User Reviews (98)

Add a Review

  • KON-TIKI (2012)

    During the 20th century some individual achievements so captured the popular attention as to become iconic: Lindberg's flight across the Atlantic, Hillary and Norgay's conquest of Everest, Roger Bannister's four minute mile. Thor Heyerdahl's 1947 voyage across the Pacific was one of these events. His book, Kon-Tiki, sold tens of millions of copies, and his 1950 documentary won an Academy Award, as much a recognition of the feat as the film.

    Norwegian directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg have now decided to put on the screen a dramatized account of Heyerdahl's expedition. But the obvious question is how can you make interesting the story of six men confined to a small wooden raft for 101 days? In fact by comparison to the exploit it recorded, the original documentary came across as rather bland, precisely because of such limitations. But this new film is anything but tame, and succeeds in combining striking photography of the adventure itself with a compelling look at one man's quest to show that "it can be done."

    The strength of the picture is that it situates the voyage within the context of Heyerdahl's struggle to get the scientific and financial support to try out his theories. He had speculated that Polynesia was settled by Inca voyagers who had used the prevailing currents to drift across the Pacific on rafts similar to the one he would build. (He proved this possible, although DNA testing suggests that Polynesians share a predominantly Asian heritage.)

    Heyerdahl had developed this premise much earlier, but after World War II, he made serious attempts to secure the backing for a voyage that would test his theories. Not only did he encounter opposition from those who felt that he was wrong, but even more often he was dismissed as a fanatic with a suicidal plan.

    Eventually he did manage to scrounge some backing, including private loans, help from the Peruvian authorities and supplies from the U.S. Navy. Perhaps more importantly, he found five companions who had confidence enough to put their lives in his hands. All were Norwegian except Bengt Danielsson, a Swede with an interest in migration. Erik Hesselberg was the navigator. Knut Haugland and Torstein Raaby, both heroes of the Norwegian resistance, were the radio experts. Herman Watzinger was an engineer who helped design the raft, and who recorded much of the voyage's scientific data.

    Although he took along modern equipment, Heyerdahl was concerned that the raft itself should be constructed only from materials that were available in ancient times. Accordingly the raft was constructed from logs tied together with rope, surmounted by a thatched cabin and a large cloth sail. The raft itself was about 45 by 18 feet (13.7 by 5.5 m), and the cabin about 14 by 8 (4.2 by 2.4 m). The crew sailed from Callao, Peru, on April 28, 1947 and arrived in Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7.

    The film succeeds by contextualizing these 101 days at sea against Heyerdahl's struggles to get the expedition underway. Although the inevitable storm and the equally foreseeable shark attack have their moments, the movie similarly attends to the relationships among the expedition's six members, their level of bonding to Heyerdahl as leader, and his own relationship with a wife who wanted to be supportive, but who found the risks unacceptable. It establishes the overall context by its early sequence dealing with Thor's honeymoon stay in the Marquesas, where he began to discover the apparent Inca connections that led to his theories.

    In the central role of Thor Heyerdahl, Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen must carry the story, and he does. His re-creation of the historical character is convincing as the embodiment of determination, not quite obsessive but coming close, as he plans, argues and cajoles to try to turn his project into a reality. As his fellow Norwegian crew members Odd Magnus Williamson as Hesselberg, Tobias Santlemann as Haugland, and Jacob Oftebro as Raaby are equally credible figures: young, heroic, and willing to give Heyerdahl their trust. Playing the only non-Norwegian in the group, Gustaf Skarsgård as Bengt Danielsson is a little detached, but perhaps even more intellectually committed than the others to what they are about. For contrast and drama, the filmmakers apparently took liberties with the character of Herman Watzinger, played by Anders Baasmo Christensen. Christensen does well with the part given him, although the real-life Watzinger was almost certainly stronger and more competent than the movie shows him. Given that she must play an ambivalent role, Agnes Kittelsen as Liv gives a very effective performance as Thor's wife and the film's only prominent female character.

    Gorgeous photography and great production values set Kon-Tiki off. The Pacific Ocean scenes were actually shot in the waters off Malta, the tropical ones in the Maldives and Thailand, with other locations in Norway and the U.S. used as appropriate. It is a real accomplishment that even with the limited space of the raft cinematographer Geir Hartly Andreassen never lets it become visually boring. Going from the micro to the macro, he manages to keep interesting also the vast empty spaces of the ocean, which emerges as a living character in its own right, often peaceful, sometimes petrifying, always powerful.

    It must have been a temptation for the directors and principal screenwriter Petter Skavlan to fictionalize Heyerdahl's exploits and to create a stunning action/adventure tale on the lines of A Perfect Storm or White Squall. Thankfully they recognized that Heyerdahl himself was a character larger than life whose daring voyage became an extension of himself and his ambitions. In doing that they keep alive the iconic figure that he was, and give audiences some appreciation of how the sheer willpower of one individual can produce deeds that capture the imagination of the world.
  • A nominee for Best Foreign Language Picture at this year's Oscars, Norwegian import Kon-Tiki chronicles the journey of adventurer Thor Heyerdahl and his incredible journey some 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean from Peru to Polynesia on a balsa wood raft. Though comparisons will inevitably be drawn between this film and Ang Lee's Life of Pi, a fellow Oscar nominee, they are very different beasts and are both films deserving of attention.

    If nothing else, Kon-Tiki (the name of the aforementioned vessel) adds to the impressive list of superb films from Scandinavia this past year. From Headhunters (one of my favourites of 2012) to the overlooked Snabba cash (Easy Money), fare from this region has never been more accessible or memorable.

    So now comes Kon-Tiki, the first Norwegian film to score both a nomination at the Golden Globe and Academy Award ceremonies, and it's rather easy to see why. This sweeping journey appeals squarely to Hollywood sensibilities, twisting up an epic, historical adventure about overcoming the odds, with human drama. Though this intentional slanting may take some of the complexity and grit out of the film in the end, praise is abundantly deserved for all those involved.

    Chief on that list is filmmaking duo Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, best known previously for the Luc Besson-produced Bandidas with Penelope Cruz and Selma Hayek, who craft something lavish and visually sumptuous out of this trek, despite the hurdle of being endowed with a budget of just $16 million.

