Directed by:
Erik SkjoldbjærgScreenplay:
Christopher GrøndahlCinematography:
John-Erling H. FredriksenComposer:
Christine HalsCast:
Billy Campbell, Henrik Mestad, Stig Henrik Hoff, Carl Martin Eggesbø, Emil Johnsen, Kristine Hartgen, Kari Bremnes, Bjørn Iversen, Jon Petter Johnsen (more)VOD (1)
Plots(1)
The WWII epic Narvik tells the true story of two intense months in the spring of 1940 when 50 000 soldiers from allied countries fought side by side against the Germans in and around Narvik. This small Norwegian port, which served as a terminal for valuable iron ore from Sweden, suddenly and unexpectedly ended up in the line of fire when WWII broke out. The iron ore was vital to the German armament industry, and both Hitler and Churchill were painfully aware that whoever wins the iron ore, wins the war. (Norsk Filminstitutt)
(more)Videos (2)
Reviews (2)
A classic example of a botched war movie, despite having a pretty solid premise. I'm not entirely surprised, though — Norwegian war films often miss the mark, more so than those from other Scandinavian countries.
()
I will not pretend I didn't expect something completely different from a film called Narvik. The creators barely focused on war action and decided to look at the events through the eyes of ordinary Norwegians. As for me, I think they succeeded. Neutral Norway was unlucky because its neutrality was a thorn in the side of both evil Nazis and the good defenders of European democracy. Ultimately, both sides ignored Norwegian neutrality, and Operation Weserübung was the last straw. The Nazis eventually achieved their goal, as "neutral" Swedes could continue supporting German armament (much more easily), and only Grand Admiral Erich Roeder must have experienced stomach problems because his Kriegsmarine suffered losses from which it never recovered. But I liked that the creators mainly focused on the fates of those who got involved in this only because they happened to live in Narvik. I also appreciate that the Norwegian filmmakers focused on the moral dilemma of the main character. In my opinion, she did well. I didn't find anything wrong with her decisions, but I was annoyed by the moralizing crowd. From my perspective, it wasn't betrayal (neither side was about the good of Norway, only their interests). Even if I did see it that way, I would dare to paraphrase a famous quote: From the standpoint of a higher moral principle, the betrayal of the betrayer is not betrayal. / Lesson learned: A civilian between two fires does not have a long lifespan in a war.
()
Ads