Horrifying in its reenactment of the terrorist attacks in Norway, and gripping within the telling of the political, familial, and legal aftermath of the events, this is another enthralling up close and personal look at the inhumanity of man from Greengrass. Watch it, cry a little, and then let it spur you into making your life count for the better.
This is quite a chilling movie, to say the least. It might be hard to watch for some, because it's done so well - everything feels real. The acting is really strong here. I think it was a smart move for the film not to necessarily focus on the tragedy, but instead focus on the aftermath. A good film by Netflix.
On 22 July 2011, a far-right terrorist killed 77 innocent people including children. He did this to wage a war against religion and political views he did not agree with. Seven years later, Paul Greengrass created this potent film to tell the aftermath.
The film starts with the terrorist preparing for the assault and also shows the summer camp on the island of Utøya. The tension begins rising until the Greengrass shows a very detailed Utøya massacre and the Oslo bombing. The terrorist surrenders when the police reach the island. From here the story branches in two ways. We are shown the courtroom proceedings of bringing the perpetrator to justice and we are also shown the struggles of the survivor, particularly of Viljar Hanssen, an 18-year-old boy who is critically wounded with bullet shrapnel lodged in his brain.
Paul, who comes with the background of the Bourne series in the past, could not completely dial down the action sequences of the actual attack and his re-enactments are intensely shot. However, he focuses more on the trial and tries to understand the vile thought patterns of the terrorists which led him to pull the trigger on young children.
The courtroom scenes are played out in detail, and we are also given the statement of the terrorist. What works well is how the terrorist's testimony comes broken in parts of the editing and how Viljar Hanssen's statement comes towards the very end of the film. This goes on to show what should be rightly in the focus despite the horrible attack.
This is made with local Norwegian actors, and they have performed really well. Anders Danielsen Lie, who plays the terrorist makes a mark by showing his commitment to his demented desires. Jonas Strand Gravli as Viljar is believable and sincere. Even Ola G. Furuseth as the prime minister remains in your memory with his shaken psyche but committed presence on screen.
Paul's camera remains somewhat shaky to retain tension and to keep the narrative simmering at the right temperature, but I am not personally very fond of this technique.
For non-jingoistic, down to earth handling of a tragedy, as well as for keeping the nation and humanity at the heart of it, this movie is worth a watch.
I can see why some people would think the second part is slow and boring when the first 30 minutes are so tense and action-packed. But I found the aftermath to be more emotionally engaging.
PS: It's crazy how many people you can find on Twitter and Facebook that talk like this terrorist.
The beginning is hard to watch. Then after that it becomes a legal drama dealing with the aftermath which is very slow and boring.
Very dark movie, emotionally gutting at times. Phenomenal acting and story telling.
For me this film was really exciting at the beginning but became slightly slow and tedious in its latter half. Though I do think that that is down to my personal preference and not a comment on the film being bad. This was still pretty good though
Although I can’t comment on its historical accuracy, the movie was well cast and was really engaging.
For a drama movie, rigid acting does not help the reception of this film. Only the actor playing Breivik is not as bad in his role.
2018 var året då två filmer om terrordåden i Norge nådde filmdukarna. 22 July av Paul Greengrass är den svagare av dessa. Greengrass har erfarenhet av genren från bland annat filmen United 93, som handlade om WTC-attackerna. 22 July är mycket lik den filmen, och är även en väldigt traditionell verklighetsbaserad thrillerfilm med Hollywoodvinkling.
22 July är visserligen en realistisk och verklighetstrogen skildring av händelserna i Oslo och på Utöya och filmens första halvtimme är dess största styrka. Greengrass visar själva dådet från början till slut med säker hand. Men sedan skiftar filmens fokus: vi får ta del av den efterföljande tiden, några överlevares vardag samt rättegången mot gärningsmannen. Det som började som en thriller blir et ganska urvattnat och klichéfyllt drama. Greengrass försöker aldrig trixa till det i sin regi, utan håller avståndet och låter filmen tala för sig. Därmed känns filmen realistisk, den väcker känslor och ger åskådaren viktiga lärdomar.
