This is a long movie but is definitely worth the 2.5 hour sitting. The movie is gripping and fast-enough paced that you don't get bored. Perhaps because the real event is still fairly recent (within the last decade), but I found it was really profound and sad. Half of the movie is the event with the other half focussing on the aftermath of this on one particular kid's life. Netflix can churn out some bad films, but this was not one of them. I'd recommend for a gripping sit-down and watch kinda movie night.
Add a Review
-
emily-imdb18 October 2018
-
gallopman10 October 2018Ok, so looking at some of the other reviews, I've noticed that other reviewers have taken issue with the Norwegian actors' accents and their speaking English for the film. As an American, I can say without a doubt, the accents and the English speaking is terrific. No problems with the dialogue did I notice during the film. So the film does a brief setup of the actions taken against the government and the teenagers camp that day. I believe Greengrass does s brief delving of the events in order to prevent glamorizing the terrorists behavior but to simply inform the movie watcher to what took place. The film really focuses on the survivors, their families and the terrorist's defense in the aftermath... The terrorist's mindset is depicted through meetings with his defense lawyer. One particular young man who survived the attack, his recovery is shown to great detail. The acting is uniformly good throughout the film... I believe because of the tragic nature of events that took place, the gravitas of the film is a tough watch. That said, I applaud Netflix for signing a first rate director on to this project. If you have the two hours and stomach for the subject matter give the movie a chance...
-
This is a good film about the darkest chapter of post-WWII Norwegian history. The disappointment for me was how the film failed to get into detail about the Norwegian police's many failures while the terrorist attack was progressing. What I recall from the aftermath while following news reports closely, was, for example: The police had two guards stationed ashore who had semi-automatic weapons readily available, yet they cowardly refused to intervene while listening to gun shots from Utøya island, and instead called for backup. Once police enforcements finally arrived, the inflatable boat they used almost sank, and it had to return to the shore to unload some policemen before heading toward the island. I wonder how many kids died only from that mistake. There were no police helicopters available, apparently because the pilots were all on vacation at the same time. The tourist camping ashore who had boats, were true heroes and used their boats to pick up kids from the lake who were swimming away from the island to save their lives. Breivik was shooting at swimmers desperately trying to escape. None of that was in the movie. And - Breivik called the police asking when they were going to arrive to get him. Yes. The terrorist thought the cops were so slow he called them! Unbelievable. Nobody was held accountable. No law enforcement officials or policemen had to face any consequences for the lack of response. Many, many lives could have been spared had Norwegian police been properly on the alert after the Oslo bomb went off.
-
DMAitken12 October 2018I remembered hearing about the event on the news and being shocked by it at the time, but the film gave a much deeper insight into the tragedy. I actually cried watching this portrayal of the attack on those poor children. The cast did an excellent job with the English dialogue, but I'd have been fine watching it in Norwegian with English subtitles.
-
antilakaisa28 October 2018Would've been so much better if they'd just made the movie in Norwegian. It's not believable. Norwegians acting Norwegians speaking English.
-
I am a long time fan of Greengrass, he isn't always making great films, but some times he brings some real good nailbiters which i greatly enjoy. For example Captain Philips and The Bourne Ultimatum. And you immediately see his fingerprints all over this one as well, with it's shaky camera movements and quick pacing.
The first half of this movie is pretty good actually, albeit the way it is cut together bothered me. The timeline in which all this happens feels like a couple of days, but it took months. The attack itself took hours, but yet it feels like minutes. It sort of brought me out of the story, because i know this story really well, being a Norwegian, and reading all about this, following the trial and the events surrounding all of this, it was really distracting to see that Greengrass was in a rush to get from one scene to the next.
I'm not saying the movie should have been 5 hours long to depict all of this more accurately, but at least make it clear how much time is spent between the scenes. The way this movie is cut, it felt like the trial started one week after the attack on the island.
So i kept hanging in there, i liked the acting, i liked the directing, but when we crossed the half-way mark i started to dislike a lot of the things i saw, the rush to get through the trial, the creative freedoms they chose to implement, the acting slowly got worse for some weird reason, and the spoken English also got worse the closer we approached the end. The actors in this film are mostly Norwegians, and it's painful to listen to when we can't make the language sound more authentic. But the weird thing is, it sounded more authentic in the first half of the movie.
