Kon-Tiki

Kon-Tiki is a nice European co-production with spirit and beautiful visuals. A group of adventurers set out on a three-month cruise across the Pacific on a big raft. There are hints of social isolation and a storm, but you don’t have the feeling that you are seeing them for the 120th time. And there are encounters with a whale and sharks that look more believable than in a Hollywood spectacle and that disprove the cliché that a shark, however hungry, does not recognize the shape of the human body and will not attack. This film is not a studio commission, but a well-done team effort to tell a good true story. Faith in success and strong will make it possible to cross oceans. (14/04/2020)

An absolutely great adventurous piece, which manages to do a lot with its small budget. I like that the creators were able to tell a story as important as Thor’s voyage on the Kon-Tiki raft through the Pacific, accomplishing something absolutely incredible, in such a beautiful manner. I liked how the voyagers were able to blend with nature perfectly. They used nature to accomplish what barely one percent of the population can do today. They were able to use nature to prove hitherto unbelievable theories. Sure, we’d rather have a simpler explanation than think about the more complicated one. And the fact that thousands of years ago people did many things that the world’s top scientists can’t explain rationally to this day is actually something that few people want to admit. This makes the Kon-Tiki voyage important also in this respect, and I’m very glad that I was able to see such a story, and I’m even happier that the two Norwegians went so crazy for this story that they could make such a perfect film about it. (15/08/2013)

Somewhat melodramatic, but definitely some damn good cinema, especially during the crucial part on the raft. The directors’ duo Rønning/Sandberg is getting progressively better with each movie, and the brilliant cast led by Ryan Gosling’s identical twin in the role of Thor “can’t see the wood for the trees" Heyerdahl. We definitely need a sequel about Eduard Ingriš; and right away. (23/12/2012)

I have always admired Thor Heyerdahl and the expedition he went on with five friends. So I was looking forward to the film. And I'm only half satisfied. I'm not going to fault him for showing many things only briefly, he couldn't have avoided that even with twice the runtime, but what about the script? I can still understand the involvement of Heyerdahl's personal life, which he doesn't write a word about in the book (also why would he, the book is about adventure, not a marital crisis), but I don't understand at all why the screenwriter had to inoculate the Kon-Tiki crew with cabin fever, why he made Herman Watzinger such an unsympathetic nuisance, and where on earth he came up with the maelstrom at the Galapagos or the stupidity of the thirteenth wave. I really don't know why there is a need to shove conflict and drama into everything. The book describes the voyage as a great adventure of six grown-up boys who were mainly caught in storms; Heyerdahl is silent about their disputes, if any. Too bad the film isn't like that too. It could have been better. (17/06/2015)