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.

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.

2:22 has many elements that would generally make up a good film, but not in this case.

It's unevoking, unrelatable, unrealistic and convoluted. Why isn't Teresa Palmer on a beach somewhere? It's pretty simple. The settings, backdrop, music, secondary characters and minor characters, all negatively impact the film.