Overall this movie does tell the basics about this dreadful event, i personally know people that was on the Island during this attack, and i think the movie pays proper respects to them, i do. But i also have to see this as a movie, which it is. And then I'm not so impressed, this is not Greengrass at his best, but it's a fairly good film overall, and the first half is really intense. This movie could easily have been 20-30 minutes longer, the content is there, no short cuts was needed to make this movie, it only makes the event less terrifying in my opinion.
6/10 - Fair -
cordenw5 September 2019There's really no law that's been written to give people a sense of justice when crimes like this are committed.
Mass Murderers must be insane by the very nature of what they do but the acts always bring out some anomaly in the law that entails a gruesome reenactment to get some sort of verdict. The mass killer thrives on the production. (Unless of course he gets killed in the process)
This movie is very well done with its portrayal of the killer as a soulless nutcase who comes across as almost normal in his interactions with everybody.... just like Bundy. Very difficult for the authorities to catch him before the heinous crime, but the aftermath of any of these events always shows that there were significant clues that the authorities should have picked up on.
So we end up blaming them and not the perpetrator. The State and the killer become the preoccupying participants and the victims and their families are only secondary to the matter. The grief of the families and the survivors is given a bit more attention in this movie and there are some very moving scenes.
Such an unbelievably tragic subject dealt with in a very compassionate way, the acting is quite well done and has to be understated because of the subject matter.
This is not a film to attend and expect to come out feeling better. It is a statement of the evil that exists in the world and a reminder that it can surface anywhere and anytime. It's worth watching just to get you to keep your antennae working. -
birch_jonathan26 December 2018I don't understand all the bad reviews...people complaining that the film didn't show a larger proportion of the mass shooting in the beginning of the film. Whats wrong with you people. Everybody knows it went on for much longer...but who in the right mind wants to watch children being murdered in such circumstances for an hour. The shooting time int he movie went on for long enough and it was very harrowing and very sad. A very good film
-
Rotkiv8912 October 2018Greengrass' movie about Breivik's neo-fascist terror attack on Norway in 2011 is a heavy, grim and shocking, but great and moving story. What makes it better than many documentaries is that it shows the attacks for what they were: politically motivated right wing acts of terror, and the creators were not afraid to show Breivik's murderous hatred for "marxists" and "multiculturalism" in the film.
The first 20-30 minutes of this movie will be the most disturbing scenes you'll see on Netflix in many years since "Beasts of no nation" was released there. The cinematography and acting makes it a both hyper-realistic and sickening but also a sad and beautiful movie about hope and strength.
The casting of Anders Danielsen Lie as Breivik is perfect, he gives us the exact same coldness and looks like we all saw in the eyes of the real massmurderer on tv. The recreation of scenes we all saw so many times in the news, the horrible scenes on Utøya island, in the courtroom, and Ila prison, etc is very realistic. All the victims do a great job too.
This is a must-see. -
maria_hansen19510 October 2018This movie is strong.. Its a accurate movie about what happened this horrific day in Norway. It needed to be documented, and the making of this movie will show people and remind people of 22. July. The accents is no problem really, more people are to watch a movie with english speaking language, than norwegian with english text. And it was made for the whole world to see. You are a fool to lower the scores for this movie because of that. I felt alot of emotions during the 2 hours and 30 minutes it lasted. Seeing what these family had to go through, how scared all of the kids were, and could almost picture myself right there with them.. How horrifying it was. My parents refuse to watch any movie, made about 22. July. They are too scared to see the truth about what happened, and i must admit, its not for everyone. Its a really strong movie.
-
Come-and-Review10 October 2018July 22, rather than being a film about just the terror attack itself, spends most of its screentime on its consequences. Due to such a misleading title I can't say that the film met my expectations, though it still being a remarkable work.
We know Greengrass for directing excellent action-thrillers based on actual events (other than three Bourne films): United 93, Captain Phillips and Bloody Sunday are all accounts set in narrow time frames, that focus mainly on the action and have a documentaristic style.
When I first heard of '22 July', I thought it would be another action-thriller, focusing mostly or esclusively on the attack itself. The title seemed to suggest this too. I particularly liked United 93, so I really hoped for this film to follow that style. When, at the 30 minutes mark, the part focusing on the actual attack ended, I felt a bit disappointed.