    By recreating Heyerdahl's raft, shooting out over the deep and using special effects only as infrequent enhancements rather than a crutch, these two lay the authenticity on thick and in doing so generate tension and wonder (sometimes simultaneously) like you wouldn't imagine. Kon- Tiki, though never overtly stealing, mirrors the most effective aspects of films like Cast Away, Jaws and Mutiny on the Bounty.

    When Rønning and Sandberg aren't capturing sweeping, stunning shots of the Pacific (and the tiny boat at its mercy) they are letting the camera rest on the diminutive aspects of the voyage, at least so when compared to the grandness of what's around them. The ropes lashing together the massive balsa wood beams strain and groan in the water, summoning us back to an earlier scene where two sailors warn Heyerdahl that a raft of that nature will inevitably break apart with the movement of the logs. Sharks silently circle and the boat slowly crumbles as the wood absorbs seawater. These quiet moments are as unnerving as anything you'll see on the big screen.

    Likewise, there are grander, more elaborate moments that drip with tension all the same, as when storms hit, men are cast overboard, and once again sharks, though proving to be one of the lesser threats in the scheme of things, use their mythos alone to chill to the bone. If not as complex as it could have been, Kon-Tiki is certainly never dull.

    The cast of unknown actors are also strong, even if by the time the credits role their sporting of Grizzly Adams-like beards makes identifying between some of these brave men difficult. Leading the way as the driven Heyerdahl is – wait for this one – Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen, anchoring (no pun intended) the film as a man intent on proving his settlement theory to sceptical scholars. Joining him is engineer (and refrigerator salesman) Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) navigator Erik Hesselberg (Odd Magnus Williamson) ethnographer Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård) and two soldiers acting as radio men Knut Haugland and Torstein Raaby (Tobias Santelmann and Jakob Oftebro respectively).

    Together, crammed together like sardines, they make the 101-day journey, each bringing not only their respective skill-sets but demons as well. Those versed in Heyerdahl's novel or the documentary of the voyage (the winner of the 1950 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature) may cry afoul at some of the changes that have been made in service to crafting a more dramatic effort, particularly tweaks to the Watzinger character, but they will in no way impact how most will respond to Kon-Tiki.

    Though not as weighty or viscerally lasting as some fare that pops up in the Best Foreign Language Film category, it is, however, infinitely accessible to anyone who usually turns their nose up at that particular segment of the ceremony. Kon-Tiki is a strong import, fascinating and thrilling in equal measure and a film that is just as much about the perils of nature as it is about the gratification that comes with conquering it.
  • I sought out this Norwegian film only after I learned that this was nominated for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film. I only had a cursory knowledge of Thor Heyerdahl as a Norwegian explorer who wrote about his adventure at sea. However, I did not know any details at all about him or his journey. So I welcomed this opportunity to finally get to see it.

    The film began with Thor as a child when he fell into the icy lake and almost drowned. However we later find out that that accident and his inability to swim did not deter his adventurous spirit. We fast forward to Thor and his wife Liv on Fatu Hiva, a Polynesian island, in 1937. There he learned the belief of the islanders that their ancestor Tiki actually came from the East (the Americas) instead of Asia as commonly assumed.

    For several years, Thor tried to get his theory about Polynesian origins published but was repeatedly rejected. Therefore, he resolved to prove his theory by recreating Tiki's original ocean journey from Peru to Polynesia on a raft made of balsa wood (with strictly no modern materials).

    It is just too coincidental that I am watching another ocean adventure just a few days after watching "Life of Pi." Kon-Tiki traveled the Pacific in the opposite direction that Pi did. It had an experienced though spare crew of 5, composed of two sailors, an engineer, an ethnographer and Thor, so it had a distinct advantage over the teenager and a tiger.

    But maybe because I just watched Pi, maybe I expected to see so much more maritime misfortune than I did with Kon-Tiki. However, that sequence with vicious sharks had real heart-stopping suspense. I do have some misgivings about that episode with the whale shark, because it is not really the aggressive creature depicted in the film.

    This was a straight-forward adventure film for the family. It may seem old-fashioned to some, nothing too controversial or strange as one can expect from modern European cinema. It was by no means boring, but I admit I felt like it lacked a certain edge while I was watching it. The crew members did not even have any significant conflict among each other and they were trapped on a raft for a hundred days! That may come across as unbelievable in these days of Big Brother and other "reality" TV shows.

    I do hope I can find myself a copy of the 1950 Oscar-winning documentary about the real Thor Heyerdahl, his crew and their 101-day oceanic ordeal. That should be very interesting indeed.
  • What a weird coincidence that such a movie came out attempting for an Oscar nomination the same time with Life of Pi, with both exhibited many similar things about survival in the ocean, though the subject matter in each film may be entirely different.

    Anyway, even though I have not watched nor have any knowledge of the original, I am impressed with the way this film was made. It was pretty well-balanced with no major flaws in my opinion. Well acting performances by the cast were complemented by a high level of cinematography technique that made looked like the entire journey on the raft was really shot wide in the ocean. Like Life of Pi, there were certain marine animals that were infamously being shown from the real life account of Kon-Tiki, and the CGI made on the animals were so real you probably cant tell if those animals were fake.

    Probably the major point of improvement that the film can work on is the lack of character development of the other participants in the Kon Tiki, aside from Thor Heyerdahl himself. I am not implying there was none, as we get to see Thor's mates conflicts happening from the start till the end, but I wish I could have known more why they decided to join and their background story. Understandably, with the time given the film had chosen to focus on Thor instead with a lot of plot material explaining why he had to venture into such a journey.

    I was also curious if there were more that could be shown about a group of men enduring a raft journey across the ocean in +100 days. But overall, just by solely comparing the similarities, this is much better and believable than Life of Pi as well as a very satisfying movie experience.
  • As of 1/4/13, Kon Tiki is on the shortlist of 9 for Academy Award Foreign Language film; list of the 5 final nominees is expected next week.

    Beautiful cinematography...including magnificent scenes of whales & sharks circling the raft.

