22 July

This is very challenging material to film (and I mean this not only from a moral and ethical standpoint but also in terms of content). Making a two-hour film about such a horrific event is no easy task. However, my concerns eased a bit when I found out that Greengrass was at the helm. The result is therefore above average, though not great (but blaming him for that would be nonsensical). The initial half-hour sequence, culminating in the shooting on the island, is horrifying—I still get goosebumps from it, as it was truly difficult to watch. But then comes almost two hours where multiple storylines unfold. And here's where the problem lies because the film starts to drag, to put it mildly. It has its admirable moments—the scenes with the actor portraying Breivik are very well done, and the final court scene is highly emotional—but I would have cut a good half hour from it. For instance, I would have given more screen time to the Prime Minister, who wasn’t given much attention. All in all, it’s a film everyone should see, but in terms of quality, it doesn’t quite match up to Greengrass’s previous work with a similar theme (United 93). However, it's still a solid piece of craftsmanship, no doubt about that. I’m giving it 75%. (2018-12-03)

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. (2018-10-22)

22 July is a smart and suggestive portrayal of an awful human act that attacks the roots of democracy, but that also shows the madness of those who violently try to undermine it. Though it pushes the viewer to only one correct interpretation, its complex approach forces you to think about where humankind is heading and all of what we are capable of. Despite being impossible to get into the minds of the characters, this is an intense experience that, through the traumatising initial disaster, shows an unflattering face of a Europe that today is divided and living in fear. This is despite the fact that it has an inevitable tendency to generalize problems. (2018-10-11)

The attack itself is over and done within the first thirty minutes and it is not as spellbinding as I would have expected, and the rest of the movie shows society trying to come to terms with the tragedy. The traumatised male survivor and his family, Brejvik’s lawyer and his family, Brejvik himself and the court proceedings. For a Greengrass film, 22 July has a surprisingly mechanical, boring narrative that relies on the depth of suffering of a traumatized boy in contrast to the murderer’s shocking serenity founded on his political convictions. There is some sort of message and some merit in its information value, but as for conveying the horror of the tragedy to the audience, its competitor, Erik Poppe’s Utøya: July 22 has the upper hand. (2018-10-30)

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. (2018-10-11)