Around three quarters of the film focus on the aftermath of the event, probably to differentiate it from another film being released this year that is also about the 22 July terrorist attack, but focuses solely on the events that occured on the island. This choice allows however some depth to the film, and introduces some deeper political subthemes that an action-thriller film would have not been able to tackle. A central theme of the movie, for instance, is right-wing extremism, a very actual topic in Europe and western society of nowadays.
The entire film is composed by two parallel narratives, one focusing on the perpetrator and the other on one of the victims. The two narratives have two meeting points, when the two characters they're focused on meet for the first time, and towards the end of the film. The parallelism is very strong in most of the scenes of the film, another remarkable aspect.
I particularly appreciated the choice of using norvegian actors for all the roles, an element that added realism. The actor portraying the terrorist did a particularly good performance.
So, don't expect to watch a thriller, but rather a "based on real events" film directed by maybe the best living filmmaker that had a past in war-reporting journalism. -
darknight24200311 October 2018This is by far the best movie Netflix has produced. In the hands of a master filmmaker such as Greengrass, the event and the subsequent effects of it gets treated with utmost care and respect.
The actors did a fantastic job and I do not recall the last time I felt so emotionally affected by a movie. The choice of having the actors speak English seemed a little odd at first, but I am glad that was the way it was chosen since reading subtitles would have taken focus away from the excellent performances that were display (especially by the lead survivor actor). By the end, I grew to respect the people and the country of Norway even more, which perhaps was the best thing the movie could have achieved for the victims and survivors. -
coastalgrind10 October 2018I couldn't have asked for a better account of what happened on that horrible day, and durings its aftermath.
One of my main worries going in was that the Norwegian-English dialect would distract me throughout the entire movie, but I quickly forgot about this a couple of minutes in due to the strong performances, particularly from Anders Danielsen Lie who portrayed mass murderer Breivik.
As a Norwegian I have to say the first 40 minutes were completely horrifying to watch. Seeing the preperation for the attacks and it actually happening (again) pulled me right back to that day, and although it was gruesome, I have to say that Paul Greengrass handled it extraordinary well. The entire segment had a constant «thumping» sound in the background which made the movie feel exciting, almost making me forget this actually happened. I guess this can be both negative and positive, but I don't think anyone could have done it better.
However, the attacks are only a small part of the movie, as most of the film tackles the aftermath. I think an international audience will find it interesting to see how our society reacted and how selfish Breivik was with his actions. One scene I remember in particular is when Breivik is being interrogated by the police, and complains about a cut on his finger that he had supposedly gotten from a skull fragment after shooting one of his victims. It was very disturbing, and it shocks me how un-sympathetic of a man he was and still is.
Greengrass did a good job of following Viljar's (Jonas Strand Gravli) story and making him the symbol of every surviving victim and affected family. I'm glad he put most of the focus on those affected, and I think this is particularly important for us Norwegians who for the most part refer to the attack and the trial when talking about 22 July.
If you're expecting another classic «along for the ride» action-thriller by Greengrass, this is not it. In comparison to his other «based on a true story» movies like «United 93» and «Captain Phillips», the heartpounding, shaky-cam action style we have all come to love ends after 40 minutes, and in the case of this particular story I believe this was the right choice.
All in all, a gruesome and detailed account of the attack, the aftermath and those involved... but a very good one.
8/10 -
marius400027 December 2019I live 30mins from the island and remember this day as if it was yesterday. The movie is quite accurate, and sadly needed so we don't forget. Why did they leave out the neighbors which picked up alive, wounded and dead kids from the water with their boats? They were heroes.
-
SnoopyStyle1 November 2018It's July 21, 2011 Norway. Anders Behring Breivik is preparing a truck bomb. The next day, he massacres a group of leadership youths on an island retreat. Viljar Hanssen is one of the teens who survived life threatening injuries. In total, 77 are dead and hundreds are injured.
The attack is harrowing. Certainly, Greengrass is well versed in recreating these real life tragedies. In this one, the attack is finished after the first act. The body of the movie deals with a victim's family, and Breivik's defense. It does run out of steam dramatically as Greengrass seems obligated to end the movie with a traditional hero overcoming the villain. It is a fascinating portrait of a mass killer. The family's trauma is compelling but tiring. After the attack, the story really has limited drama. The insanity ploy is not enough in plot development. I couldn't wait to be rid of this narcissist killer. -
It's never an easy task making a movie about horrible real life incidents, with the delicate balance between making a movie entertaining whilst also not disrespecting the victims or those affected by the tragedy, and in that regard 22 July does a good job of being both a homage to the bravery of those involved in the 2011 Norway terror attacks and being an informative examination of the terrible day in Norway's history.
