a5c7b9f00b A newspaper journalist revealing fraud in a large multinational company, finds his family involved, ruining his career, family relations, and entangles him in a following mystery. A convoluted screenplay, ridiculously complex plot with no real clarification till the end, but well acted and exciting, despite the fact that excitement of this order is completely un-Norwegian. In the last scene shot in Norway (outdoors) we see the characters&#39; faces and everything is clearly lit. Then the final scene, in the Caribbean, with clear light, despite the cloudy skies. Whatever prompted the director of this series to imagine that shooting practically everything else in darkness was a good idea? Did he imagine that it added to the darkness of the story? It is totally unauthentic – Norwegians crave light. Homes and offices are well lit and the idiotic feeble wall lights and desk lights we saw, without a main room light switched on, were simply NOT what you see in Norway. My wife is Norwegian and I have spent a lot of time in all the Nordic countries and have never experienced this sort of gloom. Close to the end, Peter is in the hospital and even there the corridors and rooms were not properly lit – impossible. If natural light was entering a room, the director made sure the actors were shot against it, so we couldn&#39;t see their faces. Why? The scene where Peter Verås returns to his apartment, the tiny lights are already on but he walks through the rooms and rolls into bed without turning on a light, was just laughable. I hope no one thinks that Norway is a country robbed of light. It&#39;s true their days are shorter in winter, but not much different (in the south of the country) from Scotland. And then there was the background music – also to add to the dramatic tension? What a nuisance; and where there was no music, there was noise. If there is a sequel to this, I shall not be watching it unless I learn that the director has grown up. Really – there are too many things wrong with this to make a list, I watched it all cos it was atmospheric and spooky, and I liked the general tenor of it .. but my wife packed in after two episodes and I kept thinking it could only get better .. in fact it got worse! The plot was full of holes and none of the links between the people and the money were ever really explained. The thing about the suicide on a certain date years after the Daniel committed suicide was probably the most ludicrous, in a long list of craziness … never explained. Presumably that was not really sent by him. The 5 year time gap? What was that for? Daniel screaming at the painting? Really, what was that about? Who WAS tipping off the press to be there taking photos of Peter every time he witnesses a suicide? Never satisfactorily explained. The swinging loyalties of the pregnant journalist was that just cos of her hormones? To say nothing of the other mysteries of how the media were presented in this drama. The moody vicar /dad and the church angle? Was that serving any point at ALL? The real baddie behind it all was a lowly criminal finance investigator? How did she get into a position to do that? Never satisfactorily explained. Did she employ Vibeker just to drive her crazy with stalking and mis-direction?<br/><br/>Sitting on her paradise island at the end you&#39;d have thought she&#39;d have a happy face on her, having apparently got away with all the loot, but her face wasmiserablemine! We both felt robbed, somehow, eh!
olualodag Admin replied
371 weeks ago