User reviews

This day will stay im my memories foever.

I was at Utøya thar day when that monster came and took many of my friends away 😢🌹🇳🇴 .

This movie do show how confusing and terrifying the situation was. And also the tragedy of loosing a friend and family member.

I did see this movie onse just to see if it did get the rigt "atmosphere". It did it in some sense, but being there was way more horrifying that this movie shows. Thank god they did never show the shooter in this movie. Then no one who was there could never have seen this movie at all.

I'm glad they did make the movie like this, instead of focusing on the monster him self. And focusing on the people experience that day.

Im also glad they did use fiction characters and not real viktims.

Just to remind you that this movie is not about the shooter but the viktims experience.

May my friends and theirs friends rest in peace. ❤🌹 ❤

U - July 22 is an extremely difficult film to judge. Based on the horrific events that occurred on Utøya island in Norway, were one man shot and murdered 69 people, most of them youngsters (in addition to being responsible for a bomb attack in Oslo earlier that day). Norway is quite a safe place to live, so that something as gruesome as that happened here is confusing, shocking and something that I'll never truly be able to understand. It's therefore a difficult film to judge because the events are still close to heart. It's, as I'm writing this, been close to seven years since the attacks, which kinda feels like no time has passed at all. So from the moment the film start, you've already brought in your feeling of sadness to the film.

But I do think this is a good film. I think its made with dignity and respect, and I think its importance come across very well. It's a film that we need in order for us to, if not fully, at least be able to understand a little bit about how it was like for the people who were trapped on Utøya during the shooting. How brutal, unforgiving, isolated and meaningless it all was. The film doesn't shy away from the brutality of it, and I'm glad that it didn't. It had to be brutal in order to convey the feeling of how it was like. It had to be violent in order for us to understand it. The film does a good job of translating the feeling to the viewers.

Shot entirely in one-take on the island itself with unknown actors and lasting exactly as long as the shooting actually did, the film feels as real as it possibly could have. There's not much focus on the perpetrator, yet his presence is felt throughout the entirety of the film. The loud and uncomfortable sound of shots being fired is constant and the shrieking of scared teens is uncomfortably present. The panic, confusion and anxiety is all over the place. There are no moments to rest, and the film is exhaustingly intense and difficult to watch. Once the film ended the cinema was filled with silence. No one made any noise and it was quite simply put a powerful experience.

There are certain moments in it that feels slightly artificial, though it's hard for me to know that for sure, as I wasn't there during the attack. Yet, some parts didn't fully convince me. This might be because some of the acting isn't the strongest. Which is a bit of the risque you run when shooting a film in one-take. Andrea Berntzen is however a star. Her performance is outstanding. The camera follows her throughout the entire film, and she perfectly manages to capture and convey every emotion you would imagine someone going through in a situation like that.

This is not a film for everyone, but for me, as a Norwegian, it's essential viewing due to how close it is. In a world where violence happens every day and we've somehow gotten used to reading about, a film like this is important. If only to make us understand a little bit more. If only to make us feel a lot more.

( Review also posted on Listal and letterboxd)

Utøya 22. juli is an aesthetically fascinating, pseudo-documentarian examination of the 2011 Utøya massacre, told from the perspective of one of the youths trapped on the island. Decidedly different from Paul Greengrass's recently released Netflix film, 22 July (2018), the makers of Utøya 22. juli have little interest in political contextualisation. Comparisons are, of course, inevitable, but what's interesting is that Greengrass isn't overly interested in the massacre itself, focusing instead on the repercussions and subsequent trial, attempting to explicate some of the far-right political motivations. In this sense, Utøya 22. juli and 22 July complement one another in such a way as to provide a reasonably inclusive overview of the motives, the act, and the punishment. Where Utøya 22. juli is especially laudable, however, is in its extraordinary aesthetic design, which elevates it from a fine film to a superb one.