    Character studies of Thor Heyerdahl & his companions on the journey are intelligent subtle portrayals. Thor is one driven man, from almost drowning in childhood to landing on the beach on Roraia, Indonesia. Thor spent ten years with his theory that Polynesia was settled from Peru; not from Asia, the settled hypothesis at the time. Final proof came via the 1947 voyage on a raft using the same 1500 year old techniques of navigation and raft construction. While this may sound a bit dry, it is not. The passion of the participants is palpable. Each has their own reason for going on the journey; most simply falling under Heyerdahl's charisma. (Heyerdahl's 1950 documentary won the Academy Award, and remains the only Norwegian winner of an Academy Award to date.)

    Though not cast based simply on physical looks (per the co-directors), several are magnificent specimens of blond 1940s fit men...and their bonding.

    Every scene was filmed first in Norwegian, then in English; (US release of the English version seen is expected by the Weinstein group later in 2013.) Filming was 59 days in six countries. Audience reaction of the PSIFF screening was loudly appreciated followed with Q&A with the co-directors.
  • Kon-Tiki (2012)

    *** (out of 4)

    Visually stunning telling of explorer Thor Heyerdahl's (Pal Sverre Hagen) epic and now legendary journey traveling nearly 5,000 miles from Peru to Polynesia in a wooden raft. Directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg certainly do a marvelous job in bringing this story to the screen, although I think the screenplay at times could have given more information than what we're just seeing. I think a little more character development might have helped the film somewhat but there's still no question that this here is mighty impressive and especially considering the budget. I think the best thing in the film is the wonderful visuals and right from the start they just leap right off the screen. Whether it's the snowy landscape of Norway or the beautiful blues of the sea, the look of this movie is something that makes you just want to pause the film and admire its beauty. The cinematography is top-notch and I'd argue some of the best that I've seen in recent years. The cinematography certainly helps grab all of these beautiful images but I also think it's so good that it also takes the viewer and places them directly on the boat to experience everything that happens. As for the real story, seeing it unfold here makes for a thrilling adventure that deals with some bickering between the men but also some breathtaking moments involving a whale and some highly intense scenes with sharks. The acting is another major plus as all the key people do a wonderful job in the film even while none of their characters really jump out at you except for the lead. The film is certainly very uplifting and inspirational and it really makes you respect these explorers for everything they did and of course their bravery. This film is certainly a fitting tribute to the men who went on this mission.
  • The plot is about the greatest Norwegian explorer, Thor Heyerdahl who changed the course of history about the origin of Polynesians. Thor, along with 5 desperate fellows, set out an 101 day-voyage on a raft across the Pacific ocean to prove his scientific analysis before the world. They avoided all sorts of modern mechanical equipment and crossed almost 8000 kilometers in the vast sea just like primitive people having only the faith of Kon-Tiki, the Inca Sun-God. Acting seems so realistic and engaging to depict this true adventurous history :))) Some camera shots appear aesthetic while score sounds great. However, only flaw to me is the lack of crisis in the script___7/10___

    NB: now willing to watch the original Kon-Tiki documentary film, that won Oscar in 1950, directed by Thor Heyerdahl himself during their expedition___:))))
  • How I love to watch history-telling like this! What talent in both writing and film making it is! This is both epic and important.

    This is the story about the amazing world famous Kon-Tiki trip crossing the pacific on a balsa-raft just to prove this happened in ancient times, made by the makers of great Max Manus.

    The trip, taken on the basis of an idea of the explorer Thor Heyerdahl, was completely ludicrous and no one believed it could be done. and how could a trip like this be told better than by Heyerdahl himself in the documentary made during the trip.

    Back in 1947 this was just the story the world wanted to be told after the 2nd world war and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The documentary film from the trip later won Oscar (1951), and the book was translated into 70 languages, and sold more than 50 million copies world wide.

    Finally we get to see the trip dramatized as it should be. And the result is really an amazing and epic film which holds two hours of explorer-ism, excitement and awe. I think we really get to imagine how it was to be 6 persons floating on an uncontrollable raft in the middle of nowhere for more than hundred days. The bore, the awe of discoveries, the fear of weather, sharks and whales. The psychological toll, the friendship...

    It's a great story and a great film which will make new generations pick up the book with the same name, before they watch the original documentary. Beautifully filmed, well played, even down to Heyerdahl incredibly bad English pronunciation. Not all is accurate. There's been a debate around the premiere about making Herman Watzinger such a wimpy character, when we actually was a Norwegain 100 m record holder and a strong guy with good looks, but the writers found the story needed heart, and not only bald and crazy feeling-less young men. I agree. Over 100 days on a raft is at least 90 days of boredom.

    Thor Heyerdahl himself made this trip to prove his idea, which no one would believe, and later got famous. He made the trip though he was not only not able to swim, but actually afraid of water, can you imagine! And it also tells the story of those left behind, wife and kids.

    This is the most expensive Norwegian film production ever, and the story is a Norwegian sacred explorers story, as good as they come, changing world history. Thankfully the film floats as good as the raft, and is well wort ha watch. Great manuscript, beautifully filmed, good handcraft.

    The film comes in both a Norwegian and an international (English) spoken version, which gives the movie a possibility to be shown all over the world. And it will. Treat yourself to an insane, but epic trip, and get to be an explorer yourself. This is great storytelling! It loses one of 10 stars due to the irritating (though factual) English pronunciation of Heryerdahl. Not necessary to re-experience that to make a good story.
  • Greetings again from the darkness. Sometimes the dramatization doesn't quite live up to the real thing. Thor Heyerdahl was a very interesting and interested man ... part scientist, part adventurer. We first see him as a fearless 7 year old. As an adult in 1947, his spirit and lust for life led him to undertake a 101 day trip aboard a self-built balsa wood raft. Why? Well to prove his theory that Peruvians settled in Polynesia in pre-Columbian times.

    The film provides us shots in time as Thor does his research, prevents his findings, tries to sell the story, and finally undertakes the "suicide mission" to prove to the world. On the surface, the trip makes little sense. Thor can't swim and only one of his crew has any sailing experience. It makes for a thrilling trip and one which Thor actually filmed much of ... with the purpose of producing a documentary. The 1951 documentary won the Academy Award and also led to a best selling book.

