IMDb > 2:13 (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
2:13
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
2:13 More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 12 reviews in total 

19 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

a bit above average

5/10
Author: Shaun Jackson from Wokingham, England
18 June 2010

I am also a bit of a sucker for these types of movies, but I am also aware that many of these are fairly derivative and unimaginative (or in some cases a little too convoluted).

This was a slightly better than average entry into the genre, although not ground-breaking or anything. The relationship between Amanda Richardson and Russell Spivey (Teri Polo and Mark Thompson) was fairly tedious and underused. It seemed that the writers thought their relationship would be interesting, started writing it but then ran out of ideas for them.

The Amanda Richardson character was fairly underused throughout the movie to be honest.

Russell Spivey the alcoholic profiler / detective is also a bit of a cliché which I could do without seeing again - it is a bit of lazy story telling. Writers: "Lets make our detective interesting by giving him guilt about some past perceived failing that drives him to alcoholism", Actors: "But hasn't that been done a 1000 times before?", Writers : "Lets make it 1001" But apart from these criticisms of some of the more generic aspects of the writing and the slightly underused Teri Polo the film was relatively enjoyable. The acting was reasonably strong and the direction performed it's function. The "twist" in the story was OK, I had got the "twist" about 1/2 way through, but I had got the responsible party themselves wrong so it was a half-surprise.

Anyway - if you are fan of this genre - don't expect something as good or original as Seven or Silence Of The Lambs, but there are many worse entries than 2:13

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Unbelievable goofs, but somewhat enjoyable

3/10
Author: Raymond from Finland
6 January 2014

I'm not exactly sure why I picked this from all the Netflix horror movies, I had never heard of it and the cast looked unknown (with the exception of Kevin Pollak). Sometimes these turn out quite good, but this one didn't really. It was somewhat enjoyable thriller, but there are goofs and stylistic choices that drop the score (a lot).

I'm gonna go straight to the bad stuff. The script and what you'll see on screen don't really match. There are flashbacks of events that seem to happen somewhere between 50s and 70s. The style of this movie looks as if it's from the 90s. Yet the movie is made just a few years ago, so you're not really sure when it takes place. People appearing in the flashbacks and current time age differently. Two people, who are younger and older in flashbacks, appear the other way around in current time. So it's really confusing, I don't know what they were thinking, it's mind boggling. Some people don't seem to have aged at all in a good 20-40 years.

The movie has a big 90's vibe to it, saturated colors, filters, TV series style lighting. Even the cast looks 90's. Kind of like a bigger budget porn movie. Quite weird comparison, but that's what I was thinking a few times. The cast looks like they'd be on a reality show rather than being believable cops - or something, there was something lackluster and even campy in the styling. There's also a strong L.A. feel to it - in a bad way. Kind of like the "Melrose Place" cast had a get together and they made a serial killer movie.

All of the above aside, the story is somewhat gripping and the acting is quite good. Camera work is OK, editing is OK.

People have been mentioning movies like Seven, Silence of the Lambs in their reviews. There is a serial killer, but these movies have absolutely nothing in common apart from that. This could be an extended episode of any cop/crime series from L.A. It's not really horror, there's a few gory scenes, but other than that it's your common crime series stuff.

I'm giving three, because something kept me watching and even enjoying a bit. I'm still not quite sure why I kept watching.

Was the above review useful to you?

19 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

Way Above Expectations

10/10
Author: zt2112 from United States
13 June 2010

To begin this film has exceeded my expectations by a landslide.I thought going in i would be watching a movie that i have seen a 100 times before with a different name.I am a sucker for the Horror,Thriller genre.I feel this to be more of a mystery thriller.That said the acting was great,well paced,edge of your seat(my kind of movie)in your face.The director did a fine job.I was especially impressed with the twist,mainly because i didn't see it coming.I usually can put my finger on the who dun it but i was really thrown for a loop here.I gotta say i thought it was going a different direction,and i love the fact that i was way wrong(that is so cool).So to sum it up if you want to see a great who dun it in your face mystery thriller (with a bit of horror thrown in)then i highly recommend giving 2:13 a look,you will not be disappointed.I am anxious to read your reviews.Enjoy.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Flawed, grisly with some good performances

Author: amesmonde from Novelist of The Final Version
10 April 2013

A police profiler with psychiatric issues, leading an unhealthy lifestyle returns to duty only to be caught up in a serial killer's spree, with the murderer having a personal fixation with his pursuer.

Although feeling like a moodier, more edgy and graphic crime show episode 2:13 is a run of the mill little thriller reminiscent of Silence of the Lambs and Saw with some great grisly special makeup effects. Nevertheless, Thompson's story unravels in the closing act, thankfully it picks itself back up briefly prior to the closing credits.

Subtle, casual Mark Thompson is on form as alcoholic Russell Spivey. Talented actress Teri Polo (Beyond 2012) has a meaty role with Kevin Kevin Pollak having an effective extended cameo. Notable is Jere Burns in a supporting role even if somewhat underutilised.

