MovieChat Forums > Bølgen (2015) Discussion > There are simply too many morons in this...

There are simply too many morons in this movie!

posted 8 years ago by Bro2
28 replies | jump to latest

While the production is fairly decent, at least for Norwegian standards, there is one gigantic problem with this movie. The problem of can best be described as "The moron technique", where screenwriters use the cheap effect of having stupid people do stupid things to create suspense.

It's not good entertainment, so why do these people insist on creating movies filled with morons? There are just too many face-palm scenes in this movie to take it seriously, and the lords of the morons are the geologists who are supposed to be monitoring the mountains for signs of a possible avalanche. The exception is the main character played by Kristoffer Joner, who's the only one that seems to understand what the point of their work is.

People able to secure such jobs cannot not be as stupid as those depicted in the movie, and making them stupid to cause suspense is simply lazy screenwriting. The cringe worthy stupidity depicted is so overwhelming that any entertainment value is lost, at least for me.

Secondly there is another problem with this movie, and that is the overuse of cliches. The movie is just peppered with silly cliches that make watching this movie an even more frustrating and experience. The movie makers seem to have watched too many Hollywood movies, and tried their best to copy as many cliches they could come up with.

How this movie got such great reviews by Norwegian reviewers is a mystery. 4/10.

[–] ProfessorPatPending 8 years ago

Exactly the script was appallingly bad.

Spoilers ahead -

As you said you had idiotic Geologists who hesitated in pushing the alarm button even when they are told by those who are in the middle of the avalanche that it was starting. Then you have the ridiculous story about the family which was written specifically so they could shove every cliché known to the film industry.

The wife said while packing that they were all leaving the next day, yet in the very next shot she was telling the neighbours she is staying. Why? And where? She travels to her hotel reception desk job on her bike with her uniform in a small bag while her home is now void of any furniture at all. Maybe the few days she needs to be there, she will work continously without sleeping. That would explain why she worked both the day and night shift and her son had to check into the hotel rather than crash in her room. Let's not explain why hubby and daughter couldn't just say goodbye to the house and return to the hotel later that evening, especially as he wanted to make amends with his mrs. It surely isn't that far, wife cycled smiling all the way and arrived without a sweat.

Then when the sirens were sounding no one seemed to know what to do, they all had to be told, even those who probably lived there all their lives. I almost lost it when the Marvin the depressed bus driver refused to drive the damn bus to safety. Why did they toss that in, it was beyond stupid. The only person at the hotel who knew what the siren was is the overworked wife who read some obviously dusty instruction manual which she must have dug out of a secret draw no one had ever opened. Maybe if the hotel which I presume was a 3 star pretending to be a more posh one, had some kind of drill just in case, or at least told employees without them needing to work it out on the hoof, it may have saved lives. But I am glad that even in the height of the season they only had about 15 guests to be responsible for. Why was there a shelter? If it was built to withstand a tsunami, it was both ill equipped and pretty useless, it didn't even have emergency lighting. Surely Norway has some hotel safety standards they need to live up to, it was a death trap. Why did they think it was a good idea to turn on the electric power board while standing waist deep in water? Would anyone above the age of 7 do that? Glad she delayed the bus long enough that they couldn't make it out on time or maybe she would have to kill more of the guests. The film was like a parody of disaster movies.

The scenery was stunning and the tsunami pretty spectacular even if the story was stupid.

[–] tecnogaming 8 years ago

I'm sorry you didn't liked the movie, I liked it a lot and I watch lots of disaster movies and I think this one was carefully crafted for our characters.

I think if you watch the movie closely, that everything is understandable, from the point of view of the characters, none except our main lead was sure of what they were doing, the main lead was the one leading actually and they all respond to him, each time. They try and function as a team and do what is expected of them but it is our main lead the one with the sufficient knoledge to call the shots.

All the stupid mistakes, totally understandable, people do stupid things when stressed, specially if something like this should happen, I don't think it deserved such a harsh critic.