    This latest version, co-directed by Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg, was Norway's nomination for Best Foreign Language film last year. While the story is fascinating and Thor Heyerdahl is certainly an interesting man, the film just feels a bit empty. It does offer fantastic effects, but we just get teased with the true personalities of his crew. A bit more depth of character would have added an element that elevated this to elite status. Instead, it's very watchable and will probably inspire you to track down the book or the original documentary.
  • This movie is seriously good.

    I'm not saying this just because I'm Norwegian and extremely proud that my country managed to produce this amazing adventure. Kon-Tiki is definitely one of the most original, well- written and fun films I've seen this year.

    It's the 1940s. Without spoiling the story (which is real by the way), we are invited to follow Thor Heyerdahl as he gathers a crew of overly confident Scandinavians attempting to cross the Pacific on a balsa wood raft. All in the name of science and a boyish thirst for adventure! This attitude is understandable; after enduring the misery of WW2, little seemed more tempting than escaping to faraway exotic lands. Bravery or stupidity? In either case, viewers can look forward to one hell of a boat ride.

    What I adore about Kon-Tiki is the presentation of the raft's surroundings. The Pacific Ocean is just as magnificent and beautiful as it is dangerous and merciless, and this dynamic is perfectly balanced. Peaceful waters and clear skies suddenly give way for dangerous sea- creatures and storms mighty enough to tear the old-fashioned raft apart. Kon-Tiki is simply grand. At times my adrenaline rose, my heart started pumping, and I started lusting for adventure myself - just by watching.

    Another strong point is the cast. The actors do a brilliant job at depicting the slightly eccentric yet adventurous Scandinavians far away from their Nordic comfort zone. Thor Heyerdahl is particularly well portrayed with his dreamer-like attitude and awkward English skills. Although I would prefer more emphasis on character development, Kon-Tiki make them just interesting enough for viewers to care for them.

    Kon-Tiki is such a delight to watch, because it's original, different and not your typical Hollywood adventure flick. No, the plot is not complex. It has no twists or turns, and Kon-Tiki certainly doesn't contain the amount of drama you'd expect. And this is what makes it good - the film is all about the sheer excitement of the adventure. Of course it isn't perfect, but for a Norwegian film, I'd say it holds its ground rather strongly.

    I honestly haven't had this much fun with a film for a long while. If you're lucky, Kon-Tiki might show up on a festival or international cinema near you. In that case, do watch it.
  • KatooHvdW16 December 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    I was intrigued by the story of Thor Heyerdahl and his Kon-Tiki expedition which took place in an era without GPS, mobile phones etc. This is sooo normal for us now, even though I myself have lived 3/4 of my life without this technology as well.

    I very much liked the look of this movie, almost reminded me of the glorious technicolor movies of the '40s-'50s in which it is actually situated. You can feel the blistering sun out at see and sense the tropical heat in Fatu Hivu, the use of colour and light is outstanding, in the Pacific as well in the scenes shot in Norway. Loved it.

    I understand Thor Heyerdahl wasn't the most sympathetic bloke around, but even in a movie about him there could have been made more effort in trying to get the audience to understand his motives. We see a brief synopsis of his life in Fatu Hivu, but the movie switches to it straight from his Scandinavian childhood without much explanation. Why did he become a zoologist and geographer in the first place? Unless I missed this, I still don't know why. It kind of got in the way of me understanding his sudden and uncontrollable drive to prove the theory of Tiki.

    Heyerdahl obviously was a very driven, ambitious and intelligent man, stubborn and a bit of a dictator as well. Very few successful men/explorers would have survived without these characteristics, so that's fine. In the movie, they tried to show another side of him, more vulnerable, privately doubting his decisions, sometimes even being afraid (and he only shows that in private, never to other people). When the movie premiered, actor Pal Hagen was the same age as Hayerdahl when he made the voyage. When you consider this, a young man, only 33, undertaking this epic trip, that must have been a daunting command. Hagen did a great job in portraying Heyerdahl in this stage of his life. I also liked actor Gustaf Skarsgard as Bengt and Tobias Santelman as Knut.

    There are a lot of scenes leading up to the actual raft trip, and some flash-back scenes as well (with one about Thor and an injured Liv trying to get help by alarming a sailing boat passing Fatu Hivu: what was that for and what did it mean for the movie... I still can't figure it out). The actual trip is more about the first 20 days when they seem to be drifting in the wrong direction; as soon as they catch the right current, next we know they are crashing into Raroia. That's ±75 days gone in a few minutes.

    There are some other irregularities. The way the Kon-Tiki crew is choosing, for instance. Apart from one childhood friend, and a refrigerator salesman, there is no explanation for any of the other crew members other than that they are Scandinavian and that they have some sort of skill that Thor can use. I read that each of these men were in fact very, very skilled technicians, smart and experienced. In the movie however, they come across as amateurs, a bunch of randomly generated men, not very stress resistant. That clearly was so not the case, I was sorry that the director/producers thought it would be more interesting to create some tension between these men whereas in reality they were a well oiled team, disciplined and focused. I mean, at the end of the movie they show that Herman went to become a UN international representative for Fishing! And in the movie he was just a scared, shiftless refrigerator salesman who doubts Thor all the time and is constantly thinking they will all die at sea.

    And the parrot/shark killing scene was indeed OTT, as well as the fake beards at the end (that was even ridiculous).

    I liked the movie, did not love it. But it has made me interested in the figure of Heyerdahl and the many, many expeditions he did after Kon-Tiki. Meanwhile, DNA investigation has proved that Polynesians do descend from South Americans, if in percentage much less than from Asians.

    An entertaining movie. I can understand its nomination for the Oscars, the look and feel of it are great, but I can equally understand why it didn't win. I'm going to try and find Heyerdahls own documentary, which DID win an Oscar in 1951.

    I was sorry to not have been able to watch it in Norwegian, which I think would have made the dialogues between the actors more wooden than it now was. For commercial purposes, and English version was made.
  • I don't speak a lick of Nordish but my god this movie is excellent.

    Everything is perfect, great cast, fantastic adventure, flawless direction, smooth direction, swelling enveloping music and a great sound effects.

    There are few movies like this is existence, about the human spirit and what it means to have a real adventure.

