User Comments for 2:22

SirTaxedAlot says...

6 years ago

I should have shut the movie off at 2:22.

Like - Dislike - 900

Reply to SirTaxedAlot

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

ShrimpBoatSteve says...

7 years ago

Really tried to like it, but it is so full of cliché. Some parts made me throw up a little in my mouth. More plot holes than a Swiss cheese and the parts without holes were very cheesy.

Like - Dislike - 600

Reply to ShrimpBoatSteve

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

BaSsOo7 says...

7 years ago

I can see why the critics gave this one a hard time! I'm no critic and I can say this was very poorly thought of! I've had a ton of 'Really ?!' moments, because it was mostly clichéd. The story was very weak, very shallow and unriveting, I yawned several times near the end.
Story 1/10, Visual effects 7/10, Acting 2/10

Like - Dislike - 300

Reply to BaSsOo7

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

mogwaylaven says...

7 years ago

Conspiracy theory lovers will love this movie. Although the movie starts a bit slow it works itself up fast towards a big finale. If you watch movies a lot this movie might not be surprising as a casual watcher. It was entertaining nonetheless. And it never gets old seeing Michiel Huisman half naked.

The music was good done partly by Lisa Gerrard, some might recognize her from her work on Gladiator. Cinematography was good typical scenes you expect from a day to day New York, with a bit of special effects thrown in to see patterns.

While this movie isn't a candidate for the oscars I'm sure it is however a nice movie to watch. I give it 7 out of 10.

Like - Dislike - 100

Reply to mogwaylaven

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

jrafael_8a says...

8 months ago

The paradox of the self-fulfilling prophecy is great and has always caught my attention.
This movie is a great example of HOW NOT TO DO IT. It is predictable, incongruous and absurd

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to jrafael_8a

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Blue Hound says...

9 months ago

It lost me in the first 5 minutes when he says it takes decades for a stars light to reach us. It takes thousands of years. Yeah.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to Blue Hound

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

yujib says...

4 months ago

Listen this movie is not bad, and the acting is not bad, the camera work is not bad, but something is not right, it does not work, this is down to bad writing, the actors can only do so much, the story could have been so much better, shame as it is a cool concept

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to yujib

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

MrFlaggsWatchedList says...

3 years ago

Sometimes the universe cracks open and shows you a movie you can forget immediately after watching

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to MrFlaggsWatchedList

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

+schmoogie says...

CONTAINS SPOILERS

4 years ago

First of all - please ignore all comments from people who rated this movie with 5stars or less. Those comments are simply not helpful.

I wasn't quite sure what kind of movie this was going to be. At first, I thought it was going to be more of a [spoiler] Groundhogs Day [/spoiler] type of movie. But found out soon enough that it was more than that. I found the concept to be interesting. It's execution was maybe a bit lacking, but overall the movie was certainly watchable and enjoyable.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to +schmoogie

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

faithful soul says...

6 years ago

I wanted to like the film more, but in the end it just didn't hang together very well. A curious misfire, more style than substance.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to faithful soul

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Nancy L Draper says...

6 years ago

Despite the draw of the incredibly watchable Michiel Huisman this movie was a disappointment. It was poorly written, with logical holes both unnecessary and frustrating. The acting for the principal female role demanded a higher level of connection, range and rootedness which Teresa Palmer didn't deliver, although the director may be at fault because other roles lacked cohesiveness as well. It was a beautiful cast but a poor movie. I give the film a 4 (poor) out of 10. [PseudoScience Mystery]

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to Nancy L Draper

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Schenley says...

6 years ago

A good, original base idea, but just wasn't developed into a good story. Great photography of Grand Central, which kept me watching.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to Schenley

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

RictAcius says...

CONTAINS SPOILERS

7 years ago

The movie had great potential, but there is just way too much cliché here. The plot was so predictable from the moment [spoiler]the woman died[/spoiler], I knew the road this movie was going to take. So many holes, what happened to [spoiler]the guys in ATC[/spoiler]? The ending on this one almost made me break something, the way they made the [spoiler]female protagonist act so stupidly and naive even though she is apparently an art curator, is an insult to intelligent women[/spoiler]. I did not want to finish watching this movie, it was just too bad, but I did so anyway to give a fair review.

SO MUCH WASTED POTENTIAL ON OLD FASHIONED CLICHÉ LOVE STORIES.
If I wanted to watch a sloppy romance, I would have selected a different genre.

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to RictAcius

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

davidmazouz says...

7 years ago

an interesting idea with a terrible execution

Like - Dislike - 000

Reply to davidmazouz

Please use spoiler tags: [spoiler] text [/spoiler]

Type in any movie or show to find where you can watch it, or type a person's name.

User Comments for: 2:22

Watchmode

Some stuff

Follow Watchmode