Watch 15 minutes of San Andreas and it will be 10 times worse than this movie. Yeah, because flying a helicopter in the mist of huge buildings falling off and get away with it it's BELIEVABLE and then go on a boat and defy a huge wave, complete with a ship, going against you and get away with it like a boss.

If you critize this movie being a parody of disaster movies, then I'm sure all other disaster movies are a Parody of a Parody.

Alex Vojacek

[–] ProfessorPatPending 8 years ago

None except the lead knew what they were doing? Why not? That was one of the most ridiculous bits of the film. The team of Geologists should have known, this is what they specialise in and some silly concern over it being tourist season was beyond stupid. They wouldn't have hesitated in pushing the button or actually doing their job. Why was there alarms on some of their warning devices yet the ones which tell you something more serious is occurring they didn't have alarms set up?

As they said in the beginning of the film they were waiting for that specific event to happen, yet they ALL needed to be told by the Geologist and his wife (after reading a pamphlet minutes before) what to do? People that live in these type of places where disasters are expected at some time do know what to do. kids would have been told from school age or younger from their parents that they have 10 minutes. It wasn't something out of the blue and a secret project the Geologists were working on, they had warning sirens in the streets specifically for this event. The town didn't have an evacuation plan, they know they only had 10 minutes but no plan and no knowledge from the locals - stupid.

I can understand the bus driver not waiting until the hotel had their weirdly small number of peak season guests outside ready to get on the bus but his reaction was dumb. He was so calm and just looked sad. What was his plan? Stand calmly in front of the tsunami screaming, I am ready, take me now? If there was a huge bottle neck up the mountain and everyone knows they have less than 10 minutes why was every person sitting so calmly in the traffic jam? Why not use both lanes? Who would have been coming down the hill towards the tsunami?

The hotel set up story was so stupid. They had a tsunami proof basement built for a tsunami? They were on the water's edge, it would have flooded or remained underwater no matter what. Why build one there? Why didn't they take their guests there? That was why it was built.

San Andreas was just as stupid, why compare the two?

[–] tecnogaming 8 years ago

Isn't that the purpose of the movie?

To show people's reaction to this disaster?.

If you analyze how people react on this sort of scenario you will find TONS of people who behave like the bus driver, you can be prepared all you want, but when you didn't experienced an even like this for generations, it's not that easy to put people in alert mode and do what it's asked.

It's not the same as people that lives in areas with tremors or people that experience tornados, this areas are always experiencing this sort of events and people are psychologically prepared.

I think the whole idea of the movie is to show that people is usually not prepared for something like this and it was nicely shown, if all people follow the plan to the letter it would be unrealistic and the movie would had been super-boring (i may add).

About the main lead...

This thing happened WAY too fast, they were properly trained to deal with it but not THIS fast, our main lead is someone who may be called a "sensitive person", there are in any profesion this sorts of people. These people uses their sixth sense to gather information that other people wont.

This guy was not only a very experienced man, it was sensitive, that's why he asked his team to cuadruple check everything and he ended his work, why they didn't react sooner.

If he didn't had his head on leaving, he would probably be able to detect it even sooner and more lives could be saved, but the point of the movie is exactly THAT. This kind of thing happens in the moment you least expect it to.

I still think the movie was very nicely done.

Alex Vojacek

[–] ProfessorPatPending 8 years ago

Surely the purpose of a movie like this is to entertain, not to be a serious character study. And for me, it failed to entertain me as I couldn't suspend my disbelief that many times without the film having some fun and tongue in cheek moments. They tried to make it too serious and because of this it failed miserably.

You cannot possibly think it is more real if every person acts like a numpty. There was not one person who threw caution to the wind and did something out of the box like drive past the line of traffic which every person sat there with the same blank expression I see every morning during peak hour, or anyone running up the hill.

