Reviews

Great idea, good acting and proper screenplay, but had major issues with root logic. I´ll point them out. First three inescapable prerquisites of any Russian occupation.

• When national state is occupied by other state (especially Russia), that automatically ends democracy as such. Usually it means rigged elections (such as referendums in ukraine right now) and new, puppet cabinet taking power. So, all kind of rhetoric in front of journalists cameras about "democratic way to end occupation" etc. Are ridiculous. Democratic mechanisms will not work after occupation (even if it is in disguise).

• There is no free press after (Russian) occupation. Media is the first thing Russia takes a hold in case of any occupation (lots of history lessons on that matter). Nor will there be free court system.

• Military is always guarantee of power in case of occupation - so first thing in case of hypothetical occupation of Norway would have been some kind deal, which would have "allowed" Russians to "form" their "military bases" in Norway or something like that - basically to move their military in. Thats also a prerequisite of any occupation.

Those are all history lessons that countries, which have been occupied by Russia, know very well. But those were not only problems in this series: there were also:

• leaving out norwegian society as a subject. In case of occupation nation is main subject, even if government allows occupation. If there would not be hard and wide repressions from occupation power, there will immediately be large public unrest etc., not some minor "domestic terrorism". Tens of thousands of people have guns etc.

• Whole "freedom Norway" and "terrorism" narrative was nonsense, because every country´s constitution states: killing occupants and defending country, freedom etc. Is not only legitimate, its mandatory for representatives of power structures such as army, police etc.

• Picturing "russians" was also ridiculous. Those are not russians on this series, those might be russian-spoken western europeans maybe. Russian mentality, especially "vatniks" mentality, culture, behavior etc. Would be drastically different. Butcha and Irpin were not taken place when series were filmed, but WW2, when Russia occupied eastern european countries, was. And it was exactly the same - mass graves, mass shootings, masss rapes, mass deportations, illegal field courts (basically just random shooting commandos), which killed everyone not only suspected of being hostile, but every military man, every policeman, every territorial defense member etc. Especially ridiculous is russian infiltration through restaurants. Yeah right. Occupation always starts with military - and those guys are not from Moscow or St. Petersburg. Those are dudes with 6 classes education from Yakutsk, Chuvash, Bashkortostan, Dagestan, Cechnya etc. They would literally take a dump on a restaurant table and that would be all the restaurant culture.

• Finally - what happened to Norwegian military? Norwegian military is rather small, but it´s still 65 000 men in active duty + reserve - so it´s no joke. In order to overcome such army, you´d have to bring at least 150 000 soldiers. But as Norway is relatively well placed geopolitically (Russians can´t really reach to Oslo via mainland without passing through Finland and Sweden), its almost impossible without drawing also Finland and Sweden to the conflict. But those two countries combined have significant military capability - which would be far too much for Russia nowadays.

Cant rate this with 1, because it shows that some of the movie makers have gave their best. Acting and idea was not bad. Psychological credibility, at the plane crash and couple of moments after, was axtually ok.

But writing... boy oh boy... Instead of fortifying themselves in plane wreck after first wolf attack, they will stay out. Probably because of excessive heat and comfort indoors. Then they either will fall asleep when taking watches or go to darkness to take a leak, without any given object to protect yourself.

Hunter leads people in order to escape wolves from plane wreck to... a forest. At night. If wolves have a den nearby, as hunter dude establishes, where would it be, one might wonder. Well definitely not in a forest, otherwise why escape exactly into it.

In addition - why the hell should wolves have a den around overall - those are all overgrown mofos. Grown wolves don´t live in a den, they travel around.

Instead of arming everyone and searching for guns, or, at least knives, axes and any given sharp objects like steel rods or whatever to carry along, they are gathering... wallets. For sentimental reasons. Right. When wolves are charging at the open, all the guys... run. Thats the way to beat wolves, who can hunt prey for hours in a speed of 35 miles per hour.

Of course... those CGI things are no ordinary wolves, those are AT LEAST werewolves, in a size of a blackbear. Also, wolves don´t act that way as shown in this movie. Vietkong´s - yes. Ninjas, occasional vampire, hungry werewolf - maybe, but not wolves. Wolves are reasonable creatures. They kill to eat, not to terrorize people, entertain themselves and end up organizing grande finale, mano o mano battle between alpha wolf and his prey. They are simply too damn smart for this nonsense.

