qui_j I'm a big fan of "Scandi-Noir" genre but to be honest, this one is just overly complicated with very little return. To keep track of the plot with its biblical references, moral discussions, tedious dialog which at times seems out of place, and the number of characters that keep appearing out of the woodwork, one of the boards that police use to solve a crime would be helpful. You need to try an remember who's who, who's connected to whom, and what their role is in the overall plot. The story could have been told in half the number of episodes, and without some of the very pointless scenes that seemed unrelated to the plot. The editing is not great as things jump around too much. The characters are not very likable, and the lead is very flat and two-dimensional. I'm not sure I'd watch a second season if it were produced.

Syad Thabigo The first season of this series is good although by no mean easy to digest at one go nor is it one of my favourite Nordic series. Still, I would give it a 7 out of 10. The second season, however, tries too hard to replicate the success of the first season. And fails. Terribly.Things change. Peter turns out to be a womaniser perhaps due to circumstances in his life. Inger Marie is divorced yet again and is in an affair with her colleague. In the first season, I feel that the writer(s) successfully combined mystery and conspiracy into the story line. The second season, on the other hand, consists of pure conspiracy that just doesn't build up my curiosity simply due to the lack of 'mysteriousness' - if that's a word. It feels like they are trying to compress so much into so little that the outcome is all over the place.A colleague (and an office bully) is killed in his car while leaving the office. The Prime Minister badmouths his minister in a planned video leaking to push the minister further. Then the PM is murdered and his daughter poisoned while meeting Peter. Then waffles happened.I'm not saying the plot of the second season is ludicrous but it is getting there. They might as well add a natural disaster scene to the story line and it still won't help save the show. The acting is also noticeably more wooden than the first with no strong characters in the lineup.I have to admit though that this series is very brave in killing its protagonists - Peter's ex-girlfriend in the first season and Mathiesen in the second.Overall: sorry, it's a flop

steven-222 The decade-long international craze for Scandinavian crime thrillers seems to reach a tipping point with this overstuffed and flatulent boondoggle of a mini-series from Norway. "Mammon" would like to be "The Bridge," leading us down one false path after another to spectacular cliff-hangers and shocking revelations, but the writers are too lazy to come up with plausible reasons for all this frantic action. I hate it when I invest 6 hours in a mini-series, expecting that "all will be revealed" at the end, and the end comes, and I can only shake my head at all the nonsense I've watched and all the gaping holes in the plot. It's almost as if no single person actually read the whole script!Scene for scene, the show is just engaging enough to watch, but even at this level some of the red herrings are too obvious and the repeated attempts at suspense too repetitious. (OMG! Is that car following us? No, just a false alarm. No, wait, it WAS following us!)Spoiler: One example of the ludicrous lengths to which the writers will go simply to obtain that spooky "The Bridge" feeling: the package received by the dead man's brother and his wife seven years after his death, containing directions to a time and place and a wet suit, because the dead man knew that at exactly that place, and exactly that day, another death would occur in exactly that way. Amazing! But in the end, this elaborate plot twist turns out to make NO SENSE WHATSOEVER (like much of the plot); it's assumed that we viewers are so stupid we will have forgotten this pivotal scene by the end and won't care that there is no explanation.They tried to make "The Bridge," but this bridge went nowhere.

beauxlox A convoluted screenplay, ridiculously complex plot with no real clarification till the end, but well acted and exciting, despite the fact that excitement of this order is completely un-Norwegian. In the last scene shot in Norway (outdoors) we see the characters' faces and everything is clearly lit. Then the final scene, in the Caribbean, with clear light, despite the cloudy skies. Whatever prompted the director of this series to imagine that shooting practically everything else in darkness was a good idea? Did he imagine that it added to the darkness of the story? It is totally unauthentic – Norwegians crave light. Homes and offices are well lit and the idiotic feeble wall lights and desk lights we saw, without a main room light switched on, were simply NOT what you see in Norway. My wife is Norwegian and I have spent a lot of time in all the Nordic countries and have never experienced this sort of gloom. Close to the end, Peter is in the hospital and even there the corridors and rooms were not properly lit – impossible. If natural light was entering a room, the director made sure the actors were shot against it, so we couldn't see their faces. Why? The scene where Peter Verås returns to his apartment, the tiny lights are already on but he walks through the rooms and rolls into bed without turning on a light, was just laughable. I hope no one thinks that Norway is a country robbed of light. It's true their days are shorter in winter, but not much different (in the south of the country) from Scotland. And then there was the background music – also to add to the dramatic tension? What a nuisance; and where there was no music, there was noise. If there is a sequel to this, I shall not be watching it unless I learn that the director has grown up.