2:22

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'.

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.

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?

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.