Make yourself a favor, avoid this nonsense

Lets say for starters - this movie has nothing to do with horror. It aint horror-movie. Horror-story is just mere set design and buthaphoria.

Movie is basically allegory about human society (and not capitalism, as some have stated) and stufy of moral options.

So basically contemporary society has multiple levels - there are upper levels, midclasses and bottom levels, pretty clear with that.

Resources (all thats on the platform) all in all are limited. Are they even sufficient? Cant tell. But its clear they will land first on upper echelon´s table, they can satisfy all their needs and moods first (because they have more money, connections, own resources and other privileges. Lower levels come next and so it goes.

It seems, that movie environment has set as allegory of western capitalism. The center points of this study are:

1. how to survive, which individual moral choices one would face to survive?

2. which methodical alternatives there are?

Basically at first Trimagasi offers a survival tactics - that is unbearable for protagonist - you have more resources (younger, healthier, more body mass etc. - lets eat small parts of you without killing you, and keep us both alive. It would be reasonable, but as protagonist is tied up, he is left without his free will - with no choice. So he kills Trimagasi and eats him - not only to survive - but rather to restore the state of free will.

Thats the defining point - in order to survive - you have to have certain freedom. When gained that - you face new dilemmas.

Next face is study of individual choices. Goreng meets people, who have different moral pathways to survive. Trimagasis (old man whom he killed) choice was rational - but did´nt consider emotions. So he got killed for that. Imoguiris choice was kindness - basically its allegory to christian and buddist etc. philosophy - ultimate divinity is sacrificing for humanity. But the price is also losing life - Imoguiri kills herself so sacrifice would be made and others could benefit from her act. Third - Miharu implemented every means necessary to reach her goals - brute force, violence, lies etc. - so she followed the principle, that purpose consecrates the means. Of course - she got killed and became victim of violence.

So these are the main individual options for contemporary western civilization survival. Which are more, which less sustainable? Thats for viewer to decide.

Anyway - Gorang is not satisfied with these main options - and sees the solution in revolution. That means you need to reorganise the whole model, all principles. There are definitely lots of ways to do that - Gorang and his companion choose a way, that could be described as socialism/communism.

Idea seems to be great - everyone takes as much as he needs to survive. Not more. Plus - everyone gets the same. So - equality. Its pretty clear from the beginning, that only way to do that is from up to bottom - does not work other way around. Why? You cant control upper levels - because platform only goes top to bottom. First floors will go OK, because people are relatively well fed.

But then they quickly realize - the bottom the level - the harder it is to persuade hungrier and hungrier people to bare with minimum. There´s a lot of reasons for that - they are in worse shape, they have stronger feel for unjustice, etc. etc. Soon Goreng and his companion realize, that only way to make people - especially people in trouble at lower levels - act in a manner of equality - is brutal force and domination. Basically - its how the communism and socialism have been carried out everywhere in real world. Idea seems to be great - but in reality - circumstances for people are that different, that same portion of resource is not having the same effect. Also - there´s lot more what makes you situation actually unfair - when treated fairly.

Plus - it adds a moral dilemma, that is vocalized by a woman from one of the bottom floors - who made you the god of everything? What´s the guarantee, that Goreng´s idea of equality and sustainability - applies or everyone? It does´nt. Because people in different circumstances have different needs. Their condition differs, so their priorities differ etc. Plus - the question of a free will, remember?

Pretty soon they both realize that socialism/communism was just unrealistic idea. So they reach a conclusion - with a help of a "wise man" - that you can´t use force to apply sustainable model - you have to persuade people. You need to send the message. So they fixate sending the message - to 0 floor - where the table is covered with food.

Basically its here, where I started to lose a grip of this study. Why send a message to 0 floor? Those guys there are only waiters and chefs. They dont make decisions.

In real world the system itself is not a decision at all - it all comes from how the world has been set. All mammals are living in hierarchies, its not conscious choice. It´s actually the only way for mammals, including people to survive - because we are not competing for reesources only within ourselves - we competing with all the other species as well.

