It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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.

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

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.

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.