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.