So "the message" - was it either protest - or just little girl (humanity?) -fell out of the overall logic.

What I did actually like about this movie - it didn´t present as much answers and did´nt took stands - it more like postulated central questions. With allegory like that - maybe it got more people to think about society. In a times like these - I think philosophical insight to crucial social questions - and actual thinking about basic mechanisms our sociaty is running on - might be good idea.

So I suggest the movie, definitely.

Total waste of money - absolutely fine scenery for a proper WW1 movie, but did not even try.

Zero credibility from the start. Absolutely no logic - neither psychological, nor military. Complete opposite to Saving Private Ryan. If you have ever been to army, you´ll just laugh at how the characters act, how they talk.

First off - general chooses two random privates (1 is actually corporal) to deliver strategic message to another troop?? Thats what actually runner messengers were for. On a horse. Probably even a small cavalry troop.

Going to a no mans land - and no-one in a trench knows if enemy is gone? In a trench war? Thats why the posts and snipers are for on both sides. You couldn´t even raise your finger from trench without getting the bullet or two. You would know, what time they got their dinner, what´d they eat, what they drink, screaming stuff to eachother etc.

Getting almost a direct hit from a plane?? I mean, come on :D And then getting stabbed by saved pilot? How much more stupid can things turn?

All the dialogue is non military, all the acting actually is absolutely non military. You wont weep and start crying, sharing your emotional and intimate moments in army in any given moment, that´s not characteristic for being in army or combat situation at all. You wont question every given order automatically like - wait, should´nt we talk about it first - with other private - what is here to talk about, when order is given? You dont "talk about it", you dont think, you "dont" nothing - you go and complete the order - running, because you are a bloody private. It´s none of your business to think. You don´t even know how to think, you can barely go to toilet and even that with sergeants supervision.

Etc.etc.etc. Basically had absolutely nothing to do with real military, army or war experience. If you imagine - how would somebody with no idea about army or military life, imagine the war - then that would be it. Lots of individual heroics, lots of privates saving the day, lots of wonderful escapes from tons of bullets and traps and lots of dramatics and emotions. In reality - nothing like that at all.

So impossible to take this movie seriously - just cant go into characters, its just too wrong compared to reality. And I mean like total fairy-tale-wrong.

Cant write serious review about this kind of crap. This whole movie makes no sense whatsoever.

It should be illegal to give a cameras and money to people who record things like that. Its hard to explain, why, really. The plot has absolutely no other logic then give itself reasons to make those loud soundjumps. In the end of the movie it reaches to a point where psychic-lady stands in her room and ugly ass (demon?) face appears behind her shoulder without any reason whatsoever. Its not even the same demon. Just ugly ass face to get to tune volume to the max.

The demon, or entity - as they call him - is pretty laughable. Kinda felt sorry for him - entity who wears an oxygen mask in beyond? :) What else do they have there? If they can have oxygen masks, why the heck he has to wear this stupid pyjama and not Hugo Boss?

Gotta admit - I kinda enjoyed the epic final battle in beyond. For a moment the altercation between "entity" and The Old Lady took a turn, when I was ready to believe the lady will roundhouse-kick the entity. Or vice versa. So it was a disappointment when lady just pushed entity and then used the elevator (still being in this dark place called "further" - there are elevators actually - did you know that?) to escape the entity. Entities cant stop elevators and open elevator doors in darker worlds, too, as appears.

It still remained mystery, why entity even bothered to mess with those people at first place. There were couple of hints that he wanted the girl as a pet - he did appear to like the girl as he took liberty to hug her couple of times - guess those other people he had made to kill themselves didn't serve the purpose well - or maybe he just didn't like them the same way.

To call this thing a "movie" is an insult to real directors, even @ Disney studios.

First time I read the book of Thor Heyerdahl when I was 10. Have been reading it 10 times since then and for me Thor Heyerdahl is a true modern hero, much like James Corbett or some other few guys, who at one side are men of science, realistic planners, believers of knowledge and studying rather than emotional Indiana Jones's. At the other side they are people with great courage, true humanists and deeply in love with nature - as human is just a part of this organism we call "life in planer earth".

Watching this movie was deep disappointment, especially knowing it was made in Norway.

