Desaparecimento na Noruega

Fascinating, detailed, intriguing examination of a real-life missing person case. Each episode follows one of the parties involved, ie the police, the journalists, the lawyers, and the story emerges from this fractured looking glass. All good and original and engaging so far. However, when it comes to the 5th and final episode, this series simply just pulls up the drawbridge on the story and gives nothing to the viewer by way of theory, explanation, new perspective. OK it's a 'true' story, more or less, and as such the jury is still out and no one has been convicted. But ending the series with little more than a shrug just confirms this as s a TV experience this is just a distraction for a few hours and with nothing to contribute to the subject it asks us to consider. To be avoided.

This is my first IMDb review, and I feel compelled to write after looking at the less positive reviews here. The Scandanavian dramas on Netflix have been among my favorite of all of their programs, and this one is near the top. The performances are consistently compelling, natural and believable, the directing taut, and, in the best sense, drama-free. The viewer really feels like s/he is in the middle of this complex drama. The story holds a mirror up to issues of class, sexism, police and journalistic bias without providing any easy answers. I was a bit taken aback at the end of Episode 5 that there was no Episode 6, but after some reflection, thought the ambiguous ending suited the series; however, seeing a note from other reviewer about it being missing, I"m sure that if it exists, it will do justice to what preceded it. If you're looking for something fast-paced, easy and prone to putting its thumb on the scale for the topics it covers, this show isn't for you, but if you want something superbly made and thought-provoking, I think you'll find this series well worth your time, whether 5 episodes or 6.

This series frustrated me, although I watched it until the end. I found it extremely difficult to follow. But I wanted to know what was going to happen, since after all, this is based on a true story. With none of the characters I could sympathise, since they are all distant and dark. Moreover, and worst of all, I lost the thread of the story. At a certain point I did not even know anymore if I had seen already several characters that were shown. This is really a pity because the story in itself seems intriguing; the media parroting the police and one police officer even feeding deliberately the media with information. The female journalist that was courageous and probably right, hence different from her colleagues, lost her job and we did not see her anymore. There is absolutely nothing beautiful or interesting in the way this has been filmed, neither in the dialogues, nor in the scenery and definitely not in the way the story is told. The Danish series "The Investigation", on the contrary, tells in a magnificent way also a horrible true story and the actors are all fabulous.

I don't know how this could be made unless it is explicitly sanctioned by both the authority that investigates and charges crime AND the people that make up the persons of interest. I can't imagine why anyone would agree to it.

Not what I would call a documentary.

Anyway, aside from that I did enjoy it as an entertainment, which I think is problematic as a "true" story.

Now my problem with the presentation in one crucial aspect of "evidence" as presented. The language as we know is Norwegian. I watched it dubbed in English with English captions. As is often the case, the spoken dialogue does not match the captions. Normally this is not a problem, but: Tom Hagen is about 70 and has been married for 49 years to his disappeared wife.

The film has the prenuptial agreement signed in 1993 I believe, which would have put their wedding at around 1973.

1993 is 29 years ago, not 49. Giving more weight to this observation, the dialogue says prenup, the caption says marital agreement. Ordinarily one would not make a fuss over this language discrepancy, except, you cannot have a prenuptial agreement when you've already been married for 20 years.

So, this was not a prenup but an agreement made after 20 years of marriage. It casts an entirely different light on the story, because although it was clear an error was made, what the error was was not clear. Was the year of the agreement 1973 and therefore a prenup (no, I don't think so) or was it not a prenup but a marital agreement made after 20 years of marriage (yes, I think) Although I figured it out I was not 100 percent sure and thought about it the whole time I was watching which was a distraction I could have done without.

It is not evidence of a crime, however, but changes the idea of motive.

If one were not paying close attention to do the math, and not having captions on they saw a different film from me.

I am very disappointed.

A Norwegian thriller based on true events.

This kidnapping story could have been packed in one movie and not divided in seven hours episodes. Too long because it couldn't keep enough my attention with suspense or intriguing elements. At the end of the second part I switched off. Okay, in the first part these ingredients were shown but the longer it run the more I was bored to continue watching these seven part limited series. Yes, luckily only limited. Watch instead the top Hollywood kidnapping movies Trapped, Cellular with Kim Basinger, Panic Room with Julianne Moore or The Call with Halle Berry.