2:13

I'm not exactly sure why I picked this from all the Netflix horror movies, I had never heard of it and the cast looked unknown (with the exception of Kevin Pollak). Sometimes these turn out quite good, but this one didn't really. It was somewhat enjoyable thriller, but there are goofs and stylistic choices that drop the score (a lot).

I'm gonna go straight to the bad stuff. The script and what you'll see on screen don't really match. There are flashbacks of events that seem to happen somewhere between 50s and 70s. The style of this movie looks as if it's from the 90s. Yet the movie is made just a few years ago, so you're not really sure when it takes place. People appearing in the flashbacks and current time age differently. Two people, who are younger and older in flashbacks, appear the other way around in current time. So it's really confusing, I don't know what they were thinking, it's mind boggling. Some people don't seem to have aged at all in a good 20-40 years.

The movie has a big 90's vibe to it, saturated colors, filters, TV series style lighting. Even the cast looks 90's. Kind of like a bigger budget porn movie. Quite weird comparison, but that's what I was thinking a few times. The cast looks like they'd be on a reality show rather than being believable cops - or something, there was something lackluster and even campy in the styling. There's also a strong L.A. feel to it - in a bad way. Kind of like the "Melrose Place" cast had a get together and they made a serial killer movie.

All of the above aside, the story is somewhat gripping and the acting is quite good. Camera work is OK, editing is OK.

People have been mentioning movies like Seven, Silence of the Lambs in their reviews. There is a serial killer, but these movies have absolutely nothing in common apart from that. This could be an extended episode of any cop/crime series from L.A. It's not really horror, there's a few gory scenes, but other than that it's your common crime series stuff.

I'm giving three, because something kept me watching and even enjoying a bit. I'm still not quite sure why I kept watching.

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.

I am also a bit of a sucker for these types of movies, but I am also aware that many of these are fairly derivative and unimaginative (or in some cases a little too convoluted).

This was a slightly better than average entry into the genre, although not ground-breaking or anything. The relationship between Amanda Richardson and Russell Spivey (Teri Polo and Mark Thompson) was fairly tedious and underused. It seemed that the writers thought their relationship would be interesting, started writing it but then ran out of ideas for them.

The Amanda Richardson character was fairly underused throughout the movie to be honest.

Russell Spivey the alcoholic profiler / detective is also a bit of a cliché which I could do without seeing again - it is a bit of lazy story telling. Writers: "Lets make our detective interesting by giving him guilt about some past perceived failing that drives him to alcoholism", Actors: "But hasn't that been done a 1000 times before?", Writers : "Lets make it 1001" But apart from these criticisms of some of the more generic aspects of the writing and the slightly underused Teri Polo the film was relatively enjoyable. The acting was reasonably strong and the direction performed it's function. The "twist" in the story was OK, I had got the "twist" about 1/2 way through, but I had got the responsible party themselves wrong so it was a half-surprise.

Anyway - if you are fan of this genre - don't expect something as good or original as Seven or Silence Of The Lambs, but there are many worse entries than 2:13

2:13 is a dark, thoughtful thriller that would have fit right in during the big trend of such films during the early to late 1990's. It's bleak with plenty of cold atmosphere.

It's also a tense police procedural along the lines of WIRE IN THE BLOOD.

Although there are the usual plot contrivances and obvious red herrings, the story line and strong main characters more than make up for these drawbacks...

RELEASED IN 2009 and directed by Charles Adelman, "2:13" was written by and stars Mark Thompson as a troubled L.A. detective chasing down an obviously sick serial killer who has a fetish for theater masks and mutilating his victims. Teri Polo and Jere Burns play his cop associates while Mark Pellegrino appears as a distraught victim of the murderer. Deborah Carson is also on hand.

This is a grim psychological crime thriller with grisly elements, bordering on horror, similar to "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) and, in some ways, "The Glimmer Man" (1996). The movie is low-budget, but competent enough with a palpably grey, austere tone. Teri is thoroughly stunning throughout, nice & curvy. I enjoyed her character's relationship with the disturbed (alcoholic) protagonist; you could sense the warmth between them and it's kinda moving.

There's a focus on psychotherapy, which is reminiscent of "Equus" (1977). If that's your thang, you might be interested. Also consider checking out the micro-budgeted "Sheltered" (2010), which shares some similarities, but with an altogether different plot (see my review).

THE MOVIE RUNS 96 minutes and was shot in Los Angeles.

GRADE: C+ (5.5/10)