The book about expedition has several dimensions.

First one is a planning phase. That's the most calculative part of the story and it has always wowed me, how much different planning there actually was. All the logistics - materials, people, building, money, supplies etc. Documents, approvals etc. The right crew - gotta make it work.

Heyerdahl's expedition was ultimate masterpiece of planning & organizing in a very short time - they got the money, they got all the supplies. They got true balsa wood although they were repeatedly officially told to forget about it. They built this complex raft exactly like its ancestors were built 1000 years before, and they made almost nothing wrong. Its an ode to smart and patient men with hands of gold.

The second dimension was the expedition itself - process of learning ocean, of learning to control the raft, of learning to navigate, of adapting to extreme living, of dealing with your fears being far from any land, of forming a well functioning team and building friendships. Process of everyone rising to their specialty in this new environment.

Third one is being @ Raroia and Tahiti. It's a different one and is missing from this movie at all.

Unfortunately - all this good stuff is gone from the movie, replaced by weird, overly simplified melodramatic approach. Why the cheap drama?

To carry out a great idea, which is doable, but unspeakably difficult - it takes a lot of wisdom, most precise planning, cooperation. It takes learning, patience, lot of processes which are ultimately exciting to follow.

Why throw all of it away and replace it with a hollow, fictional dramatic elements, that either never took place or had never any importance whatsoever?

Whats really wowes you in the book - is their courage and confidence to themselves. In the movie there is like a bunch of scared schoolboys on a raft, when actually they were all very highly qualified scientists or specialists - handpicked by their personal qualities who made this story happen with their will.

In addition - as this movie tries to tell the true Kon-Tiki story, it's really annoying there's so many details, which are simply wrong. Herman Watzinger wasn't simpleminded refrigerator salesman - he was cooling engineer in the middle of his doctoral studies - he took care of all the thermodynamic, meteorological and hydrographical measurements. Also a true leader, tough guy, strong as a bear (citing to Heyerdahl).

Also - it wasn't Herman, who harpooned the whale shark - it was Erik Hesselberg. And he didn't do it out of fear rather than out of excitement. Also - the dance around the radio device is total bs - Thor was actually against of bringing the radio - ancient sailors didn't have any radios and also - he did not feel any appeal to the wires and electric switches whatsoever. Finally Watzinger convinced him its a good thing, they can help out meteorology stations in US etc.

Also - sharks did not touch the parrot, it was just a big wave on a stormy day. Sharks prey bigger objects than the parrot. This was really stupid moment and the following was just as ridiculous - Knut didn't catch the shark to get revenge for eating a parrot :D They used to catch sharks with their bare hands all the time for sport - the descriptions about this "sport" are far more exciting in my mind.

Also - Watzinger didn't splash in the ocean just wondering on the log. It was another occasion and he just went swimming. As it turned out, raft was moving so fast it simply drove away from Watzinger, although he was a great swimmer. Then they saw a shark approaching to Watzinger - and Haugland went in with the rope - barely saving Watzinger.

Also - all these stupid confrontations between Thor and crew members, where Thor acts like sociopath leader - are total bs. This whole group dynamics is just simply wrong - there was no such things at Kon-Tiki. Although Thor was a captain - Hesselberg was only true sailor on board, who did all the navigation. And as they were all grown men, there was rather a cooperative spirit on board, they were about business. In real life - it did not center around Thor - everyone got their fare share of adventures. So they all were pretty famous to the end of their lives after the expedition.

So all in all - avoid this movie, read the book! Then watch the documentary. And then watch documentary about Thor Heyerdahl's grandsons Olav's same expedition in 2012, on identical raft named Tangaroa.

Let me clear some things out right away. This movie is extremely hard to fully understand if you know nothing about Russia or Russian people-Russian life. Also knowing some about Russian history, society, archetypes etc. becomes really handy.

Also, this movie is NOT about a confrontation of a man against powerful enemy. This movie is NOT about corruption and betrayal. This movie is NOT about taking a look into the machinations of corrupt power, nor is it a biblical story of Job. It's not as well a movie about working class problems nor alcohol consumption, not to speak about the story of David and Goliath. This movie is just about Russian people.

