22 July (2018) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
88 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Pretty solid Greengrass movie for Netflix
gallopman10 October 2018
Ok, so looking at some of the other reviews, I've noticed that other reviewers have taken issue with the Norwegian actors' accents and their speaking English for the film. As an American, I can say without a doubt, the accents and the English speaking is terrific. No problems with the dialogue did I notice during the film. So the film does a brief setup of the actions taken against the government and the teenagers camp that day. I believe Greengrass does s brief delving of the events in order to prevent glamorizing the terrorists behavior but to simply inform the movie watcher to what took place. The film really focuses on the survivors, their families and the terrorist's defense in the aftermath... The terrorist's mindset is depicted through meetings with his defense lawyer. One particular young man who survived the attack, his recovery is shown to great detail. The acting is uniformly good throughout the film... I believe because of the tragic nature of events that took place, the gravitas of the film is a tough watch. That said, I applaud Netflix for signing a first rate director on to this project. If you have the two hours and stomach for the subject matter give the movie a chance...
70 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hard on the heart
maria_hansen19510 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is strong.. Its a accurate movie about what happened this horrific day in Norway. It needed to be documented, and the making of this movie will show people and remind people of 22. July. The accents is no problem really, more people are to watch a movie with english speaking language, than norwegian with english text. And it was made for the whole world to see. You are a fool to lower the scores for this movie because of that. I felt alot of emotions during the 2 hours and 30 minutes it lasted. Seeing what these family had to go through, how scared all of the kids were, and could almost picture myself right there with them.. How horrifying it was. My parents refuse to watch any movie, made about 22. July. They are too scared to see the truth about what happened, and i must admit, its not for everyone. Its a really strong movie.
43 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Intense first half but too many unnecessary shortcuts
FabledGentleman11 October 2018
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
27 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
True to the event
martinelervik10 October 2018
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.
52 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
juliahel-9733110 October 2018
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
35 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not an action-thriller
t-viktor21210 October 2018
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.
14 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Amazing, disturbing and wonderful
jc-999-59110612 September 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film at TIFF and it was my first film of the 2018 festival. There may be spoilers after the next paragraph.

The film details the horrific attacks in Norway by Anders Behring Breivik. The acting is uniformly excellent. The movie goes along at a good pace. Very intense at the beginning with the explosion and then the attack on the island.


Breivik acts very cleverly in getting onto the island where the high school youth leadership program is happening by pretending to be a police officer. He also persuades the program director to call all the youth together so that he can brief them. This feels a little contrived but real enough that someone could be tricked in this way. The uncertainty of not knowing what is going on back in Oslo other than the fact that a bomb went off near the PM's office would make it plausible.

The fact that the security director becomes suspicious is also plausible and seemed very real and the starting point for the murders was shocking but expected.

When the students start running and trying to find a place to hide made the island feel tiny and claustrophobic. The action was very realistic but not overdone. The calculated manner that Breivik followed his victims and murdered them was again very shocking.

The second act with the initial arrest and pre-trial action showed Breivik to have carefully and cleverly thought out his actions from beginning to end. The explosions, shootings, surrender, his manifesto, choice of lawyer all seemed well planned. I do not know if Breivik was as intelligent, cool and collected as portrayed in the film but he was consistent in his actions throughout the film.

The reactions of the survivors, parents and friends seemed real too. I won't say more about this as I do not want to give the whole film away.

I really enjoyed this film and do not understand why the ratings by the public are so low. I may read some of the other reviews to see. It may have been the violence, the flashbacks and the coldly calculated actions by Breivik were hard to watch for may people but the violence is a bit less than many films like Saving Private Ryan. I hope this film does well at the box office and that people will think about some of the messages that the far right is promoting right now.
39 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
isak-ensjo10 October 2018
I know this movie is supposed to be about the aftermath and not the attack per se. But the part that is makes the attack feel like it took 5 minutes even though it lasted way over an hour. Sad to see that the attack is depicted as a necessary to make the rest of the movie.