    Also i must say the best and most surprising part about the movie is the acting, not only are they perfectly suited to the characters they are the characters.

    Hats off to the Special CGI Effects studio for their fantastic work.

    for 16m this movie is a real surprise and if your reading this yes, go see it RIGHT NOW!
  • Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdal comes up with the idea that South Americans could travel from the east to Polynesia as he visits the area. Nobody believes that pre-Columbian civilizations had the ships to travel those great distances. With support and a ragtag team, he builds a balsa wood raft in 1947 and set off on a 101 day adventure.

    It has a bit of drama and a good sense of wonder in it. There is also a sense of impending danger. The ocean filming is well done. I'm not sure how much CGI if any was used. The marine life look very realistic. The sharks are great. The actors are not known to me but they do a good job. The movie has a good sense of doom despite the fact that everybody knows they made it in the end.
  • andriz15 July 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    First time I read the book of Thor Heyerdahl when I was 10. Have been reading it 10 times since then and for me Thor Heyerdahl is a true modern hero, much like James Corbett or some other few guys, who at one side are men of science, realistic planners, believers of knowledge and studying rather than emotional Indiana Jones's. At the other side they are people with great courage, true humanists and deeply in love with nature - as human is just a part of this organism we call "life in planer earth".

    Watching this movie was deep disappointment, especially knowing it was made in Norway.

    The book about expedition has several dimensions.

    First one is a planning phase. That's the most calculative part of the story and it has always wowed me, how much different planning there actually was. All the logistics - materials, people, building, money, supplies etc. Documents, approvals etc. The right crew - gotta make it work.

    Heyerdahl's expedition was ultimate masterpiece of planning & organizing in a very short time - they got the money, they got all the supplies. They got true balsa wood although they were repeatedly officially told to forget about it. They built this complex raft exactly like its ancestors were built 1000 years before, and they made almost nothing wrong. Its an ode to smart and patient men with hands of gold.

    The second dimension was the expedition itself - process of learning ocean, of learning to control the raft, of learning to navigate, of adapting to extreme living, of dealing with your fears being far from any land, of forming a well functioning team and building friendships. Process of everyone rising to their specialty in this new environment.

    Third one is being @ Raroia and Tahiti. It's a different one and is missing from this movie at all.

    Unfortunately - all this good stuff is gone from the movie, replaced by weird, overly simplified melodramatic approach. Why the cheap drama?

    To carry out a great idea, which is doable, but unspeakably difficult - it takes a lot of wisdom, most precise planning, cooperation. It takes learning, patience, lot of processes which are ultimately exciting to follow.

    Why throw all of it away and replace it with a hollow, fictional dramatic elements, that either never took place or had never any importance whatsoever?

    Whats really wowes you in the book - is their courage and confidence to themselves. In the movie there is like a bunch of scared schoolboys on a raft, when actually they were all very highly qualified scientists or specialists - handpicked by their personal qualities who made this story happen with their will.

    In addition - as this movie tries to tell the true Kon-Tiki story, it's really annoying there's so many details, which are simply wrong. Herman Watzinger wasn't simpleminded refrigerator salesman - he was cooling engineer in the middle of his doctoral studies - he took care of all the thermodynamic, meteorological and hydrographical measurements. Also a true leader, tough guy, strong as a bear (citing to Heyerdahl).

    Also - it wasn't Herman, who harpooned the whale shark - it was Erik Hesselberg. And he didn't do it out of fear rather than out of excitement. Also - the dance around the radio device is total bs - Thor was actually against of bringing the radio - ancient sailors didn't have any radios and also - he did not feel any appeal to the wires and electric switches whatsoever. Finally Watzinger convinced him its a good thing, they can help out meteorology stations in US etc.

    Also - sharks did not touch the parrot, it was just a big wave on a stormy day. Sharks prey bigger objects than the parrot. This was really stupid moment and the following was just as ridiculous - Knut didn't catch the shark to get revenge for eating a parrot :D They used to catch sharks with their bare hands all the time for sport - the descriptions about this "sport" are far more exciting in my mind.

    Also - Watzinger didn't splash in the ocean just wondering on the log. It was another occasion and he just went swimming. As it turned out, raft was moving so fast it simply drove away from Watzinger, although he was a great swimmer. Then they saw a shark approaching to Watzinger - and Haugland went in with the rope - barely saving Watzinger.

    Also - all these stupid confrontations between Thor and crew members, where Thor acts like sociopath leader - are total bs. This whole group dynamics is just simply wrong - there was no such things at Kon-Tiki. Although Thor was a captain - Hesselberg was only true sailor on board, who did all the navigation. And as they were all grown men, there was rather a cooperative spirit on board, they were about business. In real life - it did not center around Thor - everyone got their fare share of adventures. So they all were pretty famous to the end of their lives after the expedition.

    So all in all - avoid this movie, read the book! Then watch the documentary. And then watch documentary about Thor Heyerdahl's grandsons Olav's same expedition in 2012, on identical raft named Tangaroa.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This Oscar-nominated Norwegian film follows explorer Thor Heyerdahl on a journey across the Pacific Ocean on a small balsa-wood raft. In it, he has to overcome sharks, stormy waters, and his own fears.

    I had skimmed by this on Netflix, but had always decided to skip it because the Metascore wasn't that high. 63? I'll pass; I'll just watch a best picture winner. Man, was I wrong. Don't let an critic reviews fool you - Kon-Tiki is a must-see.

    First off, the acting is great. From Thor's character to the rest of his crewmen, everyone showed a great deal of emotion and struggle on the course of their expedition. Whether leaving their wife or six-month-old baby behind, all had reasons to be homesick, which was clearly noticeable by all the hurt in their eyes.

    Also, it is really exciting. This is a true story, so the events are actually realistic, unlike many of the adventures in films such as Life of Pi. Thor and his crew battle both sharks and rough waves, and each time, their raft is far from unscathed. This is more than just a drama.

    The only reason I didn't give it higher was that it was pretty abrupt in the beginning. Thor decides to make the journey within the first ten minutes, so it seems without much motive there.