Written by Anna Bache-Wiig and Siv Rajendram Eliassen, from a story treatment by Erik Poppe, who also directs, Utøya 22. juli is based exclusively on the testimony of survivors, but the characters are fictional. The film begins with the detonation of a bomb in Oslo. It then jumps to the Workers' Youth League summer camp on the island of Utøya. As word of the Oslo bombing slowly starts to filter through, we are introduced to Kaja (an extraordinary Andrea Berntzen), a 19-year-old with political aspirations. As the students discuss the bombing, they hear strange noises coming from the forest. Initially believing them to be firecrackers, it is only when terrified campers start rushing from the trees that they realise the noise is gunfire, and it's getting progressively closer.

Both the bombing and the Utøya attack were carried out by Anders Behring Breivik, a right-wing terrorist. Believing that Europe is currently experiencing a Clash of Civilisations, brought about by immigration and the various refugee crises, Breivik saw himself as a knight fighting against Muslim immigration. The Oslo bomb killed eight and injured 209, and the subsequent Utøya attack left 69 dead and 110 injured.

Although dealing with a politically motivated incident Utøya 22. juli is a relatively apolitical film, and has little interest in contextualising the event within a larger socio-political framework. It is instead a homage to the young people. In filtering the event through Kaja, Poppe is able to narrativise it.

Of course, it could be argued that using a fictional protagonist is disrespectful. However, the film was made in consultation with numerous survivors of the massacre, and speaking to The Guardian, Poppe states, "my overall aim by making the film was not to traumatise people, but to help the healing process." In this sense, rather than proving exploitative, the film is instead both necessary and cathartic. Indeed, private screenings were held around Norway to which survivors and families and friends of victims were invited, and Poppe sought their approval before releasing it.

However, the film is not entirely apolitical. The opening and closing legends both cite far-right thinking, and Poppe makes certain we know this is a condemnation of such an ideology. However, he wisely chooses not to ram this condemnation down our throats, nor even to foreground it. Perhaps the most salient political point in the film is that we are forced to see in specifics an incident which we tend to think of as an abstraction; it's one thing to say 69 people died. It's disassociated, depersonalised, a statistic. However, it's something else entirely to see some of those people die. In this sense, the film is an exceptionally effective condemnation of gun violence.

Related to this is an aesthetic point that bleeds into the political; Breivik, is seen only once, from a great distance, silhouetted against the horizon. Instead of showing him, the film is rigidly tied to Kaja's perspective throughout. In the wake of the real event, the 69 dead and the hundreds of injured and traumatised were anonymous, with Breivik occupying all the headlines. The film inverts this so that we focus on the victims, with the perpetrator denied any agency. Recalling how Terrence Malick initially introduces the Japanese soldiers in The Thin Red Line (1998), Breivik is not afforded any kind of pathology, interiority, or psychological verisimilitude. Instead, he is disembodied. In fact, his name is never mentioned once, not even in the opening or closing legends. Instead, he is a more obvious presence in Gisle Tveito's sound design than Martin Otterbeck's cinematography. Primarily, this consists of the constant gunfire heard throughout the film. With no score or soundtrack to punctuate the story beats, the never-ending cracking of gunfire has a cumulatively oppressive and terrifying effect, disorientating both characters and audience.

Aesthetically, however, the film is exemplary beyond its sound design. For example, in reality, from the time of the first gun-shot to Breivik's arrest, 72 minutes passed. In the film, from the time we hear the first gunshot to the film cutting to black, exactly 72 minutes pass. Additionally, we hear the exact same number of gunshots as Breivik fired in real-life, 186. However, where it is most audacious is that the 72-minute sequence is made to look like a single-shot, with the edits hidden, à la Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014). The film was shot in one take on five successive days, acting out the same scenario each day. Poppe and his editor, Einar Egeland, then edited extracts from each day together, hiding the cuts behind camera movement or darkness on screen. Coupled with this, everything is filmed hand-held, eschewing the pseudo-stability given by the use of a Steadicam.

Together, the hand-held nature of the cinematography, the single-shot effect, and the real-time structure work to establish a pseudo-documentarian verisimilitude, as if the camera is literally capturing these events as they are really happening in a cinéma vérité manner. In this sense, the fabula is as unmediated as possible, without any impression of either an omnipresent artifice, or an omniscient authorial voice.

