2:22

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 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 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.

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'.

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.