All the actors are norwegian but they all speak English with different success. This is a very bad move and honestly takes away so much of the film.

I love Paul Greengrass for making movies that feels real, with a documentary feeling like Bloody Sunday or United 93 but this time it just flat fails in most everything. Only thing that actually saves from a disaster it is because some of the actors despite English etc are doing a good job.

If you wanna feel something and then that is something really powerful go watch Erik Poppes film about the attack from this spring.
47 out of 105 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Disturbing but great
Rotkiv8912 October 2018
Greengrass' movie about Breivik's neo-fascist terror attack on Norway in 2011 is a heavy, grim and shocking, but great and moving story. What makes it better than many documentaries is that it shows the attacks for what they were: politically motivated right wing acts of terror, and the creators were not afraid to show Breivik's murderous hatred for "marxists" and "multiculturalism" in the film.

The first 20-30 minutes of this movie will be the most disturbing scenes you'll see on Netflix in many years since "Beasts of no nation" was released there. The cinematography and acting makes it a both hyper-realistic and sickening but also a sad and beautiful movie about hope and strength.

The casting of Anders Danielsen Lie as Breivik is perfect, he gives us the exact same coldness and looks like we all saw in the eyes of the real massmurderer on tv. The recreation of scenes we all saw so many times in the news, the horrible scenes on Utøya island, in the courtroom, and Ila prison, etc is very realistic. All the victims do a great job too.

This is a must-see.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Emotional struggle and the rule of law
jan-keim11 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I usually don't write reviews, but I feel the urge to do so in this case. First and foremost, this is one of the best movies I've ever seen. While not focussing on the actual shooting and the explosion, the movie does an excellent job in showing us the emotional and moral dilemma of lawyers defending people like Breivik, how a democratic country like Norway handles such horrific cases and, most of all, focussing on the emotional trauma of victims and their families and their way of trying to recover from such an event. The movie was hard to watch and even made me tear up at some point (this happened for the first time after more than 500 movies that I watched).

This movie is a masterpiece.
14 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Distracting that its not in norwegian
mikkelgottlieb10 October 2018
All names are pronounced in perfect norwegian, but all other dialogue is in English with thick norwegian accent. It feels forced.

Otherwise pretty good cast, visual effects, and the storyline is true to the actual attack.
44 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very well handled
DMAitken12 October 2018
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.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A god movie
minverden11 October 2018
It's a hard movie to watch. But it is a good movie. Would have preferred if the actors spoaked norwegian, but I understand why they don't.

The movie is a bit long, at the same time I don't know what I would have removed.
19 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Norway, je t'aime
darknight24200311 October 2018
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.
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
English dialogue distracts the viewer from an otherwise powerful movie
singinggirl-6261310 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
First off; As many of the reviews here mention, the actors speaking English when they are all Norwegian, has a major impact on the movie. In a negative sense, to me. It seems that Greengrass has made a point of them speaking with Norwegian accents. Although when he HAD to make them speak English, I think that was a good choice. Norwegians trying to speak genuine English with American or British accents and not doing it perfectly sounds even worse.

Also, the language is inconsistent. Sometimes the road signs and other writings are in English, sometimes in Norwegian (Oslo City Center as a road sign and POLITI on the police uniforms). At Utøya island in the beginning of the movie, the kids are singing a Norwegian song in front of the camp fire, whilest all dialogue is in English. All of this makes the language desition even more confusing.

The reason I've spent so much of the review stressing this is because it actually lowers the quality of the viewing experience substantially.

I read an interview with Greengrass, explains his language desition simply with "I don't speak Norwegian, so it would have been hard to direct". That, to me, is too weak an explanation. Take director Mel Gibson as an example; both "Passion of the Christ" and "Apocalypto" are films with non-English speakers.