Instead, the film works to inculcate the viewer into the event. This creates a prominent experiential plane, as the audience is made to consider what it must have been like to be involved in this nightmare - we see and share the panic as the characters peer out from behind cover, race to get to safety, or collapse onto the ground. In this way, the film avoids being exciting in any conventional sense; what we are witnessing is instead deeply traumatic, and the experience for a viewer is an ordeal, almost an endurance test. Rarely has the artifice of a single-take been this thematically justified. Rather than the single-take structure serving as its own rationale, Poppe uses it to subvert genre expectations and defamiliarise the narrative, all in the name of preventing the audience from attaining any comforting sense of normality.

A final point on the film's aesthetic design concerns the opening few seconds of the 72-minute sequence, which begins with a superbly conceived bit of visual trickery that, like everything else in the film, is thematically justified. As the camera approaches Kaja from behind, she turns around and looks directly into the lens, saying "You'll never understand." This seems a challenge as much as an assertion, directed at the audience, in a breaking of the fourth wall. However, after a moment, she turns her head and we see she is wearing an earpiece. It then quickly becomes apparent that she's talking to her mother, and her comment was diegetic - when she looked into the camera, she wasn't addressing the audience, it was simply the direction in which she was looking. This simple but effective moment knocks the audience immediately off balance, alerting us to the artifice of the film in an almost Verfremdungseffekt, before then shifting 180 degrees away from that apparent moment of self-reflexivity and immersing us completely into the fabula.

Of course, the film is not perfect, and Poppe does misjudge a couple of elements. For example, the tragedy on display is, in and of itself, overwhelming, and for the most part, he remains detached. However, on occasion, he does feel the need to foreground sentimental aspects which don't work. The most egregious example is when Kaja starts singing whilst hiding with a fellow student. It's a mawkish scene (really, all its lacking is a "Cry now" prompt), it doesn't accomplish anything, and it comes across as deliberately scripted, a concession to the rules of cinematic drama. Another issue is that because Kaja is a composite of several people, her experiences are used by the filmmakers to give the viewer something of an overview. However, for one person to encounter so many characters and have such varying experiences does strain credibility a tad.

However, these are minor criticisms, and overall, this is a superb film, as aesthetically inventive as it is emotionally devastating, as politically aware as it is historically important. It will be sure to prompt debate about whether such an event should be used to provide the source material for a film, especially this soon after the fact. Some will argue it's fundamentally exploitative and disrespectful, others will see it as a dignified memorial, a vital text for Norway, capturing the essence of the most traumatic event the country has experienced since World War II. The last three or four minutes are utterly devastating, and really drive home the senseless loss of life and innate randomness of what happened. However, Poppe's main goal is to show the audience the bravery of these people, to honour them. Evil, the film suggests, is banal. Compassion and valour are much more worthy of our attention.

I'd already watched Paul Greengrass' film 22 July. Despite Utoya July 22 being about the same atrocity, you could not get 2 different films. Whilst Greengrass gave Brevik a platform and invited viewers to try and comprehend his actions, perhaps in an attempt to learn and move on, Erik Poppe's Utoya instead focuses entirely on the victims - the young Labour Party members camping on the island. In a poignant start to the film, the main lead, Kaja, looks directly into the camera and says "you'll never understand" (it turns out she's talking to her mum on the phone).

There is some debate as to whether either of these films should've been made at all. As harrowing as they are, I think they both have their place in trying to enhance our understanding of the horror of terrorist attacks such as these.

In a very clever piece of technical direction, it looks like the film is shot 'live' in one single take to mirror the horror of the 72 minutes of the young people's terrifying ordeal, whilst Brevik was attacking them.

Did I enjoy the film? No. Am I pleased I watched it? Yes. Would I recommend it? Most certainly. Does it, along with Greengrass' July 22, enhance our understanding? The jury's out. 7 out of ten

This movie is an honest portrayal of a horrific event that took place on Utøya. There is no music, there are no cuts, there is just you and the film in a nightmare scenario. The haunting screams followed gunshots really shook me, especially since this actually happened.

My only gripe with this film is that some of the actors were so laughably bad that it took me out of the movie, luckily though they didn't take up too much space in the film.

