2:22

So I saw this movie on HBO Max and thought it would be perfect to watch on 2/22/22. And honestly, it was kind of underwhelming. The film follows Dylan, who has something bad happen to him every day at precisely 2:22 p.m. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that these events are somehow tied into a larger event that happened at 2:22 in either the past or the future or maybe even both ;). Overall it wasn't a terrible film, but it was nothing great either. At times I was kind of bored, and I never really cared about the characters. It wasn't the worst movie in the world, though, and there was nothing terrible about it. Just nothing great either. But I'm glad I watched it on 2/22/22. Not sure if I would recommend it, though.

A story about mysterious set of events that continue happening to one man at 2:22 every single day. Michiel Huisman stars is an air traffic controller from New York losing his job after experiencing a weird flash of light causing him to blank out at 2:22. The plot tells about his experiencing more and more weird events at the same time after he meets a woman, played by Teresa Palmer. This appears being quite a unique idea for a film story overall it's not easy to understand what is exactly going on. Is it the movie the stars or about this guy? Is it something else? The full cast includes Sam Reid, Maeve Dermody, Remy Hii, and Simone Kessell. To sum up an original idea but the result is nothing more than a barely decent entertainment.

The star of this film are the screenwriters; Nathan and Stein, who take an incomplete idea and run with it. Unfortunately, when you rush, you sometimes make mistakes. This is one of those times. It is a real shame, and I am sure both writers will have a productive future. But this effort falls short due to the inability of the writers to clearly convey what they are writing about. The character of the air traffic controller is well-developed, but not anyone else. To get an effective chemistry for the audience, one must develop the TWO characters at the same time; not just one and then introduce another one much later. That device does not work, and helps to eventually ruin any connection the audience might have with the later character. This flaw is not the only reason the film is not successful. The premise of time travel (and this is a time travel film in the sense that Groundhog Day was a time travel film) is a difficult premise to work around as a film. Groundhog Day was successful because it had a great actor, Murray, and great comedy situations. This film has no sense of humor, nor does it have any sense of impending repeating events. The audience is intrigued, but then loses interest when there are no compelling examples before the final event of the phenomenon. A good try, but no cigar.

Overall I enjoyed this movie but I think it was more style than substance. The direction and visuals were excellent - it's possibly worth watching the movie solely for them, especially if that's your kind of thing. The aerial ballet and art exhibit scenes in particular (which you get a hint of in the trailer) were stunning. It's a well-made movie with a sufficient budget.

I don't want to spoil anything, so I'll just say it reminded me of Knowing and Twelve Monkeys - however, compared to those two movies, the stakes felt rather low and the mystery was never particularly compelling, on top of being a little too predictable. I always felt I knew the general direction it was heading, even if I didn't have all the details yet.

I have to admit I don't understand the extreme negativity in some of the reviews.....especially considering the amount of uninspired garbage in movie theaters these days.

Now, 2:22 is not a masterpiece, and like most movies it has weaknesses, but its strength is that it builds a sense of suspense without the usual car chases and urban shoot outs that seem to please the ADD crowds so much. The acting is solid (not Oscar material but better than hinted at in many reviews), the direction and special effects are very polished, and, more importantly, the slow accretion of mysterious details and surreal circumstances make it far more interesting, IMO, than most movies currently on offering. I think this movie also does a good job, overall, of hinting at parts of the ending but at the same time maintaining a sense of suspense about how exactly the mysterious events and patterns noticed by the main character will come together.

This is not a realistic thriller, with a clear cut plot and an ending that explains every minor thread or detail in its story, or a relentless action movies with plenty of explosions and other events that ultimately mean nothing, or a bloated love story with SF elements. Hence, I think, the disappointment of some viewers.

The way I see it this is a movie that, despite its imperfections, evolves into a subtle, psychological thriller that hints at man's endless fascination with patterns (in our Universe, in our life, in history etc) and at our sense of wonder of how we fit in it. A movie that while providing us with an interesting story also asks us to add to the plot our own interpretation of the events, and our own sense of wonder about the mystery of our existence.

Now, there is no doubt that other movies on similar topics are superior (12 monkeys and Groundhog day come to mind, among others), but I still think this is one of the few movies worth watching I've seen this year, despite its limitations. At least it asks the watcher to actually engage his brain instead of just switching off and let the explosions roll on until the cardboard cutout bad guy/guys are vanquished.