Kon-Tiki

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___:))))

A nominee for Best Foreign Language Picture at this year's Oscars, Norwegian import Kon-Tiki chronicles the journey of adventurer Thor Heyerdahl and his incredible journey some 5,000 miles across the Pacific Ocean from Peru to Polynesia on a balsa wood raft. Though comparisons will inevitably be drawn between this film and Ang Lee's Life of Pi, a fellow Oscar nominee, they are very different beasts and are both films deserving of attention.

If nothing else, Kon-Tiki (the name of the aforementioned vessel) adds to the impressive list of superb films from Scandinavia this past year. From Headhunters (one of my favourites of 2012) to the overlooked Snabba cash (Easy Money), fare from this region has never been more accessible or memorable.

So now comes Kon-Tiki, the first Norwegian film to score both a nomination at the Golden Globe and Academy Award ceremonies, and it's rather easy to see why. This sweeping journey appeals squarely to Hollywood sensibilities, twisting up an epic, historical adventure about overcoming the odds, with human drama. Though this intentional slanting may take some of the complexity and grit out of the film in the end, praise is abundantly deserved for all those involved.

Chief on that list is filmmaking duo Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, best known previously for the Luc Besson-produced Bandidas with Penelope Cruz and Selma Hayek, who craft something lavish and visually sumptuous out of this trek, despite the hurdle of being endowed with a budget of just $16 million.

By recreating Heyerdahl's raft, shooting out over the deep and using special effects only as infrequent enhancements rather than a crutch, these two lay the authenticity on thick and in doing so generate tension and wonder (sometimes simultaneously) like you wouldn't imagine. Kon- Tiki, though never overtly stealing, mirrors the most effective aspects of films like Cast Away, Jaws and Mutiny on the Bounty.

When Rønning and Sandberg aren't capturing sweeping, stunning shots of the Pacific (and the tiny boat at its mercy) they are letting the camera rest on the diminutive aspects of the voyage, at least so when compared to the grandness of what's around them. The ropes lashing together the massive balsa wood beams strain and groan in the water, summoning us back to an earlier scene where two sailors warn Heyerdahl that a raft of that nature will inevitably break apart with the movement of the logs. Sharks silently circle and the boat slowly crumbles as the wood absorbs seawater. These quiet moments are as unnerving as anything you'll see on the big screen.

Likewise, there are grander, more elaborate moments that drip with tension all the same, as when storms hit, men are cast overboard, and once again sharks, though proving to be one of the lesser threats in the scheme of things, use their mythos alone to chill to the bone. If not as complex as it could have been, Kon-Tiki is certainly never dull.

The cast of unknown actors are also strong, even if by the time the credits role their sporting of Grizzly Adams-like beards makes identifying between some of these brave men difficult. Leading the way as the driven Heyerdahl is – wait for this one – Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen, anchoring (no pun intended) the film as a man intent on proving his settlement theory to sceptical scholars. Joining him is engineer (and refrigerator salesman) Herman Watzinger (Anders Baasmo Christiansen) navigator Erik Hesselberg (Odd Magnus Williamson) ethnographer Bengt Danielsson (Gustaf Skarsgård) and two soldiers acting as radio men Knut Haugland and Torstein Raaby (Tobias Santelmann and Jakob Oftebro respectively).

Together, crammed together like sardines, they make the 101-day journey, each bringing not only their respective skill-sets but demons as well. Those versed in Heyerdahl's novel or the documentary of the voyage (the winner of the 1950 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature) may cry afoul at some of the changes that have been made in service to crafting a more dramatic effort, particularly tweaks to the Watzinger character, but they will in no way impact how most will respond to Kon-Tiki.

Though not as weighty or viscerally lasting as some fare that pops up in the Best Foreign Language Film category, it is, however, infinitely accessible to anyone who usually turns their nose up at that particular segment of the ceremony. Kon-Tiki is a strong import, fascinating and thrilling in equal measure and a film that is just as much about the perils of nature as it is about the gratification that comes with conquering it.

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.

As of 1/4/13, Kon Tiki is on the shortlist of 9 for Academy Award Foreign Language film; list of the 5 final nominees is expected next week.

Beautiful cinematography...including magnificent scenes of whales & sharks circling the raft.

Character studies of Thor Heyerdahl & his companions on the journey are intelligent subtle portrayals. Thor is one driven man, from almost drowning in childhood to landing on the beach on Roraia, Indonesia. Thor spent ten years with his theory that Polynesia was settled from Peru; not from Asia, the settled hypothesis at the time. Final proof came via the 1947 voyage on a raft using the same 1500 year old techniques of navigation and raft construction. While this may sound a bit dry, it is not. The passion of the participants is palpable. Each has their own reason for going on the journey; most simply falling under Heyerdahl's charisma. (Heyerdahl's 1950 documentary won the Academy Award, and remains the only Norwegian winner of an Academy Award to date.)

Though not cast based simply on physical looks (per the co-directors), several are magnificent specimens of blond 1940s fit men...and their bonding.

Every scene was filmed first in Norwegian, then in English; (US release of the English version seen is expected by the Weinstein group later in 2013.) Filming was 59 days in six countries. Audience reaction of the PSIFF screening was loudly appreciated followed with Q&A with the co-directors.

How I love to watch history-telling like this! What talent in both writing and film making it is! This is both epic and important.

This is the story about the amazing world famous Kon-Tiki trip crossing the pacific on a balsa-raft just to prove this happened in ancient times, made by the makers of great Max Manus.

The trip, taken on the basis of an idea of the explorer Thor Heyerdahl, was completely ludicrous and no one believed it could be done. and how could a trip like this be told better than by Heyerdahl himself in the documentary made during the trip.

Back in 1947 this was just the story the world wanted to be told after the 2nd world war and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The documentary film from the trip later won Oscar (1951), and the book was translated into 70 languages, and sold more than 50 million copies world wide.

Finally we get to see the trip dramatized as it should be. And the result is really an amazing and epic film which holds two hours of explorer-ism, excitement and awe. I think we really get to imagine how it was to be 6 persons floating on an uncontrollable raft in the middle of nowhere for more than hundred days. The bore, the awe of discoveries, the fear of weather, sharks and whales. The psychological toll, the friendship...

It's a great story and a great film which will make new generations pick up the book with the same name, before they watch the original documentary. Beautifully filmed, well played, even down to Heyerdahl incredibly bad English pronunciation. Not all is accurate. There's been a debate around the premiere about making Herman Watzinger such a wimpy character, when we actually was a Norwegain 100 m record holder and a strong guy with good looks, but the writers found the story needed heart, and not only bald and crazy feeling-less young men. I agree. Over 100 days on a raft is at least 90 days of boredom.

Thor Heyerdahl himself made this trip to prove his idea, which no one would believe, and later got famous. He made the trip though he was not only not able to swim, but actually afraid of water, can you imagine! And it also tells the story of those left behind, wife and kids.

This is the most expensive Norwegian film production ever, and the story is a Norwegian sacred explorers story, as good as they come, changing world history. Thankfully the film floats as good as the raft, and is well wort ha watch. Great manuscript, beautifully filmed, good handcraft.

The film comes in both a Norwegian and an international (English) spoken version, which gives the movie a possibility to be shown all over the world. And it will. Treat yourself to an insane, but epic trip, and get to be an explorer yourself. This is great storytelling! It loses one of 10 stars due to the irritating (though factual) English pronunciation of Heryerdahl. Not necessary to re-experience that to make a good story.