    Lastly, don't let anyone under the age of ten or eleven watch this. There is a shark scene that is intense and shows some blood and guts. If an under-ten-year-old is not squeamish or easily-bothered at all, it may be fine, but I'd recommend that they not watch it yet.
  • Legendary explorer Thor Heyerdal's (Pal Hagen who gives a fabulous acting) epic 4,300-mile crossing of the Pacific on a Balsawood raft in 1947, in an effort prove that it was possible for South Americans to settle in Polynesia in pre-Columbian times . Heyerdal and his brave crew (Anders Baasmo Christiansen as Herman Watzinger , Tobias Santelmann as Knut Haugland , Odd Magnus Williamson as Erik Hesselberg , Jakob Oftebro as Torstein Raaby and Gustaf Skarsgård son of Stellan and brother of Alexander) carry out an incredible adventure en route Polynesia .

    Awesome retelling about the dangerous adventure starred by Thor and a valiant group of heroes . Big budget production with gorgeous scenarios , colorful images , thrills , emotion and sense of style . Large parts of the film were filmed in two versions at the same time, one in Norwegian, the other in English, in order to secure international funding. Including wide participation from several nations , as there take part Sweden, Bulgaria , Norway , Malta , Maldives crews . Glamorous and glimmer cinematography by Geir Hartly Andreassen . Special mention to sensitive as well as evocative original Music by Johan Söderqvist . Lavishly produced among several countries such as UK | Norway | Denmark | Germany | Sweden with important financing by great producer Jeremy Thomas . The film's producer, Jeremy Thomas, had wanted to make the film since 1996 and was granted the rights to the story by Thor Heyerdahl before the latter's death in 2002 . The motion picture was compellingly directed by Joachim Rønning (Bandidas , Max Manus) and Espen Sandberg and it was the official submission of Norway to the Best Foreign Language Film of the 85th Academy Awards 2013.

    The film was well based on real events , these are the followings : Kon-Tiki was the raft used by Norwegian explorer and writer Thor Heyerdahl in his 1947 expedition across the Pacific Ocean from South America to the Polynesian islands. It was named after the Inca sun god, Viracocha, for whom "Kon-Tiki" was said to be an old name. Kon-Tiki is also the name of Heyerdahl's book; the Academy Award-winning documentary film chronicling his adventures; and the 2012 dramatised feature film nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.Heyerdahl believed that people from South America could have settled Polynesia in pre-Columbian times. Although most anthropologists as of 2010 had come to the conclusion they did not, in 2011, new genetic evidence was uncovered by Erik Thorsby that Easter Island inhabitants do have some South American DNA, lending credence to at least some of Heyerdahl's theses. His aim in mounting the Kon-Tiki expedition was to show, by using only the materials and technologies available to those people at the time, that there were no technical reasons to prevent them from having done so. Although the expedition carried some modern equipment, such as a radio, watches, charts, sextant, and metal knives, Heyerdahl argued they were incidental to the purpose of proving that the raft itself could make the journey.The Kon-Tiki expedition was funded by private loans, along with donations of equipment from the United States Army. Heyerdahl and a small team went to Peru, where, with the help of dockyard facilities provided by the Peruvian authorities, they constructed the raft out of balsa logs and other native materials in an indigenous style as recorded in illustrations by Spanish conquerers. The trip began on April 28, 1947. Heyerdahl and five companions sailed the raft for 101 days over 6900 km (4,300 miles) across the Pacific Ocean before smashing into a reef at Raroia in the Tuamotu Islands on August 7, 1947. The crew made successful landfall and all returned safely.Thor Heyerdahl's book about his experience became a bestseller. It was published in Norwegian in 1948 as The Kon-Tiki Expedition: By Raft Across the South Seas, later reprinted as Kon-Tiki: Across the Pacific in a Raft. It appeared with great success in English in 1950, also in many other languages. A documentary motion picture about the expedition, also called Kon-Tiki was produced from a write-up and expansion of the crew's filmstrip notes and won an Academy Award in 1951. It was directed by Thor Heyerdahl and edited by Olle Nordemar. The voyage was also chronicled in the documentary TV-series The Kon-Tiki Man: The Life and Adventures of Thor Heyerdahl, directed by Bengt Jonson.The original Kon-Tiki raft is now on display in the Kon-Tiki Museum in Oslo.
  • Directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandbergin, (2012), 118 minutes The Andean story of how the world was created by a tall white, blue eyed man with long blond-reddish hair and beard who arose from Lake Titicaca in Bolivia has been passed down by word of mouth through generations of South American Indians. Known to the Aymaras as Viracocha (he was also called Kon-Tiki), Quetzalcoatl (by Aztecs), and Kukulkan (by Mayans), the story is similar to Biblical accounts of the creation of a race of giants who ruled the Earth but who displeased God and were destroyed by a flood. Unlike the God of Israel, however, Viracocha is said to have disappeared across the Pacific Ocean by walking on the water.

    Norwegian Zoologist and explorer Thor Heyerdahl believed that Viracocha, rather than walking on the water, left Peru on a raft and floated with the current to Polynesia, a feat he wished to duplicate. (He did not consider the possibility of Viracocha's connection with the very ancient, advanced technological cultures of Tiahuanaco, Puma Punka, and Chavin de Huantar). Heyerdahl's accounts of how he and five other men built a balsa-wood raft which he named "Kon-Tiki" and sailed to the Tuamotu Archipelago in the South Seas is dramatized in Norwegian directors, Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg's Kon-Tiki, one of five nominated films in the Best Foreign Language Film category at this years' Oscars.

    The film was shot in two versions, one in Norwegian and the other in English (the one I saw), presumably to appeal to a broader audience. Engagingly portrayed by Pal Sverre Hagen, Heyerdahl is first seen living with his wife Liv (Agnes Kittelsen) on the Polynesian island of Fatu Huku, where he resided for a year. After listening to native accounts, Heyerdahl began to develop the idea that Polynesians originally arrived from the Americas, not from Asia. Opting for adventure rather than character development, the film shows the courage (some call it being foolhardy, or even a death-wish) of the crew that consisted of three fellow Norwegians, as well as Swedish cameraman (Gustaf Skarsgard) and refrigerator salesman Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) as his engineer as they traveled 4,300 nautical miles across the Paciifc, isolated and alone for 101 days.

