... why is everything on fire after a big wave has hit? That's my only beef with this movie, otherwise I was mightily impressed with both the visual and sound effects.
shareYeah, thats one of the many things i questioned during this movie. Also, I've never seen a movie with this many cliches. Deep Impact 2: Bølgen. Norsk filmindustri, there is no hope.
"I told the others, they didn't believe me. You're all doomed. You're all doomed."
[deleted]
I think the issue is NOT that there were fires. Ive seen the burning tsunami wreckage. But the that hotel was laden with literaly dozens of tiny 1 foot high fires scattered on the edges of rooms and corridors that had no explanation and didnt seem to grow or sputter or anything, but made handy light sources. the most damn convenient fires ever. They looked a bit silly once you saw the second corridoor full of convenient little fires, while the next floor down was constantly flooding with water, from. ... somewhere.
shareWell I just thought it was all the cars crushed beyond repair filled with flamable gas :P But it was just an assumption, they probably overdid it for dramatic effect. But as he was in a middle of a huge line of cars, and ended up in a even bigger pile of crushed ones, I didn't even question it.
As for the clichés, I laughed at the resicitation scene. The 'one person give up, and the other one goes "no I won't give up" and tries for like three more seconds and it works'-thing. In the ending scene I actually cried a tear, but thats because I'm a sucker for touching moments.
As for why the whole family survived, I don't know if they wanted just a Hollywood ending or if it's more behind it. But the story is not just based on what's going to happen, it's also based on what has happened before (as shown in clips at the beginning of the movie). The last catastrophe was just 79 years ago, some of the survivors are still alive. They might want to be respectful. I don't know.
- Are you retarded?
- Yes but that's not relevant
I really enjoyed this film. Geology, survival, and local Norway. Woohoo!
Yeah, agree about the fire thing. Too many, but I guess it was for the sake of the filmmaking/storytelling, like to be able to see anything. In reality, everything would be totally dark, covered in mud, and much more debris littered.
I was thinking that there should have been a second wave as all that displaced water washed back down the fjord.
Secondly, I was thinking... if I had about 10 minutes to gain about 85 metres of elevation (less than a football field) and my life depended on it, I think I might have tried just bushwacking it straight up the side (not just following the switchback road). (and YES, I currently live in a fjord and have climbed Class 3 scrambles straight up the side of many Norwegian mountains, including Trollstigen, and know it's possible).
***spoilers alert****
Finally, it's really unfortunate that other helpful couple also lost their lives for her personal search. Of course one searches for a loved one in a crisis, but delaying, even for a few seconds, the departure of the bus full of hotel guests was irresponsible and selfish on her part. It probably did not effect the eventual fate of those on that bus anyway. Perhaps the point was to further demonstrate that she was a strong character willing to do anything for her family (even kill or put others at risk). It was an interesting ethical twist which might read as well outside of Norway, I thought.
Did anyone else notice BTW that Idun was in a skirt suit just before the disaster, but somehow has changed to slacks for the swimming/CPR scene?
I wonder how you would fare if you went to top floor of the hotel building (On Google Maps, it looks to be a little more than four storeys high, which would only be 12 meters). If you got into a fire escape, which should be concrete, I'd like to think you'd be better than stuck in traffic in a vehicle or on foot.
Also, since this is based on something that could happen, why don't they start blasting the rock in bits instead of waiting for the whole face to go?
If they try to blast it, theres a very big risk of setting off the whole mountain, and that could lead to an even bigger wave than the one that will happen naturally. The mountain around the Geiranger fjord are very dense, and in so they are porous and a shockwave can disintegrate the whole thing.
share[deleted]
The problem with blasting the rock, is that the entire mountain is like that.
So you blast off some part. There is still more that can fall.
So you blast that part. Then the next layer under that is unstable and can fall.
The problem is that in order to make sure that there is nothing that can fall, you need to level the entire north-western part of southern Norway. Since basically it's all unstable.