My final comment on why the movie should have been in Norwegian, is because this is an important, powerful and horrific story that needs to be told. The way Norway, as a country, came together in the aftermath. That the event constitutes one of the worst national tragedies, makes a strong argument as to why the actors, who portray real people, living and dead, should have been speaking their first language. It would have made the performances more genuine and believeable.

This wasnt't supposed to be a long review, but oh well.

As for the acting, I think it's mostly very good. Portraying real people who have been through something like this, is a difficult job. I think Jonas Strand Gravli, who portrays Viljar, makes a very good leading role debut. Both respectful to the real Viljar and a powerful performance as an actor. I also thought Anders Danielsen Lie was impressive as Breivik. Cold and calculated, and in my opinion a pretty accurate portrayal.

The movie is based on the book "One of Us" by Åsne Seierstad. Since I have read it, I noticed quite a few factual strays. Of course, the movie is based on a book, and is not a documentary, so this is to be expected. I am however, agreeing with someone who wrote that the shooting at Utøya seemed to last only 5 minutes. Erik Poppes movie "Utøya" who also came out this year, paints a more accurate picture of how long the minutes seemed for the victims.

There is not a doubt in my mind that this movie would have been so much better if the actors spoke Norwegian. I was unfortunately not able to forget about it completely during the movie, and it distracted me from enjoying it completely. (As much as one can enjoy a movie of this character).

I think although that the movie will be more popular with international audiences due to Greengrass' choice of making it English speaking. It is an important story to tell. This movie tells it with respect.
17 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wow, I'm lost for words
TheRapDude10 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I couldn't have asked for a better account of what happened on that horrible day, and durings its aftermath.

One of my main worries going in was that the Norwegian-English dialect would distract me throughout the entire movie, but I quickly forgot about this a couple of minutes in due to the strong performances, particularly from Anders Danielsen Lie who portrayed mass murderer Breivik.

As a Norwegian I have to say the first 40 minutes were completely horrifying to watch. Seeing the preperation for the attacks and it actually happening (again) pulled me right back to that day, and although it was gruesome, I have to say that Paul Greengrass handled it extraordinary well. The entire segment had a constant «thumping» sound in the background which made the movie feel exciting, almost making me forget this actually happened. I guess this can be both negative and positive, but I don't think anyone could have done it better.

However, the attacks are only a small part of the movie, as most of the film tackles the aftermath. I think an international audience will find it interesting to see how our society reacted and how selfish Breivik was with his actions. One scene I remember in particular is when Breivik is being interrogated by the police, and complains about a cut on his finger that he had supposedly gotten from a skull fragment after shooting one of his victims. It was very disturbing, and it shocks me how un-sympathetic of a man he was and still is.

Greengrass did a good job of following Viljar's (Jonas Strand Gravli) story and making him the symbol of every surviving victim and affected family. I'm glad he put most of the focus on those affected, and I think this is particularly important for us Norwegians who for the most part refer to the attack and the trial when talking about 22 July.

If you're expecting another classic «along for the ride» action-thriller by Greengrass, this is not it. In comparison to his other «based on a true story» movies like «United 93» and «Captain Phillips», the heartpounding, shaky-cam action style we have all come to love ends after 40 minutes, and in the case of this particular story I believe this was the right choice.

All in all, a gruesome and detailed account of the attack, the aftermath and those involved... but a very good one.

13 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
veronicaflott11 October 2018
This movie is a disaster. It makes the darkest days of Norwegian history looks like a small attack that only harmed the victums. You don't get to see how the people stood together and how the civilians saved the youths and the big mistakes made by the police.
28 out of 72 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
benmoran27214 October 2018
The fact that 20'000 Norwegians signed a petition to stop this film from being made pretty much summarizes my thoughts on this exploitative, garbage. I just lost so much respect for Paul Greengrass.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
22 JULY - A horrible but good movie
svartedaudn10 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Before i write my review i just want people to know: This movie isnt a documentary or anything like that. It purely BASED on a book about this horrible day. Dont watch this movie thinking its based on facts. This is not how the attack happend down to every detail. There are multiple movies/series coming out that have different view points like this movie.

