Mr. Good: Flic ou baron?

Bon film !

Bon film !

Bon film !

Bon film !

There are so many documentaries about the US criminal justice system that you would be forgiven for thinking America was the only country in the world (& a number of Americans do indeed seem to think that). So it was a nice change to get an insight into the Norwegian CJS for a change. Before this doc began I (perhaps naively) believed Norway to have an infinitely superior system to the States where it seems everyone is for sale for the right price. To some degree this still holds true; the Norwegian legal system is independent, and money is invested in all aspects of the CJS from policing through to the courts & prison. Norway also has a relatively low crime & prison rate in comparison to the US & UK, & sentencing tends to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence, rather than an obscene need to punish the less fortunate. Which is probably why Erik Jenson (ex high ranking police officer) received such a long sentence for his crimes; he was in a position of trust which, according to the courts, he seriously abused by using his position to profit from criminal activities. Or did he? Because even by the end of the documentary you're still not really sure. Yes he crossed the line, but was this for the greater good (to catch dangerous criminals) or because he was actually corrupt? If he was corrupt, where is all the money he made (the police haven't found it) & why did his superiors claim they did not know what was going on (were they turning a blind eye because he got results)? This is an interesting documentary which doesn't come down on one side or the other & poses some interesting questions about the role of police officers working with informants to catch criminals. I would have preferred to learn a bit more about how the Court system in Norway works, as it is different to the UK/US. This would have perhaps help explain how the verdicts were reached. However overall a thought provoking programme.

As Episode 1 of "Mr. Good?" (2022 release from Norway; 4 episodes of about 50 min each; original title "Gåten Eirik Jensen", or "The Riddle: Eirik Jensen") opens, we are introduced to Eirik Jensen, Norway's "most trusted cop", who we now learn is being charged with major drug trafficking and corruption charges. We then go back to "Oslo 1988" as Jensen is just starting his career at the Oslo Police Department and he quickly makes his name and reputation in the underground squad... At this point we are less than 10 min into Episode 1. Couple of comments: Eirik Jensen may have been "Norway's most trusted cop", but I'll readily admit I had never heard of this guy before. Which actually helps this mini-series as everything is brand new information. Without giving anything away, the mini-series boils down to two completely different, but both believable, sides of Jensen: one as the stellar if unorthodox cop who has been set up, the other as a massively corrupted official turned criminal. The series' original tile in Norwegian really captures it perfectly: "the riddle" that is Eirik Jensen (why Netflix felt this title would not work for the US market is in and of a itself a "riddle"). The series features lots of talking heads, including former colleagues of Jensen on the Oslo police department, Jensen's mom and also his ex-wife, bad guys including informants (a/k/a snitches) handled by Jensen. And so on. The initial 2 episodes rely on a lot of re-enactments , of which I am not a fan, but thankfully the last 2 episodes contain tons of archive footage. "Mr. Good?" premiered this past weekend on Netflix, and I binged the 4 episodes quickly. If you are a fan of documentaries and of true crime stories, with a foreign setting to boot, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

While the show tries to depict both sides to the story, it comes off as too biased toward the ex-cop Jensen. Based mostly on interviews with the man himself, close friends and former co-workers, it was always bound to end up this way. The other side of the story is briefly explored through short, and uninformative interviews with the prosecutors. The series also features a couple of one-off interviews, which barely have anything to do with the man in question, and mostly seems to be there to put the investigation against Jensen in a bad light. Overall an undeniably fascinating story, but yet it is too biased to be interesting to any one vaguely familiar with the story prior to watching this PR-stunt. 4/10.

30 minutes into the first episode and I'd have no idea what this is about - except for the title. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing how wonderful he was/is. If I didn't know better, I'd say he's up for sainthood of something. I usually plow through an episode, but this is boring and confusing. I have enough of both of that in my life, so will close it out and go read a good book. If you choose to watch it, I wish you better luck or patience than I had. PS - I may finish E1 and edit this. Okay - watched the whole thing. Took a week. I left the score fairly low because the series is too long. Also, in the English translation, no one being interviewed had their titles translated, so I had zero idea who was speaking - a lawyer, a police chief? Who was saying what was up to me to figure out, so I didn't. And in the end, there some important noted information that wasn't translated at all. Very poor translating, too long - 4 stars.

The story about the biggest police corruption case in Norway is interesting in many levels. How could this be going on for such a long time? Is jensen a good guy and cop or a crooked one? Why is there questions jensen can't answer? Why has the prosecutors said no to participate? Why did the judges set aside the jury vote? The story is told in-depth, and seen from both sides, but still it's clearer to me now, seeing the surveillance photos, films and detailed communication why he was sentenced to 21 years in prison.

Bon film !