De norska skådespelarna gör ett bra jobb men tyvärr tar filmen skada av att de tvingas prata engelska - när handlingen annars utspelar sig i Norge. Vissa av skådespelarna bryter ganska kraftigt och engelskan sticker ut lite för mycket ibland. Det känns samtidigt som i synnerhet de unga skådespelarnas prestationer hämmas något av språkkravet.
Det mest problematiska med Greengrass version är att den är så övertydligt producerad för en internationell publik, att den faller för de flesta av genrens klichéer. Rättegångsdramat mot slutet av filmning är uppriktigt sant inte speciellt intressant och onödigt mycket fokus sätts på själva gärningsmannen. Dessutom känns filmen en gnutta för lång, i synnerhet då tempot saktar ner avsevärt efter den första halvtimmen.
Based on the book by Åsne Seierstad but there is no comparision between these two. The book is much more dramatic and detailed, contains the story of the past. We can actually get to know e.g. Viljar, Lara, but also Simon, Anders, Bano and even Breivik. Center of the story is the island but there was place for everything contained in movie and much more. And there were differences or simplifications. I think that the book has a lot more to offer.
Loved it. First I wasn't sure, I was going to give this an 8/10 because I had issues with the second part of the movie. I still have issues. It lost momentum. It's fascinating to think how you can tell this story. Is the second part of the movie really necessary? I feel it was too long and it could have been shorter. Instead of showing the aftermath that much (especially giving the terrorist a platform), show the beforemath. Show the victims in their normal lives doing things for 20-30 mins. Then show those people that we followed and got attached to, perish. It shows the inhumanity. To show that it's not only the background characters that die. This is how you feel in these movies, the protagonist always survives and overcomes the tragedy but it's not always the case. Other people died, they are not background characters.
At the very end something happened that it completely won me over and I forgot all these questions. The lawyer did not shake the terrorist's hand and when he said I would have done this (terrorist act) again, the lawyer said, I'm paraphrasing "Then we will fight you, we will beat you. My children and their children.". Such an important line, especially because that the lawyer who defended him says it. It summarizes well the essence and the core of the movie.
Too slow, bored and legal stuffs. I don't really get the propose of this movie...
Excellent representation of a historic event. Good writing, good actor performances and good direction.
Starts off intense but quickly becomes slow and boring. Should've been shorter.
Like Clint Eastwood's The 15:17 to Paris, it's not because we despise the event that we have to admire the reenactments of it. The onus of making a worthwhile commemoration of a tragic event falls on the filmmaker, not the audience.
Sadly, Paul Greengrass doesn't quite deliver a film up to the gravitas of the events of July 22, 2011 in Oslo, Norway, where a nationalist terrorist detonated a car bomb near the Prime Minister's office and then gained access to an island hosting a youth summer camp. Once there, the terrorist marched through the buildings and outlying properties where he wounded 109 teenagers and murdered 77.
The choice of Greengrass for this project is a logical one. He helmed Bloody Sunday (a historical reenactment of the 1972 demonstration in Belfast that ended with British soldiers opening fire on the crowd, killing 13 and wounding 14) and the unparalleled United 93 (a real-time recreation of the 4th flight on 9/11, which was headed to the US capital building and brought down by its passengers).
Unfortunately, Greengrass misjudged our interests when filming 22 July, for whereas in the previously mentioned films the setting is the action, in 22 July only the first act is spent on the actual crime while two-thirds of the 2h24m run time focuses on one of the survivors and the criminal trial, making for a far less impactful movie.
What remains is a valiant attempt at an emotional film, which lingers too much on clichés, and soap boxing as predictable as it is unnecessary. Greengrass's heart was in the right place, but, alas, his camera wasn't.
Shout by leneVIP 6BlockedParent2018-10-30T18:11:45Z
This was a really hard movie to watch, especially because I have been to the island during a Socialist Youth summer camp in 2016. I can't give this movie an unbiased review, or rating. I just want people to know that the feeling of happiness before the shooting, the camp fire and the football match, that still happens every year. We're trying to take our island back, and we're succeeding. For socialist, social-democratic, and green youth, this island's name will return back to being synonymous with joy one day. I was too young to be politically active in 2011, but looking back upon it, I hope our comrades who lost their lives are proud we're still using the island for summer camps, and not letting the tragedy stop us.