I will not give everything away here, just pointing out some small objects of study. The scene of events - small town in somewhere far away - basically a place in Russia no-one gives a f... about - is typical. There are thousands of places like this in Russia - isolated, living completely their own life, having their own local hierarchy, local gangsters and authorities (which often are the same things), minimal monthly wages somewhere between 300 - 500 dollars. Only shitty jobs like in a fish factory, mines or even at the police (which actually is the lowest, sort of) etc etc with no hope for better life whatsoever.

How can people manage to live like that? Vodka is a little help here in order to feel yourself as an actual human being - if you were not raised with a dream to become hard worker in a fish factory, basically a piece of s--t with no rights and no other future. It also paints some colors to the picture but that does not last longer than a few hours. So that's how the life goes in a situation like this.

Zvyagintsev shows with surgical preciseness the flow of the everyday life. It's not rational, people will sort of go with the flow as the autumn leaves on surface of the wild river. Lives are based on emotional decisions made in a blink of an eye, not rational planning. Too often will factors from outside - like a stronger predator higher up the food chain - or being wasted... etc - making decisions for you. Almost as if the whole life was one big chain of coincidences. Living in a moment, acting under nearest impression or emotion. Is a life like this a result or a reason?

The finale of the movie - house teared down, main guy dragged to jail, son given to those who witnessed false out of stupidity and gave authorities the possibility to land Kolya a prison sentence. Erecting church on top of the hill instead of Kolya's house - where the priest then holds a prayer ceremony to the wolves - is symbolic. But is it a result or a reason?

Zvyagintsev takes here a deep tour into the historical archetype of Russian soul. He will not have mercy on himself nor average Russian comfort zone. He addresses many questions to himself or any other Russian, not only those most obvious "- what is our faith like? What is our god like? Do we and the "mayor's" have same god at all - or is their god more like a "platnoi" - a criminal godfather sort of - you pay him and he okay's your actions? - What is our concept about almightiness? Is it the holy spirit or the ultimate power? Or is it the one, who is simply at the top of the food chain and us being the sheep waiting the almighty to come and deal with all our problems instead of ourselves? Is this - waiting for some higher power or a "master" to come and solve our problems - Russians "national sport"? (Thanks NG for the great phrase)" - and most importantly - why are those thing as they are?

These are some stuff what this movie is about. There's still several more layers and questions to think about, I just wanted to give some taste sample - it's really hard to understand "national problems" so to speak - living far away and not knowing the nation and its collective subconsciousness. But this is basically what this movie is about - national problems, "sorting their own business". As there is old saying in Russia - "wanted the better - but out came as always". That "always" is a matter with what Zvyagintsev deals with here.

This movie reminds me a bit of an old classic, Russian cult movie "Russian way of hunting". But without jokes, softening humor and gentle touch handling the wounds. This movie's approach is brutally direct with dry, cruel righteousness. Truth isn't always the sweetest thing to swallow - that explains those lots of responses from Russian audience. This movie is rubbing ugly truths all over the audience's faces - and it hurts to find some Kolya's, mayor's or Lilyas from the cellars of one's soul.

Don't get me wrong - it's a decent movie. I'll not regret the money I gave away for tickets but basically that's it. These sorts of things happen when you get greedy.

This a spy-movie most of all... I think. Or is it a biography of great Alan Turing? Or is it more of a character study about socially inadvertent, egocentric genius? As if that would not be enough - director tried to tie in several more serious plot lines with Alan Turing's homosexuality and problematics which it caused at the times. Some feminism - first and only female code breaker at bletchley, hiding as secretary (which was absolute bs, there were several female code breakers at Bletchley.

Then there is this certain war-hero line breaking the "Enigma"-code in most crucial moment to save the Europe - historically absolutely ridiculous idea. Spine of the world war II was actually broken in Eastern Front, at the battle of Stalingrad, not at Atlantic Ocean.) There is actually another, even bigger stupid fiction about Alan Turing saving the world almost alone - as Enigma code was actually cracked way earlier by a Polish code breaking bureau and handed over to allies. Alan Turing was one of the people, who helped code breaking systems further down the road, but in no means did he broke the Enigma-system.

Maybe its not crucial to be accurate, who actually broke the Enigma-system as this clearly is a fictional piece of entertainment so why not just give this movie a strong 6 for entertainment.

