Hammarskjöld

I watched from the start and was fixed throughout.

This movie takes it with a slower, thoughtful pace. There's time for the characters, complexity and context to sink into the story...that's a frenetic true tale of utter chaos and mayhem appearing in the Congo.

It's nice that the writing dosen't ram these very emotive times, politics or conclusions down one's throat. There's a fog to it, the watcher has to make their own final analysis of this difficult subject. I appreciate the care that the makers of this made to tell the story, not preach, just tell it, without favour.

Dag was a fascinating character who tried his best and this pays homage to him and human frailty, which is the condition we all have to live with. Thanks!

The characteristics from Mikael Persbrandt perfectly add to the Dag Hammarskjöld the director wants us to see. No one can stare with his steelblue eyes as demanding as 'Gunvald' Persbrandt can; every inch a gentleman. At the same time, this eccentric diplomat with his poetry and bow tie knows that playing by the book won't bring him anywhere in his struggle to protect the weak and defenseless. Going his own headstrong way doesn't either, but that's his fate, as it is of international law in general. This biopic deserves therefor the same qualifications as Oppenheimer. The time is now for reassessment, before history swallowes the truth in undisclosed archives and fading memory.

I came away from this movie needing to go read up on Hammarskjöld's life because it seemed like this movie didn't do him justice. I came away thinking he was arrogant and bumbling, but Wikipedia quotes JFK refering to him as ' the greatest statesman of our century'.

There was the titillation of him maybe being gay which made me sad. It was illegal then and for most people the pain of not being able to live and love freely was awful and the film showed some of that. Despite there being little evidence to support the idea. I understand they may have been trying to tie in the content of his book.

But that story thread, the attempt to humanise him I suppose, took away from the real story, his role in intiating anti-colonialism, which ended up being over-simplified.

I enjoyed the movie. But it leftme wanting more rather than feeling satisfied.

The story of Dag carries the story of Congo, which needs to be told in our present times. The western backed coup and our crimes to the people of Congo were to become significant for the way the western powers for a century have conducted mafia methods to gain and consolidate any sort of capital to rule the globe. Today we can look at huge line of historic and present crimes, and we can look at a huge line of fingerpointing at leaders from countries that does not submit to the western regime.

Congo today is even worse off than the post-Lumumba era; Rwanda-backed rebels are choking the congolese people - and even western editorials ask the western powers to act. But our powers are in business with the proxy wars on Russia, Iran/Syria and China ... so the congolese people will have to be patient. Meanwhile perhaps it's not impossible to do business with the M23 and affiliates. After all, business is business.

Simplistic. Inaccurate. And though boring.

Its both historically inaccurate and not entertaining.

A choice should be done : either you tell a good story, and you have to be clear about the inaccuracies (and, please, change the names of the protagonists), or you pretend to show historical facts, but then you shall not lie.

As it is, with scores of wrong assumptions presented as facts, this moving is lying to its audience. Its way too politically oriented.

Complotist assumptions are presented as facts. Little is known about that plane crash, but the chain of events presented as the "Truth" in this movie are just ridiculous.