Released through Netflix and written and directed by esteemed filmmaker Paul Greengrass, who has found himself a career niche in directing intense docudrama like procedurals that have delivered outstanding results with the likes of Captain Philips, United 93 and Bloody Sunday, 22 July is as proficient of a film as you'd expect from the experienced director but while its methodical in its approach and thorough in its look at the aftermath of the attack by the psychopathic Anders Behring Breivik, there's never a time where Greengrass's film threatens to become anything more than a solid drama.
Running at a far too long two and half hours, 22 July ends up being one of Greengrass's longest and at times most repetitive ventures, perhaps a victim of its director enjoying a little too much control under the banner of the Netflix branding, with his film running out of steam frequently as the clock continues to tick over, with Greengrass's eye following the killer, his lawyer and one of his injured targets over its excessive airtime.
Starting off with a bang as we are thrown headfirst into the day that changed Norway forever, 22 July isn't without its white knuckle chills and poignant moments but around that is far too much filler that begins to weigh down Greengrass venture as time wears on.
As you'd expect from a Greengrass film, the whole production has a documentary like realism seeped through it, as the camera gets up close and personal and Greengrass's gaze rarely shy's away from its subjects, with all actors in the piece doing a fine job, with a standout Anders Danielsen Lie chillingly effective as the stone faced Breivik, a man that shockingly happily admitted that he would enact the same act of terror again if he could.
Final Say -
Hard to watch at times due to Greengrass's intense and confronting realistic style, 22 July is a solid attempt to examine a horrific real life incident but one that is long in the tooth and too cold to become a noteworthy example of documentary like dramatic filmmaking.
3 Band-Aids out of 5 -
svartedaudn10 October 2018Before i write my review i just want people to know: This movie isnt a documentary or anything like that. It purely BASED on a book about this horrible day. Dont watch this movie thinking its based on facts. This is not how the attack happend down to every detail. There are multiple movies/series coming out that have different view points like this movie.
22 JULY is a good movie, and if im gonna keep it short i would say its worth watching. I didnt enjoy watching the movie, but i found it interesting. They had a whole story around the attack. The bomb, the shooting and the damage it caused to people after Anders Behring Breivik was arrested. I liked the way Paul Greengrass directed this movie, but there are a couple things i didnt enjoy at all. For example i didnt like that he had Norwegians act as Norwegians talking English with eachother. Norwegians talking English isnt the prettiest thing, and if im being honest it sounds quite horrible. Im saying that being a Norwegian myself. -
jan-keim11 October 2018I usually don't write reviews, but I feel the urge to do so in this case. First and foremost, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. While not focussing on the actual shooting and the explosion, the movie does an excellent job in showing us the emotional and moral dilemma of lawyers defending people like Breivik, how a democratic country like Norway handles such horrific cases and, most of all, focussing on the emotional trauma of victims and their families and their way of trying to recover from such an event. The movie was hard to watch and even made me tear up at some point (this happened for the first time after more than 500 movies that I watched).
This movie is a masterpiece. -
singinggirl-6261310 October 2018First off; As many of the reviews here mention, the actors speaking English when they are all Norwegian, has a major impact on the movie. In a negative sense, to me. It seems that Greengrass has made a point of them speaking with Norwegian accents. Although when he HAD to make them speak English, I think that was a good choice. Norwegians trying to speak genuine English with American or British accents and not doing it perfectly sounds even worse.
Also, the language is inconsistent. Sometimes the road signs and other writings are in English, sometimes in Norwegian (Oslo City Center as a road sign and POLITI on the police uniforms). At Utøya island in the beginning of the movie, the kids are singing a Norwegian song in front of the camp fire, whilest all dialogue is in English. All of this makes the language desition even more confusing.
The reason I've spent so much of the review stressing this is because it actually lowers the quality of the viewing experience substantially.
I read an interview with Greengrass, explains his language desition simply with "I don't speak Norwegian, so it would have been hard to direct". That, to me, is too weak an explanation. Take director Mel Gibson as an example; both "Passion of the Christ" and "Apocalypto" are films with non-English speakers.
