Kon-Tiki (2012)

The plot is about the greatest Norwegian explorer, Thor Heyerdahl who changed the course of history about the origin of Polynesians. Thor, along with 5 desperate fellows, set out an 101 day-voyage on a raft across the Pacific ocean to prove his scientific analysis before the world. They avoided all sorts of modern mechanical equipment and crossed almost 8000 kilometers in the vast sea just like primitive people having only the faith of Kon-Tiki, the Inca Sun-God. Acting seems so realistic and engaging to depict this true adventurous history :))) Some camera shots appear aesthetic while score sounds great. However, only flaw to me is the lack of crisis in the script___7/10___

NB: now willing to watch the original Kon-Tiki documentary film, that won Oscar in 1950, directed by Thor Heyerdahl himself during their expedition___:))))

Fmovies: I don't speak a lick of Nordish but my god this movie is excellent.

Everything is perfect, great cast, fantastic adventure, flawless direction, smooth direction, swelling enveloping music and a great sound effects.

There are few movies like this is existence, about the human spirit and what it means to have a real adventure.

Also i must say the best and most surprising part about the movie is the acting, not only are they perfectly suited to the characters they are the characters.

Hats off to the Special CGI Effects studio for their fantastic work.

for 16m this movie is a real surprise and if your reading this yes, go see it RIGHT NOW!

What a weird coincidence that such a movie came out attempting for an Oscar nomination the same time with Life of Pi, with both exhibited many similar things about survival in the ocean, though the subject matter in each film may be entirely different.

Anyway, even though I have not watched nor have any knowledge of the original, I am impressed with the way this film was made. It was pretty well-balanced with no major flaws in my opinion. Well acting performances by the cast were complemented by a high level of cinematography technique that made looked like the entire journey on the raft was really shot wide in the ocean. Like Life of Pi, there were certain marine animals that were infamously being shown from the real life account of Kon-Tiki, and the CGI made on the animals were so real you probably cant tell if those animals were fake.

Probably the major point of improvement that the film can work on is the lack of character development of the other participants in the Kon Tiki, aside from Thor Heyerdahl himself. I am not implying there was none, as we get to see Thor's mates conflicts happening from the start till the end, but I wish I could have known more why they decided to join and their background story. Understandably, with the time given the film had chosen to focus on Thor instead with a lot of plot material explaining why he had to venture into such a journey.

I was also curious if there were more that could be shown about a group of men enduring a raft journey across the ocean in +100 days. But overall, just by solely comparing the similarities, this is much better and believable than Life of Pi as well as a very satisfying movie experience.

Kon-Tiki fmovies. Kon-Tiki (2012)

*** (out of 4)

Visually stunning telling of explorer Thor Heyerdahl's (Pal Sverre Hagen) epic and now legendary journey traveling nearly 5,000 miles from Peru to Polynesia in a wooden raft. Directors Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg certainly do a marvelous job in bringing this story to the screen, although I think the screenplay at times could have given more information than what we're just seeing. I think a little more character development might have helped the film somewhat but there's still no question that this here is mighty impressive and especially considering the budget. I think the best thing in the film is the wonderful visuals and right from the start they just leap right off the screen. Whether it's the snowy landscape of Norway or the beautiful blues of the sea, the look of this movie is something that makes you just want to pause the film and admire its beauty. The cinematography is top-notch and I'd argue some of the best that I've seen in recent years. The cinematography certainly helps grab all of these beautiful images but I also think it's so good that it also takes the viewer and places them directly on the boat to experience everything that happens. As for the real story, seeing it unfold here makes for a thrilling adventure that deals with some bickering between the men but also some breathtaking moments involving a whale and some highly intense scenes with sharks. The acting is another major plus as all the key people do a wonderful job in the film even while none of their characters really jump out at you except for the lead. The film is certainly very uplifting and inspirational and it really makes you respect these explorers for everything they did and of course their bravery. This film is certainly a fitting tribute to the men who went on this mission.

This movie is seriously good.

