[Viaplay] It focus in the problem of young sexuality through social networks with a story already known, but told backwards, from the end to the beginning. So the series can be seen from episode 7 to 1 as it is structured, or from episode 1 to 7. This is not only a way of telling it differently, but also reveals situations that reflect on guilt and victimization. S2 maintains the narrative structure but with a story in which sexualization is chosen, albeit with dramatic consequences. The narrative works worse, but maintains the reflection on the alternative realities of social networks.

**S1 works well.** The structure allows for shadows of doubt over every character, though that also works against giving them the benefit of the doubt as we see each one causing someone else to hurt at some point. But it works. **S2 is rocky at best,** made worse if you binge both seasons - like I did. [spoiler]Sanna was already an established villain, so even though you mean to sympathize with her, there's still the underlying "oh, well"... So even though I hoped she'd be ok in the end, I never felt like there were stakes like S1 held over my head. I never thought she might die or something as bad, I just needed to get to the climax, watch the before/after and complete the puzzle. And that made the season weaker. Keeping Fanny but turning her into a follower was also a weird choice. When I saw she was another returning character, I thought she might play a bigger role and instead her role here was smaller and incomplete, used mostly as a joke and a starstruck minion.[/spoiler]

Not bad at all. I do see some good messages concerning the way teenage girls and women expose their body on the web. However... Sanna's story is pretty much a lie. She claims she got raped but [spoiler] we have understand it is not the number one meaning we give to the word. Rape here means that she got verbally forced to do things to pleasure a man's lust. 🤔 Her wrong is making up like a woman that got beaten while being raped. [/spoiler] And she won the damn trial afterwards???

This is a cautionary tale, told backwards. If it had been told chronologically you would see a tale of innocence lost. By telling it backwards, I think they hoped you would have wondered what happened. I’m not sure it made it the thriller they hoped it would be and I think the reversion fractured our connection to the characters, which is crucial if you want it to be a cautionary tale or an engaging story. (Was that convoluted enough for you? It was analogous to the failed storytelling of this series.). Amalia Holm (Bjelke) is a star by any standards. (I followed her here from MOTHERLAND: FORT SALEM) It’s a tragic tale, poorly organized. I give this limited series a 4 (poor) out of 10. [Drama]

This backwards timeline thing might have looked as a good idea in the pitch but it's very poorly executed and accompanied by bad directing in general. Yet another Viaplay Original flop.