My final comment on why the movie should have been in Norwegian, is because this is an important, powerful and horrific story that needs to be told. The way Norway, as a country, came together in the aftermath. That the event constitutes one of the worst national tragedies, makes a strong argument as to why the actors, who portray real people, living and dead, should have been speaking their first language. It would have made the performances more genuine and believeable.
This wasnt't supposed to be a long review, but oh well.
As for the acting, I think it's mostly very good. Portraying real people who have been through something like this, is a difficult job. I think Jonas Strand Gravli, who portrays Viljar, makes a very good leading role debut. Both respectful to the real Viljar and a powerful performance as an actor. I also thought Anders Danielsen Lie was impressive as Breivik. Cold and calculated, and in my opinion a pretty accurate portrayal.
The movie is based on the book "One of Us" by Åsne Seierstad. Since I have read it, I noticed quite a few factual strays. Of course, the movie is based on a book, and is not a documentary, so this is to be expected. I am however, agreeing with someone who wrote that the shooting at Utøya seemed to last only 5 minutes. Erik Poppes movie "Utøya" who also came out this year, paints a more accurate picture of how long the minutes seemed for the victims.
There is not a doubt in my mind that this movie would have been so much better if the actors spoke Norwegian. I was unfortunately not able to forget about it completely during the movie, and it distracted me from enjoying it completely. (As much as one can enjoy a movie of this character).
I think although that the movie will be more popular with international audiences due to Greengrass' choice of making it English speaking. It is an important story to tell. This movie tells it with respect. -
martinelervik10 October 2018I found it hard to watch, because it's so well made. I remember the day in Norway so well. I relived it again watching this.
Great acting. -
phd_travel2 October 2019The scenes of the shootings on the island are affecting and upsetting beyond expectation.
Things slow down after that for a detailed look at the recovery of one badly injured victim. A good portion is given to the perpetrator and his Neo Nazi rationale.
The use of not well known Norwegian cast is effective and makes it feel like you are watching the real people.
Watch it but brace for it. -
juliahel-9733110 October 2018I think the movie is made almost perfectly. The only thing I wish was different was the Norwegian actors speaking English, it felt unatural and a bit forced. Being Norwegian myself I would like the actors to either speak Norwegian or hire a native English speaking cast! But other than that an amazing movie
-
darrellleslie11 October 2018Did you notice during the radio broadcast the reporter said the explosion went up the building 300 yards? I may be wrong but aren't us Americans pretty much the only ones that do not use the metric system? Yea I'm a big nerd who notices trivial things in movies.
-
timtsa13 October 2018I was home alone on a Friday night, my wife traveling to see her newest grandson, so I thought it would be the perfect chance to watch this gritty thriller based on the gruesome events that took place in Norway. I actually hesitated at first, as I didn't know if I was up to watching such an emotionally raw film. Finally, I decided to dive in, clicked "Play" and braced myself, waiting for the intensity, sadness, shock, disdain, despair and anger to kick in while I watched the dramatic retelling of the tragic loss of young lives.
I waited a very long time.
Quickly, I found that my fear of my emotions being overstimulated was without merit. Instead, I found myself rather bored, wondering how a movie about a massacre can move so slowly, exhibit such little visceral emotion, offer such minimal opportunity to be left aghast at the merciless acts of a madman.
Anders Breivik's character is played in a low-key, unemotional manner. This is fine, as it gives him a certain deterministic feel, as if he is simply a pawn in a brutal endgame and has decided he will faithfully fulfill his role. Possibly this first decision about Breivik's character overwhelmed the direction of the remainder of the performances; possibly their is a stoicism to the Norwegian culture of which I am unaware. Whatever the case, I was unprepared for the utter lack of gut-wrenching displays of emotions. Lara, the girl who visits Viljar in the hospital, shows less emotion over losing her sister in the attack than most young women would show over losing a family pet.
The events of July 22, 2011 were horrific. I had hoped this movie would vividly capture the brutish ugliness and remind us of the lives that were lost, the agony of the aftermath and the struggle to overcome.
I was disappointed. -
arisdemirakis25 August 2020Nice movie about one of the most tragic events in Europe. Great cast however the result and the feeling left is compromised because of the inexplicable use of English language.