Personal courage becomes a scarce commodity when the times get tough. And there weren't times much tougher than 1930's and the rise of Nazism. Europe stood paralyzed in an unlikely marriage of fear and denial. Veteran director Jan Troell tells a story of a public figure that bravely attacked Nazis in his newspaper column. Torgny Segerstedt was revered and much suspected. His principals made the others look corrupt and petty. And they were, but that is beside the point, because nobody has more concern about appearances than the immoral and tainted. The interesting quirk of this brilliant movie is that Torgny himself was a deeply flawed human being, in turns neglectful and cruel to his wife and kids. Somehow this man with such strong sense of morals, cared about the humanity in general, but alas, not for individuals. Well, that might be understandable. The messiness of humanity would try the patience off all saints combined. Our times prove that beyond any doubt.

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?

I loved this movie.I couldn't disagree more with the two previous reviewers. I almost wondered whether they had been watching the same film. The pace of Troell's film allows you time to reflect as the story develops. No, it's not Raiders of the Lost Ark nor is it in colour, but it is a thoughtful, beautifully made film which stays in your mind long after you have left the cinema.And I'm not alone in rating this film. Most of the other reviews have praised the quality of the script, the camera-work and the way Troell manages to get such amazing performances from his actors.In my opinion, a must-see.

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.