While well directed by Charles Adelman it's derivative of the genre and it will probably come as no surprise that Thompson also wrote/produced 2:13 as he gives an effort injected performance.

Logic flaws aside, worth watching if only for the Pollack's cameo, Thompson's hard work and Jodie Foster-like Polo's central role.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

A Good Thriller, If you don't use too much Logic.

5/10
Author: GothDaddyX from United States
20 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

OK. Let me makes this plain and simple. I am not going to tell you who is the killer. You will probably, as I did, think you know because it seems rather obvious, but the plot-hole (big enough to drive a VW thru) comes down to age difference. Our protagonist is clearly Older than the Killer (a check with the cast index on IMDb has the protagonist- killer age difference as 10 years and it shows). Yet, when the protagonist was just 10, and they emphasize this again & again, they have the killer already an adult in their 20's. I have to surmise that they(the screenwriters) are basing the ages on the year the movie was released - 2009. Then they have very important plot issues happen in the late 60's. If the killer was an adult in the late 60's...say 20 for example, the killer would be right around 60 in 2009, and this is not the case at all. Sad, sad, sad, another movie gone bad. I really wanted to like this film. All the characters did a fine job with their roles, and it was taut and suspenseful. And as the Title of this review states...A Good Thriller, if you don't use too much logic.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Apparently Logic Isn't Needed in the Movies These Days...

3/10
Author: Terry Roehrig II from United States
9 June 2011

The movie starts out interestingly enough but it quickly falls into 'been there, done that' territory as we follow Russell Spivey (Thompson, who also wrote the screenplay) who is trying not only to catch a serial killer, but heal himself along the way.

Cop with a past? Check. Drinking problem? Check. Fellow colleague that's also a partner beneath the sheets? Check. Killer that taunts the lead star/detective with clues to make sure he knows it's personal? Check. Completely predictable ending, heavily clichéd and often boring? Check.

I felt like I was watching a documentary project on cop profilers or something. Each day would be the same, he would wake up, find a clue, go talk to the doctor (Pollak), go home. Wake up, find a clue, go to the doctor, home. Wake, clue, doctor, home. Well, at least I got a good laugh out of the doctor and his hypnosis techniques. They must have been really good because Russell was able to duplicate the process on a suspect later on. How did he learn how to hypnotize someone if he himself was under hypnosis? You would think that there would only be one glaring error like this in the movie...but you would be wrong. Logic is not this movie's strong point.

It's too bad because there could have been something here, especially with such a great cast list. Most of you will recognize Pellegrino from TV's Lost, he played Jacob. Teri Polo plays the love interest, most people remember her from the Meet the Parents movies. Unless you are really into movies like these, I would pass on it because it's been done so much better in Se7en, Copycat and Kiss the Girls. More reviews at www.soveryterry.com Final Grade: D+

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Dull, derivative and unimaginative tripe.

3/10
Author: alex (doorsscorpywag) from United Kingdom
17 June 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I watched this because it looked decent from the reviews pasted here and a bit of internet hype I saw but sadly it was nothing but the usual Hollywood tripe passed off as something original. The usual demon haunted policeman chases the usual demon haunted perpetrator using the usual 'unusual' method to come to the startling conclusion as to who the perp is. The contrived and artificial plot is nicked from better movies such as Seven, from which a large part of the plot is swiped, and is overly complex and unbelievable. Especially in the way the film gets it's title and the Shakespeare plot line and when you consider how old everybody is supposed to be in the film. I can't elaborate without spoiling it but consider how old 3 of victims, perpetrator and the main police character are supposed to be and the film makes little sense. The dramatic conclusion to the film, which also tries hard to emulate the tension of Seven, lacks any real drama and just seems an afterthought as if they thought 'we need some really stupid way to end this film?….I know!'. Overall I rated it 3 but probably was too generous. A very poor addition to the psychological thriller genre and one which tells us that perhaps this particular avenue has been trawled to death now. The FAQ asks 'is it gory' and yes it is a bit but also asks 'is it scary' and the answer to that is NO it isn't. It's just plain daft and about as believable as an episode of Cracker.

Was the above review useful to you?

Predictable serial killer thrills

3/10
Author: Leofwine_draca from United Kingdom
21 February 2016

2:13 is your usual run-of-the-mill style serial killer thriller that looks like it was made and shot in the mid-'90s. Even the way the cast includes supporting roles for various seasoned players like Kevin Pollak and Dwight Yoakam reminded me of the old days of film-making.

Although the DVD cover makes this look like a horror movie, it really isn't. It's just a thriller with a handful of gory moments. I find films like this fail or succeed due to the nature of the killer and how memorable he or she is. Unfortunately, 2:13's killer is entirely forgettable. The rest of the film is a muddle of flashbacks and convoluted scenes, with token blonde Teri Polo shining her flashlight around and getting herself into danger. It's not very interesting.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Routine and forgettable.