Even putting aside people's reactions, how about the absurdity of other things? The town had NO evacuation plan at all other than drive up a road. Where were the police who surely would be leading people to safety or would they also move around like a depressed zombie? Why is there only one way of leaving? Wouldn't there be some lift or stairs which can take you straight up in an emergency such as this? How did they outrun the tsunami? Not only the hotel people but the little girl and the others running up the mountain? He was seconds with moving the car and they were swallowed; they didn't just get swept off the mountain, but those running uphill can outrun it? Why was the hotel still intact and mostly untouched except for a conveniently placed boat and no obstructions from any debris including hotel debris in the hallways?

What was the purpose of this so called tsunami shelter. That was so, so stupid. Why would you build a shelter under the water level of the waterfront hotel? Then let's talk about the design of this deathtrap. It was supposed to be waterproof, yet the air shaft was just a normal airconditioning shaft you see in other movies which was not waterproof and was connected to the hotel which could have been under water. And this wasn't supposed to leak? What was the mysterious force of water after they opened and closed the door? The tsunami was over and other than the basement, the hotel was dry so if it didn't leak during the tsunami, and they could close the door back up again it wouldn't have this force trying to get in like Freddie Kruger it would have settled like swimming pool. Why didn't the shelter have emergency lighting? The rest of the hotel did (well kind of, you did see 2 which were conveniently on in the hallway where he was walking. Why was there a power board in the underwater room? Why would a calm and in control woman even touch this while waist deep in water? Why did it even work? What was it for? That is why you have emergency lighting.

As I said, other than the beautiful scenery and the actual CGI tsunami, there wasn't anything that I liked about this film. Much better films about disasters and tsunamis, and this was a bog standard disaster film which pretended to be something more serious. There was nothing fun about watching it.

[–] tecnogaming 8 years ago

I had a lot of fun watching it, I suppose there is a definitve personal taste involved in how a person enjoys a movie.

I will agree with you, about the scene in the bunker, it was stupid, and the resurrection scene too, it was done to extend the movie and make it somewhat dramatic but it was overused, aside from that I liked it and it's not hollywood and it's always nice to see a movie not coming from hollywood.

Alex Vojacek

[–] ProfessorPatPending 8 years ago

I agree that they should be attempting these kinds of films and the Norwegians have done some great action films. I don't care if they are hard to believe as long as they don't try to take it too seriously. Headhunters for example was a great film.

I would have enjoyed it if they went down a more believable route. Lo impossible for instance stayed more or less on a realistic course with some bits changed for effect and that worked. In fact the bits that I think didn't were the add ins. The film could have been better if for instance they had have had a few more characters from the town as a close knit community and had a build up to the tsunami not making one person superman. Made it realistic with a proper evacuation plan, people running up steps, panic, you can have a lot of tension and character flaws in people just don't have every character wandering around with a constipated look on their faces. Just make the thing believable, just a touch of realism would suffice.

[–] tecnogaming 8 years ago

Yes, I definetly agree on showing the town people more and also, more scenes of people with panic, I think they got very short on money they decided to just skip it, why they show that water scene inside the car, that scene was NOT good, I would of prefer they show the actual impact of the wave instead of showing us 2 people inside a car with water, but I think they didn't have enough funding to film it full-frame.

Maybe with your slight changes the money necesary would had escalated. Sometimes, making it more realistic requires much more money than what you have, specially for a movie about a whole town about to get hit by a giant wave, more actors, more script, more everything.

Alex Vojacek

[–] ProfessorPatPending 8 years ago

Yeah, that is why Hollywood can do these movies rather successfully because they don't have money issues. Harald Rosenløw-Eeg is a capable dramatic screen writer but I think action movies do require a different approach and this is where I feel was the problem. It was too dramatic and going for such a serious screen play needed some sort of accuracy.

They wouldn't have needed too much more money, the effects I thought were pretty good, they needed to expand the roles of the actors they already had (the supporting actors had too little to work with) and maybe swapped their characters jobs around. Most could have been filmed on the street and mountain. However that may be a problem due to filming it around tourists who do flock to Geiranger. I don't know, to me it was a wasted opportunity but I do hope they keep trying to make these kinds of films. The cinematographer was excellent.

