User reviews

This is a long movie but is definitely worth the 2.5 hour sitting. The movie is gripping and fast-enough paced that you don't get bored. Perhaps because the real event is still fairly recent (within the last decade), but I found it was really profound and sad. Half of the movie is the event with the other half focussing on the aftermath of this on one particular kid's life. Netflix can churn out some bad films, but this was not one of them. I'd recommend for a gripping sit-down and watch kinda movie night.

There's really no law that's been written to give people a sense of justice when crimes like this are committed.

Mass Murderers must be insane by the very nature of what they do but the acts always bring out some anomaly in the law that entails a gruesome reenactment to get some sort of verdict. The mass killer thrives on the production. (Unless of course he gets killed in the process)

This movie is very well done with its portrayal of the killer as a soulless nutcase who comes across as almost normal in his interactions with everybody.... just like Bundy. Very difficult for the authorities to catch him before the heinous crime, but the aftermath of any of these events always shows that there were significant clues that the authorities should have picked up on.

So we end up blaming them and not the perpetrator. The State and the killer become the preoccupying participants and the victims and their families are only secondary to the matter. The grief of the families and the survivors is given a bit more attention in this movie and there are some very moving scenes.

Such an unbelievably tragic subject dealt with in a very compassionate way, the acting is quite well done and has to be understated because of the subject matter.

This is not a film to attend and expect to come out feeling better. It is a statement of the evil that exists in the world and a reminder that it can surface anywhere and anytime. It's worth watching just to get you to keep your antennae working.

I remembered hearing about the event on the news and being shocked by it at the time, but the film gave a much deeper insight into the tragedy. I actually cried watching this portrayal of the attack on those poor children. The cast did an excellent job with the English dialogue, but I'd have been fine watching it in Norwegian with English subtitles.

This is a good film about the darkest chapter of post-WWII Norwegian history. The disappointment for me was how the film failed to get into detail about the Norwegian police's many failures while the terrorist attack was progressing. What I recall from the aftermath while following news reports closely, was, for example: The police had two guards stationed ashore who had semi-automatic weapons readily available, yet they cowardly refused to intervene while listening to gun shots from Utøya island, and instead called for backup. Once police enforcements finally arrived, the inflatable boat they used almost sank, and it had to return to the shore to unload some policemen before heading toward the island. I wonder how many kids died only from that mistake. There were no police helicopters available, apparently because the pilots were all on vacation at the same time. The tourist camping ashore who had boats, were true heroes and used their boats to pick up kids from the lake who were swimming away from the island to save their lives. Breivik was shooting at swimmers desperately trying to escape. None of that was in the movie. And - Breivik called the police asking when they were going to arrive to get him. Yes. The terrorist thought the cops were so slow he called them! Unbelievable. Nobody was held accountable. No law enforcement officials or policemen had to face any consequences for the lack of response. Many, many lives could have been spared had Norwegian police been properly on the alert after the Oslo bomb went off.

Would've been so much better if they'd just made the movie in Norwegian. It's not believable. Norwegians acting Norwegians speaking English.

I am a long time fan of Greengrass, he isn't always making great films, but some times he brings some real good nailbiters which i greatly enjoy. For example Captain Philips and The Bourne Ultimatum. And you immediately see his fingerprints all over this one as well, with it's shaky camera movements and quick pacing.

The first half of this movie is pretty good actually, albeit the way it is cut together bothered me. The timeline in which all this happens feels like a couple of days, but it took months. The attack itself took hours, but yet it feels like minutes. It sort of brought me out of the story, because i know this story really well, being a Norwegian, and reading all about this, following the trial and the events surrounding all of this, it was really distracting to see that Greengrass was in a rush to get from one scene to the next.

I'm not saying the movie should have been 5 hours long to depict all of this more accurately, but at least make it clear how much time is spent between the scenes. The way this movie is cut, it felt like the trial started one week after the attack on the island.