Unfortunately that can't be done either. Benedict Cumberbatch without any doubt is not your average Joe and therefore tends to play eccentric characters. Still - to me it's not good enough to praise his performance - being eccentric - as he looked nothing like mildly sociopathic, genius mathematician like Alan Turing was. It's actually a pretty certain type of character - egocentric genius, who has strong rational, logical and mathematical way of thinking to compensate lack of empathy, social skills and emotional intelligence. Benedict Cumberbatch reminded more of a neurotically talkative, melanholic old lady with strong tendency to feel sorry for herself, occasionally bursting illogically egocentric phrases. I mean - every social type has it's certain logic. Cumberbatch's Turing just had none and therefore wasn't believable as a (fictional) human character. Same thing applies to Keira Knightley's Joan Clarke.

So 4 from me. Too many ideas and narratives for just one movie. Cant fit the elephant in a jar - more does not equal always the better. Nothing really stood out to carry the main idea which got lost down the road. Too many stupid fictions about history to take this movie as a story of Alan Turing's life, either. So just a movie about some troubled guy saving the war to the world, dealing with issues at the same time. Poorly executed.

I actually liked the first one. Wasn't a diamond of all the movies, but it had a certain different flavor compared with mediocre American horror flicks - some different logics, dynamics, different kind of beast and what's most important - quite good, believable characters one could feel for.

This one starts out good, two stereotypical jerk cops getting way more they were asking for. And then everything just falls apart all of a sudden.

Two Germans - and by that I mean "ze germanz" - prototypical (young) German people who you don't like anyway much - getting slaughtered in very a first opportunity. Oh wait - girl gets away, picked up by a young stranger. Next thing you now - after a little car chase her head has been blown to pieces and a big bad wolf makes his appearance. Stranger guy escapes - end that is pretty much what's left. Stranger dude escaping from wolf.

Maybe it's just me, but I just don't give a f... . The guy is a stranger. Weirdo, who - instead of calling cops with his white cell phone - drives aimlessly through the night, corpse of a girl in a car. Stops at dawn, stuffs a cold body to a sleeping bag, leaves it there and pulls away. As it appears, he hasn't getting anywhere - next day it seems to be the same place.

After some serious escaping guy breaks down near some house - without any evident reason. I mean - we can assume, that he is tired, but after a long walk (12 hours or so) you lay down and rest, not loose your conscience. He gets picked up by some people but, what do you now - the wolf is there, knocking on the door.

There's not much left to say but remind to director - if we don't know the person - we don't really care. If I feel for the victim - I can let go a little things like - why the dang jeep does not go faster than a truck for hells sake.. Have you driven jeep like that? Well I have and they go like 100 mph - as trucks on the other hand have speed limited down to 70 or so. Even without that, not in a lifetime will they go faster than 80 mph. But with a stranger dude behind a wheel all I could do all the time was: just drive away. Or hit the breaks when truck is side by side and turn the car around. The road is 20 feet wide - not in a million years can you turn around the truck there. Just drive home, dude. And movie would be over.

Don't watch this. Go far a walk - it's nice out there, whatever the weather might be.

So basically - this is a proper movie. If you really like contact sports (which I do), Tom Hardy as character-actor (which I do as well), Joel Edgerton (which I do, too) and cute Jennifer Morrison (which I definitely do). But.

To like this movie, you also have to like movies such as Armageddon and Independence Day (Which I don't). You have to be OK with ultimate predictability and really lame stereotypes, such as "perfect-do-everything-for-family"-husband, drunk and hardball fighting-coach father, a rebel, wild, bitter - but conveniently war-hero - younger brother, supporting, against violence wife, who nevertheless got her chills out of the tournament (loyality, I guess), and bunch of loyal students + headmaster (which I'm personally definitely not). You have to accept everything heading towards some kind of balanced ending, judgment day. And you should love really loud music all the way, to get every last tear out of you. Well, I don't.

So I would of rated this movie exactly the same as I rated Armageddon and Independence Day - with 1. But Tom Hardys superior effort to make his character really alive was standing out from this movie, there for it got 5 from me. 1 to the movie and 4 to Hardy.