5/10
Author: Scott LeBrun (Hey_Sweden) from Canada
19 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Unless you're game for checking out anything you see in a store, or on TV, "2:13" is not really worth your time. It's really nothing we haven't seen many times before, in similarly themed "psychological thrillers". Leading actor / screenwriter Mark Thompson (better known as a radio personality) plays profiler Russell Spivey, with two predominant, oh so familiar characteristics: he's full of inner demons, and has turned to alcohol as a result. While he gets caught up in a serial murder case, in which the murderer has a personal connection to him, he makes frequent visits to a psychiatrist played by Kevin Pollak. Oh, and he just happens to have been romantically involved with one of his colleagues, played by the sexy Teri Polo of the "Meet the Parents" franchise. This is one of those scripts where one would swear the screenwriter was going down a list of popular clichés and ticking them off as he utilized them. Thompson does make some attempt at originality by using the Shakespeare comedy "As You Like It" (!) as a plot element, as well as some attempt at profundity, but it just doesn't come off. Oppressive atmosphere, and recurring use of disturbing / gory imagery can only help so much. The main cast features a number of familiar faces, who each bring some credibility to the production, and take their roles seriously, not that they can do much to raise it above an average level. Jere Burns ('Dear John', 'Something So Right') plays one of Thompson's colleagues (and, in fact, worked with Thompson and Pollak in a previous movie, "Mother Ghost"), Lyman Ward ("Ferris Bueller's Day Off") is the police captain, Ken Howard ('Dynasty', 'The Colbys', 'Crossing Jordan') is a sheriff, country music star & actor Dwight Yoakam is the character Sandy, and Mark Pellegrino ('Lost', "Capote") is a distraught husband. What "2:13" really can't overcome are the holes in Thompson's screenplay, chief among them the revelation of who the killer is; there are ways this could have been solved but as it is the whole thing is bungled. Too bad; this could have been at least somewhat better. Five out of 10.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Average serial killer thriller.

Author: Paul Andrews (poolandrews@hotmail.com) from UK
7 August 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

2:13 is set in Los Angeles where alcoholic criminal profiler Russell Spivey (writer & producer Mark Thompson) has just returned to work after enforced leave for psychological reasons, on his first day back Spivey is called to a crime scene where a woman named Diane Stringer has been found murdered. Strapped to the ceiling of her bedroom, wearing a handmade mask & missing an arm the murder is similar to one just over a year previously & Spivey believes that a serial killer is on the loose. LAPD Captain Meyers (Lyman Ward) forms a task-force & Spivey is on it, Spivey examines the clues & cryptic messages the killer has left trying to reveal his identity. Soon the killer contacts Spivey & starts to target him & the people around him as the case turns personal, battling his drinking problem & feelings of guilt the killer strikes again. The killer is smart but Spivey has to be smarter or it's his life on the line...

Apparently also known as Blood Redemption & Two: Thirteen this average serial killer thriller was produced & directed by Charles Adelman & is described in the IMDb's FAQ as Se7en (1995) meets Saw (2004) but is not as good as either of those, this is pretty standard fare to be honest. The script is full of clichés, the criminal profiler with personal issues & the killer that starts to target his profiler are the two that stand out though. For a largely character driven film 2:13 is lacking in depth, while Spivey is fleshed out quite broadly none of the other character's even register & merely make the numbers up from his personality free partner to his one dimensional therapist to his boring love interest who he rows with a lot. This is a really dull bunch of character's in a film which tends to focus heavily on Spivey & his personal problems rather than the murder mystery aspect, the problem is Spivey is unlikable & shallow & I found it impossible to care about him or anything that happens to him. The killer & their motives stretch credibility as far it goes, I just don't buy any of the coincidence's & reasons behind any of it & the murder plot is nowhere near as involving as similarly themed films such as Se7en & The Silence of the Lambs (1991). Sometimes a lack of logic doesn't help either, I mean how on Earth could the killer know that the poison that they gave Amanda a day or so earlier would take effect & kill her at exactly 2:13 more than twenty four hours later? Wouldn't the police have checked the backgrounds of any murder victim & soon find out that they all worked at the same hospital at the same time? I suspect all the loose ends, all the flashbacks, all the little details & events were meant to come together & form a cohesive & surprising twist ending but I found it pretty predictable, unsatisfying & dull.

2:13 has a fairly slick look about it, the camera-work is hand-held but not too shaky & the editing is alright. 2:13 doesn't have a particularly strong look or feel about it though. There's a bit of minor gore, a woman has a large needle stuck through her breast, there are a couple of severed arms, a bit of blood splatter, a few stabbings & someone has a shard of broken glass inserted into their head.

With a supposed budget of about $3,500,000 this had a decent amount spent on it compared to some low budget films, shot in Los Angeles. The acting is alright, I can't say I was amazed but most of the cast put in solid performances I suppose.

2:13 is a pretty average serial killer thriller, it's nowhere near as clever as it thinks & one or two big lapses in logic & a lack of depth hurt it. Worth watching if you can see it on telly for free & there's nothing else on.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Parents Guide Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history