Július 22.

A támadáson túl vagyunk az első fél órában, és nem olyan lebilincselő, mint amennyire várnánk, a film további részében pedig már csak figyeljük a társaságot, hogyan dolgozza fel az eseményeket. A traumatizált túlélő fiú és családja, Brejvik ügyvédje és családja, maga Brejvik és a bírósági per. Greengrass mesterhez képest meglepően mechanikus, unalmas mesélés, amely a traumatizált fiú szenvedésélményének mélységére támaszkodik, szemben a gyilkos megdöbbentő nyugalmával, amelyet politikai meggyőződései támasztanak alá. Greengrass ugyan felvázol néhány gondolatot, és mint információs vallomás a film hasznos, de a néző élményét tekintve az esemény borzalmainak közvetítésében Erik Poppe és az Utoya, július 22. filmje sokkal jobb. (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)

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. (2020.05.21)

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% (2018.10.21)