User reviews

Critically-lambasted musical adaptation of the successful play regarding the early years of Norwegian pianist/composer Edvard Greig (played by Toralv Maurstad, a Bruce Davison lookalike with oddly shaped eyes). Grieg--initially a rowdy scamp in the 1860s who pined after a lovely girl from a prominent family while trying to get his sonnets published--found himself frustratingly without a benefactor or any professional engagements in which to showcase his work, later marrying his cousin and barely scraping by giving piano lessons. For the most part, writer-director Andrew L. Stone has crafted a not uninteresting, frequently engaging romp with several intentionally funny asides and endearingly klutzy musical numbers. The on-location shooting in Norway and Denmark is lovely, even if the cinematography in general is poor and the editing mediocre. Frank Porretta is a robust presence as fellow composer Richard Nordraak (who sings to the heavens and, at one point, directly to Edvard while seated in a restaurant!). Yet, just about the time Grieg is gaining some prominence for his hard work, the narrative (loose to begin with) gets all balled up, with too many tragedies coming to a head at once. This patchy third-act, punctuated by a myriad of nature shots and sunsets, doesn't allow the viewer any emotional satisfaction, and the finale is flat. More genuine style and gloss was required, and classical purists will probably scoff, however the picture has a lively beginning. Results are far from terrible. ** from ****

SONG OF NORWAY is an unbearably dull musical pastiche of clichés heard in every musical ever made that purported to be the saga of a composer's struggles to find recognition for his music. Edvard Grieg's struggles are so dull as to be non-stop in this awful compilation of Norwegian scenery by the truckload with no story to carry it.

It is notable that the man who plays Grieg, TORALV MAURSTAD, never did make another American film, so disastrous were the reviews and box-office for this dull saga. Note also that FLORENCE HENDERSON was not able to make another film in Hollywood but went directly to television and stayed there for a very successful run on "The Brady Bunch". See the film and you will judge yourself why it was an abject failure. And don't be fooled by the presence of OSKAR HOMOLKA, EDWARD G. ROBINSON and ROBERT MORLEY in the cast. They have little or nothing to do.

Music lovers may be enchanted by Grieg's works, but not the way they are presented here. Nor is there any resemblance between the zestful SOUND OF MUSIC and its picturesque way of dealing with the Von Trapp Singers and this dull as dishwater musical that would work better as a travelogue of Norway with the plot excised.

See it at your own risk.

A horrible biography of composer Edvard Grieg's early life. It was shot on location in Scandanavia. The scenery is just beautiful and the music is fantastic--even the songs (based on Grieg's music) aren't bad. The problem? Everything else. The story is just non-stop clichés; the movie is way too long (2 1/2 hours); the dance numbers are badly staged and hysterically lousy and the acting...let's put it this way...Florence Henderson gives the best performance! Grieg himself is played by Toralv Mausted. Ever hear of him? Didn't think so. There's a reason for this. Also there are over FORTY songs shoved into this movie. Like I said, they aren't bad, but it gets to be a bit much after a while.

I'm giving this a 3 for the scenery and music but everything else is hopeless. Easily one of the worst musicals ever made. Too bad--the scenery is truly gorgeous.

I saw this as a little kid taking piano lessons and loving Grieg's music. (That was in San Francisco - maybe I saw it at the same theater, the Paramount, as one of our earlier commenters?) All of 10 years old, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suppose I wasn't a great judge of acting at that point, or of cinema in general (it was probably the third or fourth theatrical film I'd seen in my life at that point). So it was basically the music, voices, and scenery I was chewing on. I hadn't even heard the name "Carol Brady" then.

Haven't seen the film since, but I just wonder ... terrible compared to what? The soundtrack (a few cuts I have on a Grieg compilation) is miles better than the nursery-rhymes in Sound of Music, and for the most part the transliterated lyrics aren't a travesty. Florence Henderson doesn't make me gag any more than Julie Andrews or any other too-clean-and-scrubbed actor in the business. And what's wrong with casting an actual Norwegian as Grieg instead of ... I dunno, from the same era ... George Peppard? The movie even had a nice animated sequence for the kids.

