Though he himself cannot swim or sail, he sets out on the treacherous 4,300-nautical-mile (8,000 km; 4,900 mi) journey across the Pacific from Peru to Polynesia aboard the small raft, along with his crew of five men (and a macaw named Lorita).

[21] The film focuses on Heyerdahl's theory that Polynesia was first populated with humans from Peru, but it ignores the Norwegian's more ethnocentric speculations that the original Kon-Tiki voyage was undertaken by a race of tall white bearded people with red hair.

Heyerdahl conjectured that Amerindian civilizations like the Aztecs and the Incas only arose with the help of advanced technical knowledge brought by early European voyagers, and that these white people were eventually driven out of Peru and fled westward on rafts.

Although Heyerdahl did refer to "treacherous eddies" near the Galapagos, his chief worry there was that "strong ocean currents" could sweep the raft back towards Central America.

Other minor alterations from Heyerdahl's book include the ship's parrot being eaten by a shark in the film (its real-life counterpart was simply washed overboard by a large wave).

Later on May 3, the film expanded to screen in fifty more cinemas and was a major box office success in its home country, Norway, in addition to gathering critical acclaim internationally.

[29] The Hollywood Reporter's Sheri Linden says of Kon-Tiki: "This retelling of a bare-bones enterprise by six men took a crew of hundreds, and the results are nothing if not polished, with handsome period detail and visual effects that are convincing, if sometimes ostentatious.

The widescreen lensing (the film was shot mainly in and around Malta) doesn't overdo the sense of wonder and, with a strong assist from the sound design, conveys the men's vulnerability to the elements".

[32] Andrew Barker of Variety notes that some may take issue with the artistic license the filmmakers took in dramatizing some of the characters and events of the voyage, but describes the film overall as "a visually impeccable, professionally crafted modern vessel that lacks any of the patched-together soul of its subject".

[33] While Michael Nordine of LA Weekly laments that Kon-Tiki "could have used a bit more [shark-attracting] blood in the water" and concedes that the "crystal-clear waves are a sight to behold nevertheless".

The site's consensus is: "A well-crafted retelling of an epic true story, Kon-Tiki is a throwback to old-school adventure filmmaking that's exciting and entertaining in spite of its by-the-book plotting".