Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

I saw this one when I was in high school. I had been warned ahead of time, but I liked classical music, including Grieg, and ignored the warnings. I remember several things about it that really sum the film up, in my opinion.1. The photography was stunning. Snow, fjords, and Norwegian towns and scenery were really pretty, as were the folk costumes. 2. Grieg's music was nice to listen to, though as in all films about composers, they only give samplings.Those are the good parts. The bad parts were what sank the boat. There wasn't much of a story. Greig's life wasn't as exciting as many other composers lives, and a lot was padded to keep the story going for 2 or 3 hours. I remember a lot of overacting as well. But the worst part of all was the directing. Forever emblazoned upon my memory is the hideously clichéd scene where Grieg, his wife, and someone else spread their arms and run across a green field, stop on a hillock, and spin around to face the audience. Then they do the same thing again - and again! If that's not enough to make you give up, then nothing is.

The reason Song of Norway is not hailed as a classic like The Sound Of Music is simple- the acting stinks. The music is wonderful, ditto the voices of Florence Henderson (Who backed up Mary Martin in the Broadway version of TSOM) and Frank Porretta. But once they stop singing, and Grieg (Toralv Maurstad(?)) stops playing, the whole thing just sits their like a cold smorgasbord- it looks very good, but it isn't really that appetizing. There is no warmth or rapport between any two of the leads. The bit parts by Mssrs. Robinson, Homolka, and Morley don't last long enough for anyone to forget how uninspiring the whole thing is. It is doubly so when the characters are talking, and there is a shot of the magnificent Norwegian landscape in the background. You'd think the dialogue could at least try to compete with the scenery. As it is, it comes in a distant third, behind the sweeping vistas and the music. By comparison, TSOM had first-rate actors with a first-rate script, songs by Rodgers and Hammerstein, and a budget large enough to support them all. If Julie Andrews was a little too sugary, well, at least she could act. And there was nothing sugary about her escape from Austria with the family. In the end, Song of Norway is dressed up with wonderful location shooting and memorable tunes, but the acting leaves this film with no place to go.

Muslim detainees in Guantanamo Bay were reportedly tortured by having to watch this film several times a day, many of them begging for mercy and swearing they would eat pork chops for dinner every day if only they quit showing them this film... ***WARNING! SPOILERS AHEAD!*** The Surgeon General has concluded that watching this movie may be hazardous to your health. ... I saw this movie on the Big Screen when it came out. I loved Grieg's music (well, still do) but this film really put my loyalty to the test. Others here have spoken quite eloquently about the movie's incredible editing and song and dance numbers, so I won't add to the comments. The reason I gave the movie two stars instead of one was: Florence Henderson's wonderful role in reprising her cameo in Weird Al Yankovic's "Amish Paradise", and the totally meaningless non-sequitur animated sequence about two thirds through the movie where you have monsters popping out of fiords.

I saw this as a little kid taking piano lessons and loving Grieg's music. (That was in San Francisco - maybe I saw it at the same theater, the Paramount, as one of our earlier commenters?) All of 10 years old, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I suppose I wasn't a great judge of acting at that point, or of cinema in general (it was probably the third or fourth theatrical film I'd seen in my life at that point). So it was basically the music, voices, and scenery I was chewing on. I hadn't even heard the name "Carol Brady" then.Haven't seen the film since, but I just wonder ... terrible compared to what? The soundtrack (a few cuts I have on a Grieg compilation) is miles better than the nursery-rhymes in Sound of Music, and for the most part the transliterated lyrics aren't a travesty. Florence Henderson doesn't make me gag any more than Julie Andrews or any other too-clean-and-scrubbed actor in the business. And what's wrong with casting an actual Norwegian as Grieg instead of ... I dunno, from the same era ... George Peppard? The movie even had a nice animated sequence for the kids.Song of Norway was unlucky enough to arrive at the absolute tail end of the road-show-spectacular era of movie musicals, and I'm sure a lot of critics just had indigestion by that point, following Paint Your Wagon (with a singing, dancing Clint Eastwood!), Camelot (a singing, non-dancing Richard Harris!), The Happiest Millionaire (a singing, dancing Fred MacMurray!), and Darling Lili (Dame Julie's nadir). So what's so much worse about Song of Norway? Got something against Scandinavian composers?!