Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA man's life is derailed when an ominous pattern of events repeats itself in exactly the same manner every day, ending at precisely 2:22 p.m.A man's life is derailed when an ominous pattern of events repeats itself in exactly the same manner every day, ending at precisely 2:22 p.m.A man's life is derailed when an ominous pattern of events repeats itself in exactly the same manner every day, ending at precisely 2:22 p.m.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 2 nominations au total
Avis à la une
This movie will frustrate you at the end, where you are expecting explanations and loose ends tied up, but no - only a lot of confusion that makes absolutely no sense.
Acting was amateur. Writing was worse, and in fairness is perhaps why the actors made such a poor impression on me.
This movie has no point! Zero!
Acting was amateur. Writing was worse, and in fairness is perhaps why the actors made such a poor impression on me.
This movie has no point! Zero!
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 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.
In NYC, air traffic controller Dylan Branson (Michiel Huisman) has a premonition of a shooting in Grand Central Station at 2:22pm. He goes to work and nearly crashes two planes into each other at 2:22pm. He continues to encounter strange occurrences at 2:22pm. He meets art gallery owner Sarah Barton (Teresa Palmer).
There is a good idea somewhere here and these actors could have made it work. I'm still not sure if this premise makes any kind of movie sense. It would probably make more sense without the complication of the past loop. It could be more compelling. I really like the beautiful looking couple although they could have some better writing. The movie just needs to clear up the rambling premise.
There is a good idea somewhere here and these actors could have made it work. I'm still not sure if this premise makes any kind of movie sense. It would probably make more sense without the complication of the past loop. It could be more compelling. I really like the beautiful looking couple although they could have some better writing. The movie just needs to clear up the rambling premise.
An American sci-fi drama; A story about an air traffic controller who is suspended from his job after a near miss incident, who starts to notice a reoccurence of the conditions that led to his suspension. Drawn into a complex relationship, he must figure out a way to control time itself. Pattern, repetition and predestination often feature in sci-fi fantasy movie plots, but when complicated ideas are ill-explained, it makes for difficult viewing for the circumspect viewer, even one prepared to suspend belief. The lead character is a poseur, a man of metropolitan cliché, rushing about carelessly - this runs in stark contrast to the traits one associates with an air traffic controller. The love story also feels unnatural. The stylisation of the film feels misplaced too with voiceovers that reduce the illusion further.
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.
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.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDuring its one week theatrical release from June 30 to July 6, it only made $422, making it the lowest grossing film of 2017.
- GaffesIn the opening scenes of New York the Twin Towers are clearly visible. In a later scene of New York we see the One World Trade Center.
The first scene is in the dream. At that time in the dream, the twin towers still stood.
- ConnexionsReferences La Jetée (1962)
- Bandes originalesCool on Fire
Performed by Daniel Johns
Composed by Daniel Johns / Joel Little
Licensed by Sony/ATV Music Publishing (Australia) Pty Limited & EMI April Music Inc. Licensed by EMI Music Publishing Australia Pty Limited
Under license from Eleven: A Music Company Pty Ltd
Licensed courtesy of Universal Music Australia Pty Limited
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is 2:22?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- 2:22 - Thời Khắc Định Mệnh
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 422 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 294 $US
- 2 juil. 2017
- Montant brut mondial
- 3 945 729 $US
- Durée1 heure 38 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant