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.

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.

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.

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.

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.