    The film pays little attention to the day-to-day routine aboard the raft but concentrates on the thrill of the struggle against sharks, the fierce storms, conflict among the crew (contrary to Heyerdahl's own account), and the immediate danger of their raft collapsing. The photography, done without CGI effects such as in Life of Pi, is striking and beautiful, yet Kon-Tiki is mostly a formulaic adventure story that mimics the superficial triumphalism of Hollywood without capturing the deeper spirit of the journey. Heyerdahl's character is hardly explored and, while his subsequent travel to Easter Island is noted, there is no mention of his later advocacy of environmental issues and world peace.

    While most scientists still oppose Heyerdahl's ideas and can show strong DNA evidence linking Polynesians to Asians, there are also anomalies that point in a different direction. For example, researcher David Pratt tells us that there are various genetic and cultural similarities between the Polynesians and the Tlingit, Kwakuitl and Haida Indians of Alaska and Canada – something not readily explained by any mainstream theories. In addition, there is the famous Kon-Tiki statue in the sunken Gardens in Tiahuanaco showing a man with a thick beard and mustache (South American Indians are beardless and do not shave).

    One of the features of this and other statues in the area is the positioning of the hands, one over the heart and the other over the stomach, the same feature seen on Polynesian statues and gold medallions. Whatever the truth, there is no doubt that Thor Heyerdahl, through his willingness to take risks, brought the topic of seafaring, communication, and migration in the ancient world to people's attention, and deserves the appreciation he receives in the film. If Kon-Tiki can renew interest in man's pre-history, it will have served a very valuable purpose.
  • 65 years after his courageous voyage; 10 years after his death, Thor Heyerdahl's legacy continues to inspire and fascinate. This time through a hybrid of sea adventure and historical drama in a film named after the wooden raft used in his 1947 expedition.

    A mesmerizing epic set against the thick of post-World War II, this Oscar nominee (in best foreign language category) is a dramatization of the writer-explorer's 97 days journey sailing from South America to the Polynesian Islands. In an attempt to prove his theory about South Americans being capable of migrating to Polynesia by sea; Thor (played by Pål Sverre Hagen) built a privately funded balsa raft, gathered a five-men crew and embarked from Peru. By using the same technology that would've been used in pre-Columbian times, he had hoped to disprove anthropological skeptics.

    Yet to me… this film is more than just sprawling tribute to a grand Norwegian odyssey. It has been said that all exterior scenes of the ocean were captured in open sea (as opposed to interiors of a film set). This strategy paid off for directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg because the result, is visually rich and emotionally authentic. "And you're going to spend the rest of your life chasing sunsets." Thor's wife wrote in a letter — indeed. Isolated and dehistorized, Kon Tiki captures Thor in a state of pre-famous existence and restless idealism. All thirst for adventure completely intact and willing to trade everything he has in exchange for whatever it is that he seeks.

    This film is receiving polarized reviews internationally. Part of the problem may be that exposition begins on the vigor of elegant biopic and takes on the energy of an action-thriller, before it finally concludes in nostalgic sentimentality. But these things are mostly a matter of pre-conceived notions about narrative tone and limits of what a historical drama should, or ought to be. It would be prudent to withhold from such expectations. Rønning and Sandberg have done Thor Heyerdahl's legacy justice.

    cinemainterruptus.wordpress.com
  • Heyerdahl's original Oscar-winning documentary shot on 16mm film during the voyage made a lasting impression when I first saw it in the early 1950s, when I couldn't have been more than 7 or 8. About five years ago, I was able to see it again and marvel not only at the courage and perseverance of Heyerdahl and his crew, but the strides man has made in transportation, electronics and communication in my lifetime. The new film, unfortunately, fails to capture the spirit of the original documentary, inserts a lot of highly speculative high drama, then stops when the raft finds the right currents to carry it to Polynesia. The differences in the films is symbolized by the men's mascot, Loretta. In the real-life film, she's a very small parrot who gets lost a storm. In the new film, she's a brightly colored Macaw who gets eaten by a pack of CGI sharks. Sometimes the truth IS better.
  • KON-TIKI, the story of an incredibly stubborn Norwegian Man (scientist) Thor Heyerdal, who set out to prove his theory that the Polynesia was discovered by the South Americans (Peruvians). And 1500 years ago, when there were no boats, they traveled 5000 miles through the Pacific Ocean in rafts! He along with 5 other believed in that theory and started that near impossible journey on a balsa wood raft in 1947.

    A fantastic film, very very well directed. The film was unlucky, that it had to compete with "Amour" in best foreign language film category in these year's academy awards!

    Thor wrote a book about Kon-Tiki. It was translated to over 70 languages and sold over 50 million copies. The documentary about the expedition also named "Kon-Tiki" won an Oscar in 1951.
  • "Kon-Tiki" is a HIGHLY unusual film. It was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Oscar--yet, it is a film that was made in two versions--English language and Norwegian! So, scene by scene, it was shot twice--with actors delivering their lines in both languages! As for the DVD, I was disappointed. The version I got from Netflix ONLY had the English language version and I could not compare them or choose the Norwegian language film. For most folks, this is not a problem--they'll prefer English. Plus, it is not (thank goodness) dubbed.

    The film is about Thor Heyerdahl's famed Kon-Tiki expedition--where he demonstrated (in a TOTALLY insane way) that the Polynesians might have originally come from the Americas--not Asia. To do this, he and some fellow explorers constructed a balsa raft and traveled from Peru to Polynesia--a journey of thousands of miles.

    This is a well made film--no doubt about it. However, perhaps I am not a great person to watch this one, as I found the film a bit dull once it moved from the planning stages to actually heading out to sea. I know what the men did WAS incredible--but it also reminded me of the last time I watched "Life of Pi" and I got a bit tired watching the raft portion.

    By the way, in the final portion of the film, you have an epilogue which tells what happened to the men who made this journey. However, I was shocked by what it said about Heyerdahl, as it skipped discussing his subsequent INSANE ocean voyages--such as with the Ra and Ra II. An odd omission since he lived a life of adventure and was featured several times in 'National Geographic' for his voyages.
  • movie_star34922 March 2013
    I just came home from an special screening in London of the Oscar nominated film, Kon-Tiki, and I have to say, it was absolutely fantastic.

