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)

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. (30/10/2018)

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)

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. (03/03/2019)