Desaparecida en Lørenskog

Vaguely remember the case on which this series is based. It was also relatively well reported here in Finland. The series follows events from different angles and perspectives. The series is followed episode by episode from the point of view of the police, lawyers, journalists and relatives.

I used to be in favour of a non-linear and multi-perspective series. Over time, however, the problem has become that these elements have become a way of prolonging the series without adding any value to the story itself or depth to the characters. I like slow-burning series, but there has to be a reason for that slow-burning. Nowadays, many series should just be a 1,5h movie because there is no true content for many episodes.

Fortunately, however, this series was different. Five episodes of guaranteed quality. I found that I actually liked almost every character in the series. I could relate to their perspectives and attitudes. The series illustrates well how easily our history and temperament can affect our ability to look at things objectively.

I also liked the fact that the personal lives of the main characters were referred and shown, but mostly in a condensed form. Glimpses. Everyone can then draw their own conclusions. For example, many police series stray far too much from the plot itself to deal with family traumas and other relationship issues. Of course, human being is a whole, but often too much emphasis is placed on these subplots.

Many people seem to be annoyed by the end of the series. The series is largely based on real events, including the names. In such cases, you cannot make your own artistic decisions. Personally, I liked the ending of the series. The way it affected the lives of the people involved.

It also reminded me of a case we had here in Finland. It was the case of Anneli Auer. She supposedly murdered her husband. However, the director of the investigation forbid the investigators of investigating Anneli Auer, even though she was the wife of the murdered and was present when the murder took place. Anneli Auer is an obvious psychopath and she was very good at manipulation. Anneli Auer was not taken as a suspect until two years after the murder, at which point no proper investigation could be carried out. The court acquitted Anneli Auer, even though she is very probably behind the murder of her husband. It really reminded this case in many ways.

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.

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.

A police procedural/investigative journalism series set in 2018 and following in Lørenskog, Norway. It's based on an actual case concerning a wealthy entrepreneur and the mysterious disappearance of his wife.

Each 50-minute episode looks at a different facet of the investigation, though the flow is chronological. Anne-Elisabeth Hagen is kidnapped at the beginning of the first episode. Her husband, Tom (Terje Strømdahl), is a wealthy billionaire. The kidnappers make ransom demands.

Jorunn Lakke (Yngvild Støen Grotmol) leads the police investigation along with her partner, Micael Delvir (Kidane Gjølme Dalva). Erlend Moe Riise (Christian Rubeck) is the lead journalist for the local paper; he appears to have informants within the police department that give him tips to influence the coverage. Aleks Zaretski (Victoria Ose) is another journalist who thinks the newspaper should pursue more theories.

The investigation stretches over two years as police and journalists encounter deadends, unconfirmed circumstantial evidence, questionable procedures, and unreliable sources. In addition, they encounter many potential villains, including Tom Hagen. Nevertheless, the story's final resolution is realistic.

This movie was fascinating to watch in the context of the "She said" film I recently watched that touted the necessity and doggedness of good investigative journalism. "The Lørenskog Disappearance" is more ambiguous, raising questions about the relationship between the press and the police and the possibility of tunnel vision hindering both investigations. I thought it was well done, though several storylines were left undeveloped, and a relatively large array of bad guys made following things difficult.