Song of Norway was unlucky enough to arrive at the absolute tail end of the road-show-spectacular era of movie musicals, and I'm sure a lot of critics just had indigestion by that point, following Paint Your Wagon (with a singing, dancing Clint Eastwood!), Camelot (a singing, non-dancing Richard Harris!), The Happiest Millionaire (a singing, dancing Fred MacMurray!), and Darling Lili (Dame Julie's nadir). So what's so much worse about Song of Norway?

Got something against Scandinavian composers?!

I saw this one when I was in high school. I had been warned ahead of time, but I liked classical music, including Grieg, and ignored the warnings. I remember several things about it that really sum the film up, in my opinion.

1. The photography was stunning. Snow, fjords, and Norwegian towns and scenery were really pretty, as were the folk costumes.

2. Grieg's music was nice to listen to, though as in all films about composers, they only give samplings.

Those are the good parts. The bad parts were what sank the boat. There wasn't much of a story. Greig's life wasn't as exciting as many other composers lives, and a lot was padded to keep the story going for 2 or 3 hours. I remember a lot of overacting as well. But the worst part of all was the directing. Forever emblazoned upon my memory is the hideously clichéd scene where Grieg, his wife, and someone else spread their arms and run across a green field, stop on a hillock, and spin around to face the audience. Then they do the same thing again - and again! If that's not enough to make you give up, then nothing is.

The team of Robert Wright and Chet Forrest adapted the music of Edvard Grieg into a biographical operetta as they later did for Alexander Borodin in Kismet and it ran on Broadway for 860 performances in 1944-46.

In many ways the film shows imagination. The location cinematography in Norway and Denmark is spectacular and obviously influenced by the Sound Of Music as are the musical numbers. There's an animated sequence involving In The Hall Of The Mountain King that is most imaginative.

But the pace is that of escargot. The actors get no real direction at all. Some movie scene stealers like Edward G. Robinson and Oscar Homolka and Robert Morley have their own bag of tricks which are used.

The plot is simply promising composer Edvard Grieg is forbidden marriage to Christina Schollin by her rich dad Robert Morley. He marries Florence Henderson who sings well and probably was hoping she'd break into the big screen stardom after years on the Brady Bunch. The bad reviews Song Of Norway got killed any chance of that. Schollin who never married becomes Grieg's patron instead.

Toralv Maurstad is a big name in Norwegian cinema. But this also killed his career for international stardom.

But if you like the music of Grieg, Song of Norway is for you.

I seriously don't know how to describe this movie. I'll start with my obvious statement, that I'm not necessarily a big fan of musicals (quite the contrary) and while I will write that I also didn't enjoy "Sound of Music" as much, I am aware that some/many will dislike my comment here.

But it's not as much about other musicals, as it is about this particular musical, the Song of Norway. Even people who love musicals despise this film, which brings me to my theory. This film might be a comedy after all. It might be a genius thought of the director, dragging the musical down the road and showing it with so much sugar coated (music) numbers, that it really takes the wind of the drama and anything else. You could say then, that this was a master plan ... but on the other hand, it still doesn't make it an entertaining view. Far from it. Nice cinematography/landscapes though ...

Pretty much universally reviled (Pauline Kael: "You can't get angry at something this stupefying; it seems to have been made by trolls"), this earnest biography of Edvard Grieg at least tries to be more honest and less howlingly purple than the stage success it's based on. Plenty is wrong with it: Random location filming, haphazard editing, too many reaction shots of adorable smiling kids, a useless animated sequence, Lee Theodore's cumbersome run-jump-hop choreography. But there are things to enjoy, too. Toralv Maurstad is a personable and convincing Grieg, Florence Henderson sings beautifully and plays a trite role with some conviction, Frank Poretta and Harry Secombe have thrilling tenors, the picture-postcard settings are at least pretty, and fun guest stars keep turning up: Edward G. Robinson, Oscar Homolka, Robert Morley. The Grieg music is, of course, lovely, and when you compare it to the other bloated musicals Hollywood was turning out at the time in a quest to find another "Sound of Music," it looks relatively unpretentious and diverting. Andrew L. Stone, who made a good musical once upon a time ("Stormy Weather"), directs well enough, though his wife Virginia's editing is hopeless. Wholesome and dramatically inert as it is, I have some fondness for it, and here's a surprise: In the end, it did make a little money.