I was afraid to see this movie. But it's one of those cases where I felt I HAD to. I was inevitably drawn to it. I thought there was a risk of it being a little exploitative. But I looked at the cast list, and an actor cast as Breivik was nowhere to be found.

And as soon as you watch the movie, it makes perfect sense. Many of the campers didn't have a chance of seeing who the shooter was, and if they did they were most likely doomed. It makes the situation extremely scary, as there is no visible presentation of the threat. Just shots firing from a gun, with one person after the other getting hit...

I'm sorry, I'm getting too emotional. But it's really hard not to. I felt all the fear, all the dirt and sand and the uncertainty over whether someone was going to make it out alive or not. The fact that it's impossible to know the fate of any of the victims beforehand is particularly horrifying. There are no easy hiding places, not a spot where you can feel completely safe and sound.

It feels weird to point out the acting in a way, since never at any point in the movie did I notice I was watching people acting. But I still have to give props to the especially brilliant performance of Andrea Berntzen as Kaja. Even though her mission to find her sister is extremely dangerous, you understand it from her angle why she would do it. You can sense every heartbeat and emotion that she goes through as she finds herself witnessing things that once you've seen it, it's stuck in your mind forever.

I was bawling my eyes red at the end of it. It's unbelievable that such a tragedy struck a country like Norway, at a nice and homely island, the place where you would least expect something like this to ever occur.

Yes, it's "just" a movie. But this is the closest you will possibly come to experiencing a tragedy at an isolated resort. As horrible as watching it play out in great detail was, be as grateful as you can it never happened to you. And to all the brave people who survived, stay strong and live your lives as happily as you can.

It was very heavy to watch. You get a look at the reality, what really happend. And you get to follow a caracter and see the panic that happend when all the shooting startet.

Its nice to see that its a 1:1 experience as to what happened. and to have it all in 1 shot makes every second count. so i wouldnt really call it an movie, but still i think this deserves some praise.

7/10: good stuff

Excellent and disturbing description of the attacks on Norway students on the island Utoya in July 2011. The film is told out of the perspective of a fictional victim of the attack and follows the circumstances and 72 minute crisis in real time. The magic of the film is that its done as a one-shot piece . The camera hectically follows the victims. This gives you the impression to be in the middle of everything and offers the film a very authentic touch. You really feel like you are in the middle of everything and just like those students captured on the island. The film works because it portrays fear with its deepest core. The characters more and more become hopeless and so does the audience. You never know where the attacker is you never know who his next victims will be. The acting is very good, especially by the lead actress Andrea Berentzen who brilliantly portrays Kaja. The characters are fictional but they are based on the true stories of the survivors. It is creepy, it is moving and it is often hard to watch. One person in the cinema fainted. But its an important film because it brings back the memories of this terrible and sick happening. Absolutely worth to see.

This was meant to be a strong and realistic movie about the incident at Utøya. Parts of the movie are good, however in my opinion the film is released too early. NOT because it's too close to the happening, but some parts feels unfinished and both the direction/editing and the dialogue should be tighter. Also some of the actors are unexperienced and amateur mistakes are revealing, such as accidently looking straight at the camera and also with the lack of music the flow of the movie relies heavily on dialogue and some of the dialogue gets quite akward and to be honest...boring. Poppe made an issue out of not showing the terrorist, all though I see why...when it comes to adapting this story to screen it almost feels silly at times, 90% of the terrorist presence are random gunshots...which is scary at first, but after a while it sort of looses the drive and impact.

However, it is a good description of the terrors some of the victims must have felt during the attack...But, as a movie I don't think it is strong enough. There are some bold moves, but unfortunately the skills of the actors, the editing and the direction can't keep up with the ambitions and for me it ends up like an OK+ ish movie...and I really wanted it to be good, because it is an important story. Specially in these times when right wing extremism is on the rise.

How do I even begin to explain my feelings about this movie. It´s a really really good movie. Just the way it is shot and made, the actors, the feeling you get as a audience, is just breathtaking. As a person that hasn´t lost anyone in the shooting that day, this movie made me care about the lead role, Kaja (Andrea Berntzen). I felt desperate, and helpless since I couldn´t intervene and help out. Not to say for certain, but that is probably what many felt when they were running for their lives.