So i kept hanging in there, i liked the acting, i liked the directing, but when we crossed the half-way mark i started to dislike a lot of the things i saw, the rush to get through the trial, the creative freedoms they chose to implement, the acting slowly got worse for some weird reason, and the spoken English also got worse the closer we approached the end. The actors in this film are mostly Norwegians, and it's painful to listen to when we can't make the language sound more authentic. But the weird thing is, it sounded more authentic in the first half of the movie.

Overall this movie does tell the basics about this dreadful event, i personally know people that was on the Island during this attack, and i think the movie pays proper respects to them, i do. But i also have to see this as a movie, which it is. And then I'm not so impressed, this is not Greengrass at his best, but it's a fairly good film overall, and the first half is really intense. This movie could easily have been 20-30 minutes longer, the content is there, no short cuts was needed to make this movie, it only makes the event less terrifying in my opinion.

6/10 - Fair

I don't understand all the bad reviews...people complaining that the film didn't show a larger proportion of the mass shooting in the beginning of the film. Whats wrong with you people. Everybody knows it went on for much longer...but who in the right mind wants to watch children being murdered in such circumstances for an hour. The shooting time int he movie went on for long enough and it was very harrowing and very sad. A very good film

This is by far the best movie Netflix has produced. In the hands of a master filmmaker such as Greengrass, the event and the subsequent effects of it gets treated with utmost care and respect.

The actors did a fantastic job and I do not recall the last time I felt so emotionally affected by a movie. The choice of having the actors speak English seemed a little odd at first, but I am glad that was the way it was chosen since reading subtitles would have taken focus away from the excellent performances that were display (especially by the lead survivor actor). By the end, I grew to respect the people and the country of Norway even more, which perhaps was the best thing the movie could have achieved for the victims and survivors.

July 22, rather than being a film about just the terror attack itself, spends most of its screentime on its consequences. Due to such a misleading title I can't say that the film met my expectations, though it still being a remarkable work.

We know Greengrass for directing excellent action-thrillers based on actual events (other than three Bourne films): United 93, Captain Phillips and Bloody Sunday are all accounts set in narrow time frames, that focus mainly on the action and have a documentaristic style.

When I first heard of '22 July', I thought it would be another action-thriller, focusing mostly or esclusively on the attack itself. The title seemed to suggest this too. I particularly liked United 93, so I really hoped for this film to follow that style. When, at the 30 minutes mark, the part focusing on the actual attack ended, I felt a bit disappointed.

Around three quarters of the film focus on the aftermath of the event, probably to differentiate it from another film being released this year that is also about the 22 July terrorist attack, but focuses solely on the events that occured on the island. This choice allows however some depth to the film, and introduces some deeper political subthemes that an action-thriller film would have not been able to tackle. A central theme of the movie, for instance, is right-wing extremism, a very actual topic in Europe and western society of nowadays.

The entire film is composed by two parallel narratives, one focusing on the perpetrator and the other on one of the victims. The two narratives have two meeting points, when the two characters they're focused on meet for the first time, and towards the end of the film. The parallelism is very strong in most of the scenes of the film, another remarkable aspect.

I particularly appreciated the choice of using norvegian actors for all the roles, an element that added realism. The actor portraying the terrorist did a particularly good performance.

So, don't expect to watch a thriller, but rather a "based on real events" film directed by maybe the best living filmmaker that had a past in war-reporting journalism.

I live 30mins from the island and remember this day as if it was yesterday. The movie is quite accurate, and sadly needed so we don't forget. Why did they leave out the neighbors which picked up alive, wounded and dead kids from the water with their boats? They were heroes.

It's never an easy task making a movie about horrible real life incidents, with the delicate balance between making a movie entertaining whilst also not disrespecting the victims or those affected by the tragedy, and in that regard 22 July does a good job of being both a homage to the bravery of those involved in the 2011 Norway terror attacks and being an informative examination of the terrible day in Norway's history.

