is not really worth your time. It's really nothing we haven't seen many times before, in similarly themed "psychological thrillers". Leading actor / screenwriter Mark Thompson (better known as a radio personality) plays profiler Russell Spivey, with two predominant, oh so familiar characteristics: he's full of inner demons, and has turned to alcohol as a result. While he gets caught up in a serial murder case, in which the murderer has a personal connection to him, he makes frequent visits to a psychiatrist played by Kevin Pollak. Oh, and he just happens to have been romantically involved with one of his colleagues, played by the sexy Teri Polo of the "Meet the Parents" franchise. This is one of those scripts where one would swear the screenwriter was going down a list of popular clichés and ticking them off as he utilized them. Thompson does make some attempt at originality by using the Shakespeare comedy "As You Like It" (!) as a plot element, as well as some attempt at profundity, but it just doesn't come off. Oppressive atmosphere, and recurring use of disturbing / gory imagery can only help so much. The main cast features a number of familiar faces, who each bring some credibility to the production, and take their roles seriously, not that they can do much to raise it above an average level. Jere Burns ('Dear John', 'Something So Right') plays one of Thompson's colleagues (and, in fact, worked with Thompson and Pollak in a previous movie, "Mother Ghost"), Lyman Ward ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") is the police captain, Ken Howard ('Dynasty', 'The Colbys', 'Crossing Jordan') is a sheriff, country music star & actor Dwight Yoakam is the character Sandy, and Mark Pellegrino ('Lost', "Capote") is a distraught husband. What "2:13" really can't overcome are the holes in Thompson's screenplay, chief among them the revelation of who the killer is; there are ways this could have been solved but as it is the whole thing is bungled. Too bad; this could have been at least somewhat better. Five out of 10.

2:13 is set in Los Angeles where alcoholic criminal profiler Russell Spivey (writer & producer Mark Thompson) has just returned to work after enforced leave for psychological reasons, on his first day back Spivey is called to a crime scene where a woman named Diane Stringer has been found murdered. Strapped to the ceiling of her bedroom, wearing a handmade mask & missing an arm the murder is similar to one just over a year previously & Spivey believes that a serial killer is on the loose. LAPD Captain Meyers (Lyman Ward) forms a task-force & Spivey is on it, Spivey examines the clues & cryptic messages the killer has left trying to reveal his identity. Soon the killer contacts Spivey & starts to target him & the people around him as the case turns personal, battling his drinking problem & feelings of guilt the killer strikes again. The killer is smart but Spivey has to be smarter or it's his life on the line...Apparently also known as Blood Redemption & Two: Thirteen this average serial killer thriller was produced & directed by Charles Adelman & is described in the IMDb's FAQ as Se7en (1995) meets Saw (2004) but is not as good as either of those, this is pretty standard fare to be honest. The script is full of clichés, the criminal profiler with personal issues & the killer that starts to target his profiler are the two that stand out though. For a largely character driven film 2:13 is lacking in depth, while Spivey is fleshed out quite broadly none of the other character's even register & merely make the numbers up from his personality free partner to his one dimensional therapist to his boring love interest who he rows with a lot. This is a really dull bunch of character's in a film which tends to focus heavily on Spivey & his personal problems rather than the murder mystery aspect, the problem is Spivey is unlikable & shallow & I found it impossible to care about him or anything that happens to him. The killer & their motives stretch credibility as far it goes, I just don't buy any of the coincidence's & reasons behind any of it & the murder plot is nowhere near as involving as similarly themed films such as Se7en & The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Sometimes a lack of logic doesn't help either, I mean how on Earth could the killer know that the poison that they gave Amanda a day or so earlier would take effect & kill her at exactly 2:13 more than twenty four hours later? Wouldn't the police have checked the backgrounds of any murder victim & soon find out that they all worked at the same hospital at the same time? I suspect all the loose ends, all the flashbacks, all the little details & events were meant to come together & form a cohesive & surprising twist ending but I found it pretty predictable, unsatisfying & dull.2:13 has a fairly slick look about it, the camera-work is hand-held but not too shaky & the editing is alright. 2:13 doesn't have a particularly strong look or feel about it though. There's a bit of minor gore, a woman has a large needle stuck through her breast, there are a couple of severed arms, a bit of blood splatter, a few stabbings & someone has a shard of broken glass inserted into their head.With a supposed budget of about $3,500,000 this had a decent amount spent on it compared to some low budget films, shot in Los Angeles. The acting is alright, I can't say I was amazed but most of the cast put in solid performances I suppose.2:13 is a pretty average serial killer thriller, it's nowhere near as clever as it thinks & one or two big lapses in logic & a lack of depth hurt it. Worth watching if you can see it on telly for free & there's nothing else on.

I watched this because it looked decent from the reviews pasted here and a bit of internet hype I saw but sadly it was nothing but the usual Hollywood tripe passed off as something original. The usual demon haunted policeman chases the usual demon haunted perpetrator using the usual 'unusual' method to come to the startling conclusion as to who the perp is. The contrived and artificial plot is nicked from better movies such as Seven, from which a large part of the plot is swiped, and is overly complex and unbelievable. Especially in the way the film gets it's title and the Shakespeare plot line and when you consider how old everybody is supposed to be in the film. I can't elaborate without spoiling it but consider how old 3 of victims, perpetrator and the main police character are supposed to be and the film makes little sense. The dramatic conclusion to the film, which also tries hard to emulate the tension of Seven, lacks any real drama and just seems an afterthought as if they thought 'we need some really stupid way to end this film?….I know!'. Overall I rated it 3 but probably was too generous. A very poor addition to the psychological thriller genre and one which tells us that perhaps this particular avenue has been trawled to death now. The FAQ asks 'is it gory' and yes it is a bit but also asks 'is it scary' and the answer to that is NO it isn't. It's just plain daft and about as believable as an episode of Cracker.