22 July

Paul Greengrass serves up a dense psychological drama about the July 22, 2011 terrorist attack in Norway that killed 77 people, and he perfectly captures the horror everyone there experienced. There was another attempt this year, from Norway, Utøya: July 22, but that one didn't work very well from my point of view, it's presented in an overly documentary and boring way, no one dies and they don't even show Breivik himself. Greengrass, in contrast, describes in detail how everything took place and literally draws the viewer into the film. The opening explosion and the subsequent merciless murder of the students on the island is excellent (here the director could have spent more time than 15 minutes, but emotionally and psychologically it affected me just the same). I also praise the performance of one of the survivors, Viljar, who survived five gunshot wounds and still has to live with lifelong consequences. The film culminates in a dense trial where emotions are not spared and the hatred towards Breivik is spot on. Solid stuff. 75% (21/10/2018)

Paul Greengrass is a master of immersive atmosphere and has reaffirmed it with this film. If someone seems to find the scene of the absolutely crazy massacre rushed and non-captivating, I feel really sorry for them (and it may well be the founder of FilmBooster), because I haven't seen anything more repulsive in a long time. Besides Greengrass, the representative of Breivik, from whom radiates unadulterated fear, does his share, and the longer he is in the film and when he turns into an exquisite psychopath from an originally silent character, then that fear is even greater. In addition to Breivik, we also see the consequences of his actions, which one of the families must deal with, we will also get to know his attorney and feel the pressure on the Prime Minister of Norway... It seems to me that the film really had everything. I can't say I enjoyed watching it, but it was one of those memorable experiences. I guess like... Well yes, probably like Greengrass' United 93. (02/03/2019)

In the end it turned out that holding off watching it for fear of being completely shredded when it was over was altogether unnecessary. This time Paul Greengrass didn’t focus so much on the brutality of the attack as on the victims coming to terms with what happened. And also on the absurdity of how the attacker is treated. That's probably what hurt the most in the end. As a drama, it was good, everyone tried hard, but in the end it struck me – I don't know why – as rather superficial. 3.5 stars. (09/11/2021)

Greengrass’s adaptation is as compelling as Seierstad's book. It is a pity, perhaps, only the absence of Norwegian, the fragmentation of individual motives and themes, or the cutting of the opening third of the book about Breivik himself to focus only on the procedural passage of the attack and the trial. (11/10/2018)

Greengrass’s simple interpretation of a terrorist attack and the subsequent events holds a hidden message involving fear of what the world is coming to. Instead of Breivik, it focuses more on a boy, Viljar, riddled with gunshot wounds, his gradual recovery and return to life. The confrontation in court is powerful, with no unnecessary ideological frills. Precise acting performances, powerful supporting scenes (the brain surgery, fitting glass eyes, the final farewell with the lawyer) and the effort to capture reality as precisely as possible are the main highlights of this movie. On the other hand, the endeavor to give every aspect sufficient space means that it lacks a certain complexity. If it weren’t for the excessive length, I would give it a full five-star rating. (22/10/2018)