22 JULY is a good movie, and if im gonna keep it short i would say its worth watching. I didnt enjoy watching the movie, but i found it interesting. They had a whole story around the attack. The bomb, the shooting and the damage it caused to people after Anders Behring Breivik was arrested. I liked the way Paul Greengrass directed this movie, but there are a couple things i didnt enjoy at all. For example i didnt like that he had Norwegians act as Norwegians talking English with eachother. Norwegians talking English isnt the prettiest thing, and if im being honest it sounds quite horrible. Im saying that being a Norwegian myself.
11 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A redirection
erlendhlarsen11 October 2018
I'm not going to write alot about this movie. Sadly it was underwhelming, and scattered with cringy moments. Another film based on this tragic event is one called "Utøya 22 juli". It is captured in one consecutive scene through 92 minutes depicting the entire shooting at the island. It is also featured in Norwegian. I strongly recomend you to check it out either you liked this one or didn't.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What the Utøya (Erik Poppe) movie did right, this movie did wrong!
madsi-5760614 October 2018
If you are Norwegian, watch the Utøya movie by Erik Poppe instead.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absolutely disgusting.
marcljos11 October 2018
Imagine if Norwegians made a movie only a few years after 9/11 in which american actors spoke broken Norwegian and made every second seem over-dramatic. That's what this movie feels like to us Norwegians. Are people really that scared of authenticity and subtitles? There already is an intense and sincere movie, called 'Utøya 22. juli'. It's Norwegian, with Norwegian amateur actors, speaking Norwegian and feels completely authentic and respectful. I cannot understand why anyone would enjoy this movie, absolutely disgusting...
20 out of 53 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not as good as i thought it would be
maxmillslover10 October 2018
I just finished watching this movie, i'm disappointed I've been waiting a very long time for this. they should have spoken Norwegian cause they are Norwegian actors and they can't speak proper English. I've been watching a few documentaries about this tragedy so i know a lot about this, but when i watched the movie it did not feel real, it looked like a something they just made up, but i don't know why i feel this way it might be because of the accent.
16 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
rosesage-2158812 October 2018
I applaud the director for not sensationalizing the attacks in this film & focusing on the victims. Though short, the attack portion is informative enough. This movie isn't for everyone, but very well done. You feel so much pain for the young man dealing with his recovery & elated when he takes the stand to face the monster who tried to destroy his life.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Well made, unfortunately quite boring altogether
datorsiers214 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, the movie is obviously based on real events, mostly on the aftermath of the terrible attack, but there are many major nuances i personally didn't enjoy about this movie.

First of all they make it seem as if the attack lasted mere minutes, when in actuality Breivik unleashed his wrath over the victims for over an hour before he was ultimately stopped. I didn't like some events being so rushed and then a lot of filler material used to add more time to the already quite long screentime.

Secondly, in my opinion, there was an overwhelming focus on one particular family, who suffered from Brevik's attacks, in fact, they spent more time focusing on Viljar's family than Breivik himself, going into this movie i really hoped to see Brevik's perspective more and go deeper into his background/mind instead of watching a boring, slow and emotional flick about a disabled boy who was shot 5 times, i understand it might sound harsh, but that is the truth, there are tons of emotional movies about victims out there, an opportunity of delving deep into a mind of a mass murderer was truly missed by the directors here showing just a fraction of who Breivik really is.

The scenery and vibe in this movie are amazing, although this largely plays into the movie feeling drawn-out and quite boring at times. I honestly think there was great potential here, which simply got derailed by emotions of the directors.

Overall, ''22 July'' is a fairly average flick, that gets far too emotional, skipping important details and painting broad strokes when it comes to the actual events, quite boring and definitely a bit of a let down!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed