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.

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.

...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?

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.)

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'.