I think this movie held its own when compared to other films about natural disasters. The leads acted well, so I mostly overlooked the more helpless efforts from the other actors.
The current 6.9 is probably about right, and should rank among the better disaster movies, which I think it deserves.
With this movie, Max Manus, Kon-Tiki and Headhunters, the Norwegian film industry have moved away from the artsy, high-culture rabble they used to make before to entertainment products aimed at the mass market.
That is very good news, because this means that taxpayer money are being used for the benefit of the many instead of for the tiny "cultural elite" in downtown Oslo.
Production values have improved greatly just this last decade, and there are now film actors instead of just people being grabbed from amateur theatre. There's still a way to go when it comes to scriptwriting, because some of the lines the actors had to say could never be done in any convincing way by anybody. There were a lot of disaster movie/action flick clichés - which is good, because movies like this are never about breaking new ground in characterization and plot twists. When that is said they could have dropped the resuscitation-scene. Since this is Norwegian Film, I did not entirely rule out a heroic death, but the general cinema-going audience like going out of the theatre after a happy ending and I approve of the creative decision to make it so even though this family had to wade through every cliché in the book to get there.
I hope the next decade will bring even more mainstreaming of the Norwegian film industry.
While I enjoyed this movie, I can't say I agree with you about the mainstreaming of the film industry. I think it's pretty presumptuous for you to imply that the majority of Norwegians don't enjoy or understand the films their country has produced. I also don't appreciate your usage of the phrase "entertainment product". It's precisely this kind of view that strips film of its critical and expositional capacities and reduces it to a vain, meaningless experience. We would all do well to guard against this kind of reduction happening in any area of life - whether it be film, food, education, or technology.
The films the Norwegian film industry produced until roughly ten years ago were almost exclusively pretentious garbage. Variations on turkeys like "Dis" for the most part. The actual quality movies were few and far between, giving rise to the negative image of Norwegian film in the general populace to begin with.
The cinematography, sound, scripts, acting and screenplay were completely amateurish. All the actors would whisper to each other or otherwise interact in ways that would never take place in real life. The subject matter of Norwegian movies was usually that of "high drama" or other themes that were of interest only to those select few who had that as a field of interest. The filmmakers would in other words only communicate with other filmmakers with their art, not the larger audience.
Now we have natural disaster movies, nazi zombie movies, slasher horror movies, dark comedy, thrillers, action movies centered on cars and all kinds of other works which are centered on the story. There is a focus on production values and realistic acting, and most importantly on creating some sort of suspense. And people are again going to the cinemas to watch Norwegian-made films, after years of avoiding them like the plague.
We still have a lot to learn, but I see it as a very positive development that the focus on creating so-called "high art" is being replaced by a focus on good entertainment. If Norwegian film keeps taking those steps and grows in size and popularity, it will also "rub off" on those who want to create something very special - access to more experienced film actors and crew benefits everybody... but the taxpayer money should not finance such narrow artistic expressions. It should benefit the masses, not the few. The near-empty cinemas when the more ambitious films are being shown proves only that the subject-matter is uninteresting to most people, not that they do not understand or appreciate fine art.
Please don't use the word pretentious when you obviously don't know what it means. If that is what you want for Norwegian cinema, all I can say is thank God I don't live there.
adjective 1. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance, especially when exaggerated or undeserved: a pretentious, self-important waiter. 2. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious.
So a pretentious film takes on a "deeper meaning" that is not there. Anything else you want to know?
You're characterising non-commercial "artsy", whatever that means, films as pretentious. I've seen some of these films and they are not in the least bit pretentious. It is a word used by people, wrongly, that don't like or understand these types of films, most particularly on Imdb message boards.
I've seen plenty of "non-commercial" films as well, and while some of them are good because they have something of value to say, most of them are trivial but still presented as profound.
That's the definition of pretentiousness.
"I want you to be entertained for a couple of hours" is not an inferior notion to "I find these emotions worthwhile to depict". The art of storytelling is still art, and it is an essential representation of the human experience.