Released through Netflix and written and directed by esteemed filmmaker Paul Greengrass, who has found himself a career niche in directing intense docudrama like procedurals that have delivered outstanding results with the likes of Captain Philips, United 93 and Bloody Sunday, 22 July is as proficient of a film as you'd expect from the experienced director but while its methodical in its approach and thorough in its look at the aftermath of the attack by the psychopathic Anders Behring Breivik, there's never a time where Greengrass's film threatens to become anything more than a solid drama.

Running at a far too long two and half hours, 22 July ends up being one of Greengrass's longest and at times most repetitive ventures, perhaps a victim of its director enjoying a little too much control under the banner of the Netflix branding, with his film running out of steam frequently as the clock continues to tick over, with Greengrass's eye following the killer, his lawyer and one of his injured targets over its excessive airtime.

Starting off with a bang as we are thrown headfirst into the day that changed Norway forever, 22 July isn't without its white knuckle chills and poignant moments but around that is far too much filler that begins to weigh down Greengrass venture as time wears on.

As you'd expect from a Greengrass film, the whole production has a documentary like realism seeped through it, as the camera gets up close and personal and Greengrass's gaze rarely shy's away from its subjects, with all actors in the piece doing a fine job, with a standout Anders Danielsen Lie chillingly effective as the stone faced Breivik, a man that shockingly happily admitted that he would enact the same act of terror again if he could.

Final Say -

Hard to watch at times due to Greengrass's intense and confronting realistic style, 22 July is a solid attempt to examine a horrific real life incident but one that is long in the tooth and too cold to become a noteworthy example of documentary like dramatic filmmaking.

3 Band-Aids out of 5

It's July 21, 2011 Norway. Anders Behring Breivik is preparing a truck bomb. The next day, he massacres a group of leadership youths on an island retreat. Viljar Hanssen is one of the teens who survived life threatening injuries. In total, 77 are dead and hundreds are injured.

The attack is harrowing. Certainly, Greengrass is well versed in recreating these real life tragedies. In this one, the attack is finished after the first act. The body of the movie deals with a victim's family, and Breivik's defense. It does run out of steam dramatically as Greengrass seems obligated to end the movie with a traditional hero overcoming the villain. It is a fascinating portrait of a mass killer. The family's trauma is compelling but tiring. After the attack, the story really has limited drama. The insanity ploy is not enough in plot development. I couldn't wait to be rid of this narcissist killer.

I found it hard to watch, because it's so well made. I remember the day in Norway so well. I relived it again watching this.

Great acting.

The scenes of the shootings on the island are affecting and upsetting beyond expectation.

Things slow down after that for a detailed look at the recovery of one badly injured victim. A good portion is given to the perpetrator and his Neo Nazi rationale.

The use of not well known Norwegian cast is effective and makes it feel like you are watching the real people.

Watch it but brace for it.

I think the movie is made almost perfectly. The only thing I wish was different was the Norwegian actors speaking English, it felt unatural and a bit forced. Being Norwegian myself I would like the actors to either speak Norwegian or hire a native English speaking cast! But other than that an amazing movie

22 July begins on a promising note and the first act is thrilling, riveting & downright disturbing but everything after that is a downhill journey. The second act in itself is so slow, tedious & poorly executed that the interest fizzles out slowly while the finale doesn't pack as strong a punch as was expected from it. The film may serve as an accurate & thoroughly detailed account of the horrifying attack & its aftermath but it could've been so much more than what Paul Greengrass eventually settled for. All in all, despite a terrifying first act, 22 July is more or less a disappointing docudrama with impressive bits scattered mostly in the earlier section of the story.

Greengrass is the king of making films based on real-life events, but this one certainly isn't up there with others. The terrorism displayed in the movie was pretty much over after the first bombing. The story and suspense for me ran out of steam fairly quick as most of the movie was focused on a victim and his grieving family, which was compelling, but just too dragged out for me.