I'm not saying this just because I'm Norwegian and extremely proud that my country managed to produce this amazing adventure. Kon-Tiki is definitely one of the most original, well- written and fun films I've seen this year.

It's the 1940s. Without spoiling the story (which is real by the way), we are invited to follow Thor Heyerdahl as he gathers a crew of overly confident Scandinavians attempting to cross the Pacific on a balsa wood raft. All in the name of science and a boyish thirst for adventure! This attitude is understandable; after enduring the misery of WW2, little seemed more tempting than escaping to faraway exotic lands. Bravery or stupidity? In either case, viewers can look forward to one hell of a boat ride.

What I adore about Kon-Tiki is the presentation of the raft's surroundings. The Pacific Ocean is just as magnificent and beautiful as it is dangerous and merciless, and this dynamic is perfectly balanced. Peaceful waters and clear skies suddenly give way for dangerous sea- creatures and storms mighty enough to tear the old-fashioned raft apart. Kon-Tiki is simply grand. At times my adrenaline rose, my heart started pumping, and I started lusting for adventure myself - just by watching.

Another strong point is the cast. The actors do a brilliant job at depicting the slightly eccentric yet adventurous Scandinavians far away from their Nordic comfort zone. Thor Heyerdahl is particularly well portrayed with his dreamer-like attitude and awkward English skills. Although I would prefer more emphasis on character development, Kon-Tiki make them just interesting enough for viewers to care for them.

Kon-Tiki is such a delight to watch, because it's original, different and not your typical Hollywood adventure flick. No, the plot is not complex. It has no twists or turns, and Kon-Tiki certainly doesn't contain the amount of drama you'd expect. And this is what makes it good - the film is all about the sheer excitement of the adventure. Of course it isn't perfect, but for a Norwegian film, I'd say it holds its ground rather strongly.

I honestly haven't had this much fun with a film for a long while. If you're lucky, Kon-Tiki might show up on a festival or international cinema near you. In that case, do watch it.

I sought out this Norwegian film only after I learned that this was nominated for the Oscar for Best Foreign Language film. I only had a cursory knowledge of Thor Heyerdahl as a Norwegian explorer who wrote about his adventure at sea. However, I did not know any details at all about him or his journey. So I welcomed this opportunity to finally get to see it.

The film began with Thor as a child when he fell into the icy lake and almost drowned. However we later find out that that accident and his inability to swim did not deter his adventurous spirit. We fast forward to Thor and his wife Liv on Fatu Hiva, a Polynesian island, in 1937. There he learned the belief of the islanders that their ancestor Tiki actually came from the East (the Americas) instead of Asia as commonly assumed.

For several years, Thor tried to get his theory about Polynesian origins published but was repeatedly rejected. Therefore, he resolved to prove his theory by recreating Tiki's original ocean journey from Peru to Polynesia on a raft made of balsa wood (with strictly no modern materials).

It is just too coincidental that I am watching another ocean adventure just a few days after watching "Life of Pi." Kon-Tiki traveled the Pacific in the opposite direction that Pi did. It had an experienced though spare crew of 5, composed of two sailors, an engineer, an ethnographer and Thor, so it had a distinct advantage over the teenager and a tiger.

But maybe because I just watched Pi, maybe I expected to see so much more maritime misfortune than I did with Kon-Tiki. However, that sequence with vicious sharks had real heart-stopping suspense. I do have some misgivings about that episode with the whale shark, because it is not really the aggressive creature depicted in the film.

This was a straight-forward adventure film for the family. It may seem old-fashioned to some, nothing too controversial or strange as one can expect from modern European cinema. It was by no means boring, but I admit I felt like it lacked a certain edge while I was watching it. The crew members did not even have any significant conflict among each other and they were trapped on a raft for a hundred days! That may come across as unbelievable in these days of Big Brother and other "reality" TV shows.

I do hope I can find myself a copy of the 1950 Oscar-winning documentary about the real Thor Heyerdahl, his crew and their 101-day oceanic ordeal. That should be very interesting indeed.