''The Last Sentence'' (original title in Swedish- ''Dom över död man'') is the story of Torgny Segerstedt, a Swedish journalist whose fierce anti-nazi articles became a matter of great concern within the country's political life and stirred major backlash both in Germany and Sweden. The movie begins with Adolph Hitler's rise to absolute power in Germany in mid-1930s and follows the growing aggressiveness and hate-speech of the Third Reich until the ending of the Second World War, examining the influence and effect that the threat of a possible German invasion had on the decision-making of Sweden's government. The film focuses on the much-debated neutrality of Sweden and Segerstedt's bold critique on the inactivity of Swedish politicians even when Nazis invaded the neighboring Scandinavian countries. The basic flaw of ''The Last Sentence'' is that it follows an uneven rhythm and as a result, the movie can be divided into two parts, the first being tedious, almost annoying, while the second picks up speed and leads to an emotionally touching climax. The director, Jan Troell, is one of Sweden's greatest auteurs and each one of his films is characterized by its high-quality standards as well as magnificent performances. In this one, I think that Jesper Christensen's performance deserves to be in the spotlight but the whole of the cast does a tremendous job as well. My rating would be closer to 3,5/5.

The key to this film lies, in part, in understanding the meaning of the title. "The Last Sentence" is an ambiguous translation of the Swedish because a "last sentence" might refer to the last words a man writes. Instead, "sentence" here means the "judgment" one passes on a man who has died--a judgment that endures longer than the judgments that were passed on a man while he was alive.And this citation of the "Hávamál" (an Old Norse 13th-century poem) has a special resonance in light of a toast proposed by Torgny Segerstedt early in the film: Segerstedt remarks something to the effect that we have a sacred duty to tell the truth in public matters, but no such duty in our private affairs.Jan Troell has thus given us a portrait of Torgny Segerstedt as a man who fiercely refused to say anything other than the truth about Hitler and Nazism, but who, at the same time, was incapable of acting in a truthful and caring fashion in his private life--a man who seemingly had a deeper attachment to his dogs than to any of the people who deeply loved him. And Troell has perhaps highlighted the shortcomings in Segerstedt's personal relationships precisely because he wants the viewer to sense this tension in the final judgment we place on the life of a man. Do Segerstedt's attempts to stir the conscience of the Swedes through his writings on the horrors of Nazism cancel out whatever negative judgment we might pass on his conduct as a father, husband or lover? Maybe Troell poses just such a question because he himself may sense that he's nearing the end of his own life. And so what Troell wants, perhaps, is for us to realize that we are all faced with the question of the measure of a person's life and the final judgment to be passed on that life: what weight to give to the life one has lived in public, visible to all, or to the life that one has lived in the shadows (filled with love and affection or not) of one's private life?

Borrowed from a library, this movie was first watched by a friend. Because I had picked the movie because of its theme, I was, hence, tentative. The friend found the movie long and made too complicated with its English subtitles and 'ghosts'. However, this is a friend who cannot sit and watch a movie... has to get up and 'do other things' in 'the boring sections'. Does not work with subtitles.So, I began to watch it with some apprehension. Which swiftly disappeared. Perhaps because I am an activist/dissident in Canada (and I use such movies to ask myself and others, what makes us so naive about our failed democracies when we have stories like this in our history?), it was the subtitles of the dialogue that struck so true. And, being male, (my friend is female) I could relate with the man's inner turmoil. Making the ghosts of three important women in the main character's life becomes an effective tool for exposing this man's conscience. It is also good to follow up the movie with the extras provided with the DVD.This is a movie I would buy for my collection of 'movies for reflection' on human behaviour that becomes sad ignorance of situations like this... where governments push down the truth. Sweden might use the excuse that they had to do what they had to do to suppress this man and his defence of freedom of speech. This movie simply emphasizes that we have no excuse.

Even with the best intentions from its filmmaker, this film falls utterly flat.Written, directed and edited by Jan Troell, this production is the result of a tired, former champ filmmaker.Bottom line, he's done the worst sin all filmmakers can make. He's made a dull movie.Unengaging and without any resemblance of growing conflict, the film is merely a series of historical moments without any clear through-line. The story illustrates none of the severe consequences that this man caused. It merely hints at this and leaves the viewer unaware of the life threatening situation. The producer should have required the writers to make a dramatic story.The black/white look is suitable yet too crisp and sterile for its purpose. Seemingly grain-less, the digital image lacks mood and authenticity. Film and grain would have added a much needed filter.