Gorgeous music, horrible acting. Not much more to say because a plot is nonexistant. Music and scenery are about all I remember from the movie.

You will be amazed at the just how bad a film should you see this film. There is not a single fade or dissolve used for scene transitions in the entire film. It is amazing that in the middle of a scene people turn, the scene cuts and -- bang! -- we are transported in time and space. It takes a minute or two to figure out where we are. But it gets worse... you will find that Grieg, now matter what you think of his music, is hardly suitable for slapping a few words on top and pretending it's a pretty song.

I'm afraid the actors aren't all that good either. The lead, Toralv Maurstad, has a course voice and stiff acting style. When his friend George (Bernard Archard) sings about the beauty of Norway, he stares as if dead. Florence looks so very young, and she does have a very nice voice. She's the high point to the cast.

The shots of Norway, while picturesque, are just crammed into scenes that are ridiculous. Even Sound of Music motivates the exterior shots, but not this film. We just cut in the middle of a scene and show a pretty waterfall or a goat. Yes, a goat is cut between a musical number and a conversation with two actors. I think this may be a comment on the song, but it could reflect on the acting.

Overall this is one ugly film and the only compelling reason is either to torment your friends and family or to take a look at Florence Henderson as a young woman. Otherwise ... rent something else.

Ignoring the scathingly critical reviews for this bomb, I paid admission to the Cinerama Dome Theater in Hollywood, California during its first-run engagement because I knew that the 70mm/stereo presentation at that theater, especially designed for the viewing of big-screen extravaganzas, would be optimal. Norway is a country I have always wanted to visit and the agony of viewing this film was insufficient to lessen that lifelong dream. But what a nightmare it was! I note that Frank Porretta, listed in the credits, had appeared in a stage production of "The Song of Norway" in Los Angeles and he had received special praise for his expressive singing and masculine stage presence. But you will note that his filmography consists of just this one title. Talk about the proverbial "Kiss of Death"!

The only clear memory I have of that evening's experience at the Cinerama Dome were the loud and ecstatic exclamations emanating from some poor soul in the audience, unprovoked, as far as I could tell, by anything happening on the massively curved screen. She sat off to the side and her outbursts were the prime source of entertainment as the film's lengthy reels unspooled. Management did not eject her, perhaps because she sat through every showing, considerably boosting the meager box-office receipts. Her overwhelming pleasure, I shall always prefer to think, was, perhaps, due to her longing to revisit (I'm presuming here) her native Norway, this film's handsomest attribute.

Florence Henderson's karma must have been extraordinarily good, since her role as the matriarch on TV's long-running and insanely popular family sitcom, "The Brady Bunch," began its hold on the hearts and minds of so many American moppets while coinciding with the theatrical release of this surefire career-killer. She must be a tolerant soul for, were I to enjoy the residuals which must flood her bank account year after year during the syndication of "The Brady Bunch," I'd have long ago investigated the cost of permanently suppressing all evidence of this turkey.

To call this thing ''bad'', is really doing it a disservice. It's actually beyond unbearable-a clear and relentlessly clumsy attempt to cash in on the tremendous success of ''The Sound Of Music''. If that wasn't enough, it features Edward G. Robinson and Florence Henderson in the SAME movie. Kind of like Pat Boone and Ann-Margret in the 1962 remake of ''State Fair''. No, Robinson and Henderson are not paired romantically. But they might as well have been-everything else in this so-called''Biography'' of Edvard Grieg is hilariously over the top, with everyone trying in vain to compete with the gorgeous location photography and substituting acting with simpers and bright, glassy smiles. Lucky for Florence, ''The Brady Bunch'' was just around the corner-because this ridiculous ''epic''pretty much killed her film career.Though the singing is fine, the music is not Grieg's best, and it's simply used as background for the scenery-which, by the second hour of this fiasco, begins to resemble one of those nature films which occasionally show up in small towns, accompanied by the Producer/Director who narrates it in person. One reviewer at the time this was first released stated: ''It seems to have been made by Trolls''. And not very talented ones, at that. Gives poor Norway a bad name.Not to mention Trolls....

