2:22

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.

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.)

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

It can be hit or miss for you, depending on your tastes, and depending on how much you read the other reviewers' comments here but I thought it was worth a look.

Definitely not your typical big budget Hollywood movie, but more of a slightly quirky indie tone, with its offbeat characters, few special effects and set locations, and plausible-but-never-encountered-in-typical-real-life interwoven professional-crime-crew storyline.

Beyond the story, there is something noteworthy I would like to point out - there are many examples on screen of a creative director with a definite taste for visual flair and creativity. For example, some scenes that stand out are:

• the opening scene with the cleaning-the-windshield set-up

• the blacked-out "through" shots as you see individual safe deposit boxes being pulled out, which then reveal someone's face in a multi-faceted pattern

• the two match cut scenes where someone strikes a lighter, and then later where Willie is getting hit and Finn is shown taking the fall

One thing that was slightly jarring, and reminded me that yes this was an indie effort, was how the sound sounded kind of "hollow" and "off" at times. Don't know if it was the miking or the sound editing/post-production.

Yes, the story could have been tightened up here and there but still a more-than-serviceable effort by some promising up-and-comers.

(p.s.- Who would have guessed that you would find 3 [!] exact title matches when searching for "2:22" on IMDb?!)

A heist movie that has some style but the disjointed editing and the unbelievable premise smear the situation so that the view is overcast and the place is overly populated. The setting is just not believable and is an imposing impediment.

Some quirky characters and visual gymnastics are a treat, but there is some superficial spoiling. There probably are a few to many psyches on display here that in the final analysis it's like a diagnosis dialed back from a 1-900 psychologist.

This has pieces of talent at work and some artistic flair. However, while the initial viewing is visceral enough, the complete work will eventually melt away like ice on a windshield.

A good effort from a low-budget crew and a feeling of better things to come.