22 July

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)

At first I wondered why someone had this story filmed twice, in addition twice in the same year ... well, and then I read the director’s name and it became clear to me – Paul Greengrass. A theme literally made for him. In addition, I would perhaps rate the film even better if I did not see the original one, which was sufficiently shocking and, especially in filmmaking respect, absolutely excellent. But I thought I would try this one, too, out of my respect for this director. And I have a few complaints. Especially about the attack itself, which was done very sloppily. But as it forms only about a third of the film, the other two thirds are able to properly engage the viewer. It milks the audience’s emotions shamelessly, as it shows not only Breivik’s thought processes, which shock you every time he appears on the screen, but alsothe youths who survived his rampage, but didn’t live through it unscathed. It’s definitely some food for thought, but the best thing is the ending, where the victims’ fates are closed by a court proceedings. It could have been about a half an hour shorter, but on the other hand it’s a classic Greengrass, so everything, including the camera, feels so natural that you will feel like the happenings depicted affected you personally. (21/05/2020)

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)

The final interpretation is admittedly pretty one-sided, but on the other hand it's probably fair to admit that Greengrass’ hands were tied in this respect – by which I mean the "political tone" of his adaptation. It bothered me that it didn't go more in depth in the second half, and that the whole courtroom part served primarily to rehabilitate survivors and victims. In short, I feel that such a serious subject deserved a much deeper analysis of the political and social aspects. The opening in Oslo and then the scenes in Utøya are very intense; the rest of the film is unfortunately a bit one-sided. 4 stars by the skin of its teeth. [70%] (22/11/2021)

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)