    I read the book and saw the original documentary as a child, and I've always wondered when they were going to make a movie about it, and well, here it is, and it's good. Kon-Tiki manages to capture the spirit the book had, although there were minor changes in the story. The CGI effects were very well made and looked very real (especially the sharks and the ocean) and this was very surprising to me, as the budget was only 16 million us dollars.

    Kon-Tiki is made by the same directors who made the film, Max Manus, back in 2008, and they have proved twice that they are able to make entertaining and well made movies based on famous stories.

    The actors and actresses did well on their side, but the relationship shown between Liv and Thor in the film appeared to be a bit wooden. Now that is the only complaint about the film that I have really, and I can not wait to see what directors Joachim and Espen has in mind as their next project.

    This is a must see for sure!
  • This Norwegian film (mostly in English) is a fictionalized story of the 1947 Kon-Tiki expedition on a large raft lead by Thor Heyerdahl. The raft departs from Peru in the hope it reaches Polynesia in order to prove the likelihood that Polynesians descended from Peruvian natives.

    The film loses some authenticity when Norwegians are speaking to each other in English though this happens in only a few scenes. There's some Hollywood cheeziness with loud music intended to manipulate the viewers' emotions during high moments. But the film still provides solid entertainment with some well executed suspense during the journey.

    Scenes involving sharks and whales are especially memorable. The inevitable personality differences among the crew also bring out the right tension.

    While this is not the greatest adventure drama, it's still entertaining enough.
  • Translated into 70 languages, Thor Heyerdahl's account of his 1947 expedition across the Pacific on a balsa raft has captivated the imagination of generations after generations of dreamers—and for very good reasons. "Kon Tiki" is an excellent book: evocative, inspiring, quite funny at times, but also heart-felt and informational, all outstanding qualities that will shine even more in its sequel, "Aku-Aku."

    Unfortunately, the directors Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg pay such obvious lip service to Hollywood conventions (each character-based scene in the movie has been shot both in English, and in Norwegian in a grossly obvious attempt to cater to a wider audience). More to the point is the pathetic effort to inject a modicum of conventional drama into one of the central tenets of the book: the well-balanced micro-universe that the 7-crew members succeeded to create on their minuscule raft. The directors chose to strip all characters of their personality, except for Heyerdahl himself (Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen) whom they endow with a determination suspiciously close to religious fanaticism, and by turning Herman Watzinger's character (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) into a wuss. Aside from Watzinger's daughter who rightly complained about her father's misrepresentation, Heyerdahl himself must be turning over in his grave: The original photographs of Watzinger reveal a person much different from the doughy, lumpy, doubting sissy who manages to sneak some metal wire aboard the primitive raft (heavy-handed irony here) amongst his personal belongings, hoping to replace the failing ropes under way. In reality, Watzinger was Heyerdahl's first and foremost 'convert,' showing so much faith and enthusiasm in the project that he accompanied him all the way to the jungles of Ecuador in search of balsa trunks for the raft. The screenplay concocted by Petter Skavlan and Allan Scott (as a "consultant," the latter probably deserves a greater part of the blame) replaces this episode with a much earlier one (Heyerdahl and his wife in the Marquesas) for the evident reason and excuse to include at least one female character in the movie, lest the audience—God forbid!—should feel and resent the lack. Not altogether incidentally, the back cover of the DVD displays the happy couple romantically awash in tropical waters.

    The directors' excuse for altering the facts that both the original book and the 1950 documentary are grounded in, is shameless in its implied arrogance: the book lacks any dramatic tensions, they claim, so they had to manufacture some. That is why the first half of the expedition unfurls under a sense of cheap suspense: is the raft going to drift towards "the Maelstrom of the Galapagos" (huh?!) Are the ropes going to hold the balsa trunks together? Will the captain find himself in a position to literally sink or swim, like he failed to earlier on, as a boy? A cursory review of the book will reveal a trove of opportunities for suspense that the directors blithely ignored: the raft sails so closely to the first Polynesian island that several natives are able to reach them by canoe. Knut returns to the shore with them, hoping to get more paddling help, and almost remains stranded behind, on the island. Or: the instance when the cooking gear catches fire, threatening to burn the whole hut down. Or: the underwater efforts to tighten the ropes while en route. Or: the quandary they find themselves in, upon landing, after managing to get their soaked radio going: once they establish radio contact, the ham operator half a world away refuses to believe that they are the castaways they claim to be. Or: the operation they perform on a native boy, with the help of a doctor who directs them through the Morse code, and that of the "miraculous" antibiotics that they had brought along on their primitive raft. Even Watzinger's success in manufacturing ice on the raft for film-developing purposes (his redeeming act as a refrigerators salesman) is casually brushed aside. Rather than rely on the richness of the book, the directors took the easiest way out. The result may be satisfactory, even uplifting for some viewers who expect nothing past colorful entertainment, but it does a tremendous disservice both to the book and, more importantly, to Heyerdahl's global accomplishment. And, in absence of the book that has brought under its spell millions of readers, the movie can hardly stay afloat on its own terms.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I decided to watch the original Norwegian version of the film with the English subtitles, mostly because I heard the Norwegian version is longer than the English version.

    This movie does progress rather slowly, particularly once they get their raft into the water. I think that the fridge salesman's (Herman) idea toward the end, about anchoring the raft and waiting until the 13th wave, sort of serves as his redemption (i.e. the crew was doubtful about his usefulness on this trip since he was introduced to them as a fridge salesman, if I'm not mistaken). And, it would have been nice if they added in more to the movie, to show the audience what happens immediately (not the "in the long run, here's what the crew ended up doing") after arriving at their destination, such as: dialogues between Thor and those who laughed at what he proposed in his thesis; how the scientific community reacted after finding out he accomplished his far-fetched goal; did he ever miss Liv?

    Anyway, I loved the ending for what it did show--the letter Thor reads from Liv upon arriving onto the island is bittersweet. I had to bump up my rating of the movie after that part.

    Overall, a pretty good movie. 7/10.
An error has occured. Please try again.