peefyn
I wish they would have taken a different approach to this story it is based on. It's an unbelievable one, but I feel that by trying to make it more movie like, they've also made it even less believable. The movie does not need a duffer. I seems like they felt a need to have a character add some conflict to the adventure, but I would much rather that they focused on the actual conflict: the people versus the ocean and the weather. And even the ocean feels a bit too dangerous in the movie, as every time anyone gets even close to the water, it's full of sharks.The above, together with some quite cheesy scenes in the first act of the movie, makes this brilliant story more dumb than it ought to be.But it still really awakens my sense of adventure, just as a story about the Kon-Tiki voyage should.
krocheav
To anyone looking for a film that embodies all that resembles quality movie making - this might be as close as you could get. Superb images ~ superb sound ~ superb performances ~ superb music ~ superb script, direction and cinematography ~ it's all on show...the Norwegians can be applauded for this special achievement.Due to better than average, imaginative script writing, any age group can enjoy this journey. In the hands of lesser writers it could have been loaded up with unnecessary language and details - instead, it's been mostly kept lovingly on target (the involvement of original family members probably helped). If anything was perhaps not fully necessary it might have been the beefing-up of some menacing 'JAWS' type scenes, but this is in keeping with the expectations of modern audiences - those weaned on over-the-top action flicks and moronic computer games. The representation of crew member Herman Watzinger has also been re-engineered and includes situations added for 'entertainment' purposes. These modifications of course are a small price to pay for a totally rewarding, highly exiting movie experience - that perfectly captures the passion and commitment of Thor Heyerdahl and his diverse crew's determination to pursue his vision on both land and sea. Some have made comparisons to another superb movie, the magnificent "Life of Pi" but this probably has more to do with the look of the above-average CGI effects and the survival at sea themes - apart from these ingredients they are a totally different genre of storytelling. Don't miss this terrific film and if possible see it on the big CinemaScope screen - complete with big sound reproduction to get the most from the award wining sound track!ADDITIONAL NOTE: For those who have seen the interesting 1960 movie "As The Sea Rages" also known as "Raubfischer in Hellas" and based on the famous novel of the same name by Werner Helwig (see IMDb listing), the real life character that Clements the seaman (played by Cliff Robertson) is based on, was a crew member on other Thor Heyerdahl expeditions ~ these are also worth seeking out by interested movie historians. KenR
andriz
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.
