22 July

It seems the filmmakers were so concerned about putting a foot wrong that they ended up totally paralysed. Contains no insights and has nothing to say other than telemovie-level clichés about rehab, trauma, family and the like, completely avoiding any step into the darkness. And so, despite or because of its "good intentions", it ends up artistically sterile and politically meaningless. Totally reliant on shaky-cam to cover this suffocating and tedious emptiness with a veneer of pseudo-reality.

When nothing new about the Utøya attack is uncovered, and no protagonist victim is needed to figure, that executing teenagers with automatic weapons is a bad thing, '22 July' leaves the uncomfortable question, of why the world needed a fictionalized account of this terrible event at all.

okay movie

Interesting how docudrama format can cut to the heart of a subject through sheer visceral power. Greengrass has certainly mastered that & the opening tragedy is a truly devastating watch. Moving to its aftermath the structure starts to work against itself. Very concerned with doing justice to the victims, avoiding exploitation & finding an uplifting angle (all necessary for such a fresh trauma) but feels contrived in a way that keeps it from commiting to the complexities it intuitively sets up.

The film starts effective with the gruesome attacks, but once he gets arrested it's all downhill. As a Norwegian reliving those moment I saw on TV, the gradual understanding of this killer, the trial and his pathetic aftermath, this does little in bringing those nasty feelings back. Paul Greengrass brings a cold film and seems to be almost without understanding for the emotions this incident caused. Cardboard characters talking in cringe-worthy Norwegian-English.

Avoids the worst cliches that often plague this kind of a movie. Let's the viewer make up his mind. Technically well put-together, too.

That it's just one long take with the camera following one person around is effective. It puts you right into the middle of events and the movie itself is filled with tension and dread. Difficult to rate this one, the events that transpired on this island are horrible, but does a fictional account of them need to exist in the first place? The movie itself is executed well and I appreciated the fact that the name of the perpetrator is never brought up.

Works pretty well as a recap of the events but doesn't do much else with it, and considering that it is a lot longer than it needed to be.

OK, this was a well made, well constructed film, with all the audience strings being pulled throughout. If you knew nothing of the events, it would be a good "Dummies guide". For the rest of us, we know that people who have gone though trauma feel guilt and pain; we know victims families are bereft; that defense attorneys get threats; that people struggle to come to terms with everything. This was a well made, but pointless documentary that said absolutely nothing new at all. I expected more

Evidently resonant as a fact-by-fact account of a social tragedy -- specially in the first 50min --, but it gets clunky, weird and actually tasteless and pointless when it tries to frontally confront the alt-right terrorist and his horrid ideas, mostly because Greengrass isn't interested in conflict or context, but simplistic reactions of shock, angry, hope. It seems to waste an opportunity to inform us of extremists' putrid worldview and instead place a convenient drama about loss and trauma

So many missed chances here. It's painful.

The once great Paul Greengrass ignores most of his strengths and taps mostly into his weaknesses, showing that when he carefully attempts sentimentalism, it is agonisingly tired and uninteresting. His docu-drama cinema verite style that he's known for isn't utilised much here, and therefore makes one wonder why even attempt such a film like this (and why on earth make it 140 minutes?).

2.1.19(+)kalelaihaus.

Why in English?

Pensive and meticulous depiction of a terrorist act starts with a viscerally queasy depiction of the act itself, before devoting the rest of its narrative to a fascinating consideration of the subjective nature of 'right and wrong', 'sane and insane' etc. and what a 'civilised' society can hope to achieve from prosecuting the offenders; Lie's chilling evocation of the amoral Breivik is truly frightening. Greengrass' coldy objective POV occasionally makes the film difficult to fully embrace.

I had originally never heard about this event. I thought the movie did a great job telling the story, and how the survivors carried on their lives after witnessing a traumatic event.

Bastan sona Netflix filmi vasatligi. Zaten filmin dilinin ingilizce olmasi, Greengrass in filmi ve yasananlari ne kadar ciddiye aldiginin gostergesi.

Difficult topic, film & review. I, a Pol-Hist nerd & cineaste = 100% target demo. Sadly, I've only mixed praise. ?:Killer, Lawyer & Lead Victim all V fine performances. NOT exploitative, gory or tasteless ?: Cold, inert,dry, V worthy watch. Earnest & superbly crafted; like reading a fine textbook. Dir = UK Lefty, Docu-maker. My guess: he sincerely wanted tackle Neo-Nazi issue's complexity. BUT, knew drama by 'Mr Bourne' ? 9999x viewers than a Doc. I'dve rather had a Doc?