[–] BiggusD 8 years ago

You are assuming too much, finding holes where there are none.

Geiranger does not have a second escape route. It is a real place, and they don't have regular evacuation drills. There are tsunami warning systems in place, and in real life they would have gotten hours to flee not ten minutes. The movie presumes human error to create suspense, otherwise it would be pointless. People were driving up the one road leading out of the place because they knew what the sirens meant, and I doubt there really are permanent police, fire and healthcare forces in place given the size of the town.

The shelter in the hotel's basement was obviously not a tsunami shelter.

The hotel was completely destroyed after the tsunami, I don't know where you get "intact" from.

All the plot holes you seemed to notice presumes a preparedness-level that is non-existent in this town, precisely because no-one knows when the wave will come. Take a look at the videos from the 2004 Thailand tsunami. How did those people react? Did they run determinedly to higher ground while making only right calls, or where they standing on the beach wondering if what they saw was real?

In your imaginary world, people react to threats with a focused decisiveness. In the real world, most people are actually snoozing through life and will freeze in place and act irrationally when under serious threat.

[–] ProfessorPatPending 8 years ago

Geiranger does have another escape route. In fact they don't tell people to drive out of it but to walk up the many evacuation routes they have up the mountainside. They have a lot of cruise ships docking with loads of tourists, none of them would have cars to escape. And the police are trained to take control and get everyone out safely.

The hotel safety brochure she was reading said it was the tsunami basement. The hotel was also intact afterwards (a long shot showed that) What do you think he was walking through? He walked past the reception desk and there was a small boat peeking through the window. For goodness sakes even the wall lights were mainly still on the walls with small random fires burning.

[–] Pohjanakka 8 years ago

I just saw the movie. Yes, there were logic holes, there always is, but in general I liked it. Except for one scene.

The part which irritated me was the wife's rush to look for the son while leaving the bus full of the guests standing in front of the hotel, rather obviously expecting them to wait.

That would be an understandable reaction in real life, perhaps, but her job would have been to get the people to safety. She should have told them to leave. She was the one in charge because she was the only one there who seemed to know what to do, and because of that responsible for the others. Many lives over one and all that. She should have told them to leave, then gone after her son alone while trying to figure out what to do if she found him in time.

As it was the movie pretty clearly made her responsible for their deaths. Perhaps it was sort of creative to see one of the standard character types - the one who selfishly puts herself and hers above all other lives - as one of the heroes and survivors instead of getting the karmic death she probably would have gotten in most similar movies.

Well, maybe I am too used to the Hollywood version of these movies. Nevertheless I didn't like it.

Compared to that what she did to the panicking man, well, I had no problems with that. But I did with the bus.

(And the son was quite the wimp. Sorry, but he was. Again, maybe realistic but... Couldn't they have given him at least one moment to shine by finding his courage? Okay, there was the CPR, but that was more of a desperation than a courage move. :D )

[–] somethingclever1 8 years ago

It was infuriating to watch the geologists, whose only job is to give people time to escape, acting like such complete and utter morons. I can accept them ignoring the first sign (when a couple of sensors or whatever stopped working). The level of stupidity it would take to ignore everything after that without sounding the alarm is unfathomable. They were too dumb to be greeters at a walmart (not that walmart greeters are dumb just that their job doesn't require much in the way of brains).

The rest wasn't much better. Forced or cliched situations to create suspense. The only thing that wasn't entirely predictable was Idun having to kill the panicked husband. That was a bit surprising.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (52800787) 8 years ago

ProfessorPatPending, you are going on and on about the "tsunami shelter." It wasn't one. It was said very clearly in the movie, more than once, that it was a bomb shelter.

[–] Sundance-A-Kid 7 years ago

Wow - you must a lot of fun, constantly pointing out every little foible and scratch possible to ensure no fun can be had. Are you seriously analysing a disaster movie for inconsistencies? This is not a documentary. It is a classically structured disaster movie. It follows the rules of every disaster movie ever made. Could you point out the disaster film (not based on a true story) that does not follow this structure? No. Exactly. When approaching a film with the intent of creating a genre piece then check out the rules - then see how well you can execute them.