Eirik Poppe made this movie all about "Kaja" and her mission on finding her sister. It is based on true stories that has been told by the youth that were there, which gives the movie a more believable plot that strikes where it hurts. The movie is a one-take film that lasts as long as the attack did in real life, and that gives a you another perspective on how long it took for the help to come.

I just wanted the movie to end after a little while to be honest, because the movie just really struck me and it got too real at times. This is not a movie I would recommend to everyone. If you want to watch it, just remember that this all happened for real. You might not be as tough as you think, I know I was certainly wrong about that. If you were there or have experienced something like that before, I would not recommend you seeing it, but of course you should decide that for yourself. Don´t get me wrong, this is a really good reminder of what happened 7 years ago and how it all went down, and I totally understand why this movie was made, but there is no way for me to say that this movie didn´t make me feel bad. It made me feel like shit, and nauseous all at once.

First of all, I have a great deal of respect for the victims and everyone involved in the horrific events that took place in Norway. To show the world what those poor children endured is of course tremendously important. However, this movie is NOT what you'd expect and what it could have been. I have never written a review before but this movie frustrated me to the core.

It starts off with random footage from the bombing in Oslo, without any explanation of this event. After that, the 'character building' starts. This is done in about 15 minutes with the most random conversations and very slow and shaky filming (which goes on throughout the movie). You're supposed to 'see it through the eyes of someone who was there', which could have been a great idea but it failed miserably. During the hiding scenes, the breathing and talking of the actors sounds so loud you're constantly (really, CONSTANTLY) thinking 'shushhh, be quiet! There's a killer on the loose!'

They never once show Breivik. You only hear the constant shots, which I believe aren't even consistent with the weapons Breivik used. The movie shows a few terrible deaths but because of the constant frustration I had, I just couldn't feel it.

The little information you get at the end (that is again, shown in a painstakingly and unnecessarily slow manner) doesn't even begin to cover what they could have shown. Names, faces of victims for example. Or the fact that Breivik was only sentenced to 21 years in prison.

If you're interested in what happened on Utoya, I highly suggest you watch one of the great documentaries about it that are out there. Not this movie. Just, don't.

Scenario integrity does not exist. acting is not natural.and very very bad.. Who was rate this movie 7.3 i am wondering...As a result, It is absolutely overrated movie..

I have to admit that sitting down to watch the 2018 Norwegian drama thriller "Utøya 22. Juli" was a bit difficult for me. I have to admit that I was approaching the movie with the mindset of this being a movie that would be fully and wholly unnecessary, especially in regards to the victims and those left behind and affected by the shooting that took place on Utøya.

But I opted to watch what director Erik Poppe had to offer with this 2018 movie on the account of it being a movie that I hadn't already seen. And while I had a somewhat distasteful demeanor towards the movie, I hoped that writers Siv Rajendram Eliassen, Anna Bache-Wiig and Erik Poppe would prove me wrong.

And thankfully they did so, because while the events that occurred were indeed tragic, then the movie is based on victim statements, and not actually following a character based on a single real victim. And we don't get to see a lot of slaughter and killing, which I was somewhat dreading would end up on the screen. Thankfully director Erik Poppe opted a tactful and respectful approach to depicting the horrible events that took place on Utøya.

The acting in the movie was fairly good. I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but they did perform quite well.

"Utøya 22. Juli" was filmed in a way that it felt like the audience were right there on the island, running for our own lives and trying to hide from the killer.

I am also glad that director Erik Poppe opted not to give the killer any close-ups or proper screen time. We see the rifle-carrying killer from a far here and there, and that was it. It was so gratifying that no screen time was added to the killer, despite it being an actor in the movie, obviously.

This can be a somewhat difficult movie to sit through, but I am still somewhat left with the feeling of 'was it really necessary to base a movie on this tragedy?'.

My rating of "Utøya 22. Juli" lands on a six out of ten stars.

I put this movie in the category I call "once and never again". It's not a category for bad movies but for the ones I think are hard to deal with (Like life is beautiful). I didn't know what to say afterwards because everything you want to say is simply nothing compared with what you just saw and the feelings you experienced during watching it. The camera work gives you the feeling that you are right within this horror that is happening so you are left behind with this black hole in your chest. I'm happy I saw it because it's a good movie but would never ever put myself trough that again.

