Dylan (Michiel Huisman) is an air traffic controller in New York who has the savant-like ability to see patterns in the world around him. When an event disrupts those patterns, it nearly results in the crashing of two planes. A chance encounter with art museum curator Sarah (Teresa Palmer) reveals she was on one of the nearly doomed planes. A romance blossoms between the two, as David slowly starts to unravel trying to discover the source of the patterns in his life. Sarah’s ex-boyfriend Jonas (Sam Reid), an artist whose installation Sarah is curating, adds a very cliched wrinkle in their budding relationship. Though Jonas goes on to play a significant role in the story, the film would have benefited from less of him. Not helping was Reid’s attempt to hide his Australian accent, resulting in a incredibly overly American dialect, reminiscent of Brendan Fraiser’s many characters in 2000’s Bedazzled.
I didn’t dislike Reid, mind you. In fact, I didn’t dislike anyone in the film. The cast as a whole is enjoyable to watch. Huisman and Palmer have some very nice chemistry together, and I wouldn’t mind seeing them play off each other in a different film. As the movie unfolds, we begin to learn how and why there is a connection between these characters, but unfortunately, the reveal isn’t terribly original. It’s been explored more successfully in other films (I’ll refrain from saying which films to avoid spoilers, but if such things are of no concern to you, feel free to click here). The film’s theme of patterns of life is a bit reminiscent of Darren Aronofsky’s Pi, though not nearly as profound.
I was surprised to learn that the film’s cinematographer was the seasoned David Eggby (Mad Max, Predator), and not a television commercial cinematographer, because that’s excacty what it looks like. 2:22 is a slick looking film, boasting some unique camera shots, but I felt it was a crutch used to mask the weakness of the story. There are a lot of elements that could have worked together to make a pretty decent film, but ultimately falls short. There is a shell of a good film here, but lacks the gravity it’s striving for.
2:22 attempts to tackle themes that are meant to to carry a significant amount of weight, but unfortunately those themes plateau at the level of a Hallmark Channel film. The result is a relatively enjoyable but ultimately hollow film experience. That’s not to say 2:22 is bad per say, but it’s not particularly memorable. If you come across it on a steaming service, and you and your significant other are struggling to agree on something to watch, there are worse films to agree on, though you may wish you’d landed on something a bit more thought provoking.
Time with the Story and the Characters (12:29) -A relatively standard “making of” segment, with interviews with the director and cast. While this provides some insight into the process, I tend to believe from watching it that even the cast and crew have trouble getting past the lack of real depth in the script.
Re-Creating New York and Grand Central (6:20) – I was more impressed with this piece than I was with the film itself. With the exception of some establishing shots filmed in New York, the movie was filmed entirely in Australia. Watching the process of recreating NYC, in particular Grand Central Station, was pretty fascinating.
Working with the Director and the Cast (8:40) – A fair amount of back-patting as the cast and the director (Paul Currie) discuss woring with each other.
Runtime 98 min
Technical details 2.39:1