This film did all this very well (SPOILERS):
Happy family getting ready for great change - check
Dad who is an expert on what is going to happen - check
Dad is the only on who knows what is coming - check
Everyone else is more concerned about money, jobs, lunch break etc.. - check
Once disaster hits main sceptic dies - check
Disaster separates family - check
Other people's wife/mother/daughter dies so we understand the horror - check
Dad survives miraculously then goes to find others despite believing they are probably dead - check
Dad almost dies but doesn't and reconciles with family - check

All disaster films have these events - with the odd character shift here and there.

And believability? That has never been the criteria for this genre. The genre is essentially about family and what we do for those we love and those we don't in a situation of emergency. The rest is spectacle. Hollywood has a tendency to get carried away with the spectacle part, creating wildly unrealistic disaster situations (2012, San Andreas, Day after tomorrow, Volcano, Dante's Peak, Inferno etc..). But this film is rooted in something that has happened and will again - hence the serious tone.

The key to a good disaster movie is how much you care about the characters and how well the disaster is built up. This film did that better than most - it felt far more realistic. The disaster itself was well handled, subtle and smaller in scale than most others. The lower budget forced the film makers to come up with more nuanced ways of dealing with the visuals. If you were too caught up in calling it out for the odd inconsistency then this is not the genre for you.

PS - most Scandinavian hotels have shelters. Why? An in-built paranoia perhaps? I don't know. But they do.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lalo_greiner 8 years ago

Yap. Yap. I couldn't have said it better.

[–] johnstonnyc-73406 8 years ago

About the tsunami shelter you write about: I thought the mother specifically referred to it as a Bomb shelter. If that was the case, it would answer some of your questions why it was stupid as a tsunami shelter. (Not sure why the hotel would have a bomb shelter though. Lol). But if it was indeed for a tsunami you are totally right about how bad that was.

[–] mandycw 8 years ago

Bomb shelter. You, know...from the world wars. not tsunami shelter.

[–] benman46 8 years ago

And also starting threads like this.

[–] Bro2 8 years ago

So no arguments then?

[–] benman46 8 years ago

What's the point.

[–] Bro2 8 years ago

Yeah, no point if you have no arguments.

[–] kascha-klaussen 8 years ago

The "LORDS" of the morons. Ahahahaha!

[–] astros 8 years ago

I quite liked the movie, but I did find the morons a bit frustrating.

Norwegian Norman Reedus: (frantically) "Get them out of there!"

Dumb control center lady: (calmly) "What do you mean?"

Me: HE MEANS GET THEM OUT OF THERE, BITCH!

Perhaps something got lost in the English translation, but I've seen this type of thing in so many movies I'm guessing it's not too far off.

[–] Bro2 8 years ago

I can assure you, nothing was lost in the translation. It's really this stupid. I remember specifically that scene where I started screaming at the screen.

[–] screen14 8 years ago

According to the opening back story, the last landslide and massive flood to occur was more than 100 years prior to the time our story takes place. As a result, the townspeople, tourists, and people who monitor activity in the earth's surface became complacent. People didn't understand the depth and gravity of a landslide until it was too late.

Structurally, the hotel building was probably a total loss, so I wouldn't say it was intact per se.

The shelters provided refuge from a tsunami of lesser magnitude, just like the Titanic had only 20 lifeboats in the event of an emergency evacuation. People don't prepare for the worst thing imaginable, because it typically costs more money than people have. Otherwise, we would all have a reinforced steel bunker in our homes with a fully stocked pantry to survive any number of years, and there would be enormous ships like in "2012" waiting to depart at a moment's notice along every shoreline. You just can't expect that. The hotel was prepared to a reasonable extent, and I'm sure there were other components that would've been enacted as part of the evacuation if the hotel staff had more warning.

[–] mandycw 8 years ago

bomb shelter under the hotel. Not tsunami shelter.