This is quite simply the worst movie I've ever seen, barring low-budge horror flicks. For a big-budget film, this is the bottom of the barrel. The acting is atrocious; the music is lousy even though it is Grieg. The attempts to put lyrics to Grieg's music is ludicrous. As pretty as a postcard and just as interesting!

The reason Song of Norway is not hailed as a classic like The Sound Of Music is simple- the acting stinks. The music is wonderful, ditto the voices of Florence Henderson (Who backed up Mary Martin in the Broadway version of TSOM) and Frank Porretta. But once they stop singing, and Grieg (Toralv Maurstad(?)) stops playing, the whole thing just sits their like a cold smorgasbord- it looks very good, but it isn't really that appetizing. There is no warmth or rapport between any two of the leads. The bit parts by Mssrs. Robinson, Homolka, and Morley don't last long enough for anyone to forget how uninspiring the whole thing is. It is doubly so when the characters are talking, and there is a shot of the magnificent Norwegian landscape in the background. You'd think the dialogue could at least try to compete with the scenery. As it is, it comes in a distant third, behind the sweeping vistas and the music.

By comparison, TSOM had first-rate actors with a first-rate script, songs by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and a budget large enough to support them all. If Julie Andrews was a little too sugary, well, at least she could act. And there was nothing sugary about her escape from Austria with the family.

In the end, Song of Norway is dressed up with wonderful location shooting and memorable tunes, but the acting leaves this film with no place to go.

"Song of Norway" is a biopic about the life of Edvard Grieg, the dullest composer who ever lived if this film is an accurate portrayal of his life. It's filled with lots of goofy and forgettable songs and manages to both make the viewer hate Grieg as well as swear to NEVER visit Norway. As for me, I've been to Norway a few times...but this was before I saw this awful movie. Fortunately, the country wasn't much like the film.

On the positive side, the film looks very nice...bright, colorful and full of earnest actors. But the acting, singing and production are terribly dull and the story seems like it's nine hours long! The only reason I could see anyone watching this is to see the novelty of Florence Henderson starring in a musical...but that novelty wears off very quickly.

By the time that the musical "Song of Norway" was released to theaters, the theatrical market had been saturated with many other musicals for the past few years, enough so that it was getting much harder to attract audiences to see these movies. That probably explains why this movie, while not an outright flop, all the same underperformed greatly. But while the declining market may partially explain why the movie failed at the box office, I think that there is a bigger reason for the lack of audience interest. That reason being that the movie is pretty bad. For starters, the musical numbers - the backbone of any musical - just don't cut it. None of the songs are memorable, except how often awkward they sound. Also, the movie goes on for far too long (142 minutes!) and is obviously being padded out. A worse problem with the story, however, is that none of it is particularly interesting. From this movie, Edvard Grieg's life doesn't seem to have been very exciting, mainly consisting of several long years of tedious rejections from his contemporaries until he finally broke through. Even the marriage to his cousin, and pining for another woman while married to his cousin, don't feel the least controversial or interesting. The only thing the movie has going for it is its magnificent photography, which clearly shows how beautiful the Scandinavian countryside is. But you would be better off watching a travelogue show on TV instead.

As a lifelong fan of classical music and who has liked/loved a fair share of musical/composer biopics ('Amadeus' being one of my all time favourite films), there was a lot of interest seeing this biopic about Edvard Grieg, Norway's greatest composer.

It does pain me to say it, but 'Song of Norway' was a huge disappointment. Others have explained very well the numerous big flaws it has, and there is not much to add. As a biographical drama, it is a disaster, one of the worst to exist outside of a few good things. As a film on its own, 'Song of Norway' is also not much better. This is coming from somebody who really wanted to like it and was prepared to go against the grain/general consensus, which has happened before though critics and I are also often in agreement.