This movie really allows you to sink into the movie and get a feel for the vibe that was there when it really happened.

The movie is shot in 1 take, no scene cuts.

The young actors impressed with powerful performances worth of recognition.

All in all the movie succeeded in portraying the horror that was 22. Juli, 2011.

I'm writing this mainly to criticise the reviewers that gave it low markings because of " camera shake" ...... "to long" etc. Jesus people this is about as real as it get. How long is the film? How long was the attack. 72 minutes that must have felt like hours and hours for those youngsters and yet a complaint the film was to long read what some victims have said about this film then please stop reviewing things like this a you do not have a clue .

I was afraid to watch the movie, due to all the horrible kills, but the producer really did manage to make an amazing point here, that no ideology is worth any life.

A very marking movie depiction of that terrible day in Utøya. Everybody gave powerful and heart-wrenching performances. May it never happen again.

I reviewed this film originally in april 2018(see below the update) but significant changes has been made in this filmversion.

Update 8/12 2018, i feel that i have to inform every international viewer of this film who watches this netflix version on the internet , you (and i ) are cheated for at least 40 minutes from the version shown in norwegian theaters in spring 2018. it is basicly in the start and during the attacks that have been ''censored''. these part are very essential key to the understanding of the experiences that the young people were living through at utoya at 22/7 2011. most of my impressions told in my first review(below)have been erased from the cinemaversion i saw. howcome or why i dont know, try to find the original cinemaversion to be able to understand better the horrific madness that took place in innocent little norway that day.they have even erased the amanda-awarded main actress away from the, film who are pictured on the poster of this film.terrible..... my 10 stars are for the norwegian spoken original cinematic version.

I remember 22/7-11,as if it was yesterday.i wasnt there,not even nearby,but what actually happened that day mustve been horrible. ive just come out of the cinema,i feel numb and cold,and extremely fatigued after 90 minutes of hide or be shot. the film starts in wet , gloomy and grey,and ends black,even blacker than that- the acting of the main cast are phenomenal.the way they act the misery and horror are academy-worthy. i have ,through my occupation , seen people drawing their last breath due to old age,or disease. so playing a dying person are difficult, and to do it convincingly , are even harder , so the part of the movie where the lead actress comforts a deadly wounded girl , and the girl slowly dies is just extraordinary . the way the actress plays dead are just sooo realistic . jesus died on the cross, jack died on the titanic, and this young woman died at utøya,i ts just monumental, see it and you will never forget!!!! this is a filmreview,and along with the acting comes extremely intense filmography and cameramotion, the sound effects some of the most horrific and frightening ive ever experienced in a movie theater,the editing sharp,and the settings are actually filmed in the woods,on the beach,in the mud at utøya. a masterpiece from mister Poppe.....10 from me.

I was aware of the real tragic incident described in this movie only partially.I mean,I knew that a deranged racist had killed tenths of innocent youngsters in a camp-campaign on a Norwegian island and then got caught by the police and imprisoned. So as I was watching (alone in my home-cinema),a documentary-like film,although I felt tension and sorrow for the non-stop agony and suffering of the actors ,I was wandering if the director was exaggerating in terms of the duration of the terroristic attack and the ignorance of what was happening by the unlucky victims being present. A few minutes before the ending I got almost angry.I couldn't have anymore.I was thinking without realising "please stop this nightmare!!".I got the impression that the film had started and ended equally abruptly. Then, rather shocked and moved by the facts I had just watched,I sat down and read about the hole real story.All the facts with details(i.e the misjudged importance of the situation by the authorities etc).Then my shock was even bigger! I realised that I had just watched a movie describing as truly as it could get ,what a young teen girl would have felt and thought,being caught in the middle of a hellish situation in real time!! I understood and realised all the terror ,the panic,the desperation all people present in the incident would have lived.I give my congratulations to the director. For the record,the shootings are awesomely realistic,combined with the anguish you feel, you think that any moment now,a bullet is coming for you.