I wonder how you would fare if you went to top floor of the hotel building (On Google Maps, it looks to be a little more than four storeys high, which would only be 12 meters)
The mom was selfish and not as kind as the couple-wife. She wanted to the whole bus to wait for her and son. The couple helped but when the wife from the couple hotel guest was in trouble, the mom just wanted to close the door so that the 3 of them would survive. Probably a mother's instinct?
shareThat lady was thrown PAST the shelter door down the hall by the very speedy current of the arriving water. While "the selfish mom" managed to catch some bar on the door and pull herself in. There was no way the helpful lady was going to come back, no way anyone could swim against that current. In real life they would have all died prior to reaching the shelter, since when the two women start running for it (with the two men being not far ahead), the wave is already shown breaking the windows of the ground floor. Those megatsunami waves move at 100+ kilometers per hour.
shareI think you're thinking of Idun's coworker Vibeke with the skirt. Idun actually wears pants through the whole movie.
shareI also sighed at this. Stuff doesn't just catch fire by its lonesome. It needs a source of ignition obviously... Norwegian houses don't have gas lines.
shareWhy do Norwegians not use gas? That is very odd and new to me. You can also easily get fires from an HV line, both New Orleans and Fukushima looked like battlefields with sporadic fires after they flooded.
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov
Because Norway is abundant with hydroelectric power, which is cheaper than gas.
For the heart life is simple. It beats as long as it can.
Norway's annual gas consumption (2010) was 5.506 billion cu m. I expect that many, many residences have gas heat, fireplaces etc.
Norway is also Europe's second largest natural gas producer (to Russia).
As it's low budget, making the disaster aftermath at night time saves on special effects and set pieces by not needing to go crazy with background info. But of course because it's night time the viewer needs some source of lighting to see what's going on, so they opted for random fire spots lol.
Look, the film is far from perfect. Before the disaster hits it plays out quite serious drama like, acting good, script fine, plot fine, good build up etc and character development.
Then when the Tsunami hits it does rely on a lot of suspension of disbelief. I mean for starts, when that Tsunami hits the hotel it would have completely leveled it, they were WAY too late to be in some 'safety bunker' when it hits, I mean they were in the reception area lol. rip. There would be no dad walking around the hotel corridors because there would be no rooms left, it would be a pile of concrete.
And as for surviving in the car... most flood deaths are those IN cars lol.
But that's disaster movies for you, there is usually quite a lot taking liberties, but when you consider the over the top crap the yanks pull on their flicks, this film becomes a pretty good bit of welcome relief.
7/10 seems fair in todays ranking trend.
Yea, that was the one thing that jarred me while watching: "There's no possible way that hotel would still be standing..."
sharebut when you consider the over the top crap the yanks pull on their flicks...
Assuming power comes from outside Geiranger, the lines would still be live in many places. That would set fires after the heat from the electric shorts warmed and dried whatever they were touching. Then you have liquid fuel everywhere (gas, oil, etc.), some of that would be near the electricity.
I like to think of these films as prescient. Where we got to see the story of the few people that did survive. Naturally, their story would be an intense one, but they lived, which is why we're being shown it.
It wasn't like they were going to tell us the story of any of the people who died in that bus, or the people on the road who didn't make it when the wave came. They focused on the family that did make it. So then, it isn't cliché, rather, it's the exception.
It's all perspective. :)
Assuming power comes from outside Geiranger, the lines would still be live in many places.
Intaminag, that's exactly how I manage to enjoy these movies. I imagine that the story of a family that escaped is being told.
A disaster of this magnitude did happen in Colorado in the 1970's, in Big Thompson Canyon. It wasn't a tsunami, but a big wall of water from an unusually huge meltdown. It swept away everything in its path, including families that were camping. cars, but not too many buildings because it was in a national park. Some people were never found and were presumed to be under builders that had been moved by the force of the water.
gas lines, oil lines, electric fires... *beep* that wont go off with water and could get damage with the hit of a tsunami
share