There are good points about 'Song of Norway'. The scenery is absolutely gorgeous and matched by some lovingly rendered cinematography. Grieg's music, while deserving better treatment being deserving of larger, longer extracts and a less 'The Sound of Music'-esque, except far more cloyingly cutesy (actually love 'The Sound of Music' as a film but that approach sounded wrong here), treatment, is a sheer wonderful delight.

Florence Henderson gives the best, and only, good performance. She actually looks engaged and the only person to make a lot of her role.

'Song of Norway' has so much wrong with it, however, including the single stiffest, dullest and severely erratically characterised (both over and under) performance of any composer on film, there may have been composers with more colourful personalities and more interesting personal lives, like Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt, Verdi, Wagner and Schumann (four of whom had biopics that did them justice), but Grieg was not this uninteresting.

Don't expect Robert Morley, Oskar Homolka or Edward G. Robinson to save things, they are given nothing to do and only Robinson makes effort to bring dignity despite being completely wasted. And how can you have interesting real life figures like Liszt, Andersen and Ibsen and do so little with them? It is the storytelling and direction where 'Song of Norway' most falls down. The film is far too long, easily could have done with being 45 minutes shorter, and goes along at a snail's pace with so much flimsy drama and static staging of musical scenes which makes the film often deadly dull. The direction is amateurishly static.

Editing should have been tighter and the dialogue is horrendously stilted.

All in all, a deadly dull mess aside from good production values, great music and one good performance. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Technically there is much to complain about in this film, which unfortunately mobilized all prejudices against it, which is a pity, because it's a great story, the actors are all superb, especially the old ones (Edward G. Robinson, Robert Morley and Harry Secombe as a perfectly convincing Björnstjerne Björnson), while Frank Poretta is number one as Rikard Nordraak, and it's really his story and tragedy that is being told. The music is all Grieg, his piano concerto dominates the whole film in various arrangements in both songs and ballets, and the dance sequences are all gorgeous, often with children, always in local costumes. It is very Norwegian in style, almost flippant in outbursts of great energetic humor and towering enthusiasm, which at times is difficult to follow in its high spirits and acrobatics, but above all the settings make this film something to return to at times with renewed pleasure, in spite of the overwhelming tragedy it recounts, - which, it should be pointed out, is a true story. I have seen it now 3 times found it better every time.

I saw this movie (with my parents) when it first came out. The whole family agreed that it was a stinker. It was boring. The acting - if you could call it that - was horrible. Do not waste your time by watching this movie. It definitely belongs on the IMDB worst 100 list. After all these years, it instantly comes to mind any time someone asks me what the worst movie I've ever seen is.

Adjectives fail this film. "Dreadful" isn't enough. "Awful" seems mild. "Stupifyingly bad" can't convey the experience of it, either. If you are familiar with the poet Helen Steiner Rice, imagine one of her poems set to film and you will begin to dimly grasp how bad, how truly bad, how amazingly bad this motion picture is. Imagine a trailer park filled with lobotomized people sitting in lawn chairs watching a version of "The Sound of Music" made on the cheap especially for them. Imagine the film being projected on a bedsheet attached with clothes pins to a wash line. Imagine the wind blowing. Imagine no one paying attention. Then imagine you are there and you are shackled to a stake in the ground so that you cannot escape the evening's entertainment unless you chew off your own foot. If you can imagine all this, you can imagine the witch's brew of butchered classical music, litter-free travelogue sterility, and lifeless robotic acting that was captured for eternity on one unlucky batch of film stock from the Kodak factory and slapped with the label, "Song of Norway." It is truly the worst film ever made. The only advantage of viewing it is that from that day forth, ANYTHING you see at the movies will look passable by comparison. And I do mean ANYTHING.

The songs are awful. Florence Henderson and the two men she shares the screen with are actually good in their roles although the two males were not heard from again after the film. The story is actually touching between Nina and Grieg. It is too long and tries too hard to be another "Sound of music". It doesn't even come close but has it's own charms. To sum it all up would have been better if it were not so long and some of the songs had been cut. It wastes the talents of the three leads. The scenery as mentioned is beautiful but does not hide the weakness of the film. It would have played better if the script was better.