Sånt händer inte här

In a small unknown land, some shenanigans are planned, by those whose doctrine's quite extreme and excessively underhand. There are spies and double crossings, lots of frothing layered with scoffing, bizarre capers, detailed papers, including lists by extreme shapers. Some chasing is not quite bracing, there's a rush and then some racing, with a man who ends up facing into a casing all embracing. In the end you've no idea, if you need to harbour fear, on the ship moored at the pier, where they find the estranged dear, who had the needle to adhere, as she approached from the blind rear (woman shrugging emoji).

You will be able to tear yourself away, is all I'll say.

Honestly, this film gets a little more hate than it deserves. However, that only means this is a solid 3/10, not a 1/10. It has some really great shots and an interesting premise. That's all this film has going for it.

This thing is an absolute mess, and it is honestly only worth watching to see how bad Bergman's worst movie is. After about ten minutes of watching this hollow attempt at a Hollywood-style message film, you can see why the great auteur disowned it completely. If Bergman hadn't made this, it'd be so easily and correctly forgotten. People give his "Crisis" a lot of flack, but this truly is the worst thing he ever directed.

The action sequences consist mostly of physics-defying car chases, nonsense grappling and gunfights that make Stormtroopers look like marksmen. The dialogue stops making any sense quickly and the message is some vague nonsense about some weird KGB/gestapo hybrid spy organization hunting down a refugee over a McGuffin. As much as the first half is watchable (if contrived), the second half of this movie will have you begging for it to just end. The plot utterly falls away and the final sequences on the boat in harbor are some of the worst in film history.

I never would have watched it if I weren't a Bergman completionist. And even if you are too, save yourself from this total waste of time. It's no Manos or Plan 9, but it is absolutely worse than almost any real studio film of the time period.

I saw this at the 2018 London Film Festival. It was in the Treasures section, but this is no treasure, in fact it's a total dud. No wonder Bergman, a strong contender for the title of greatest auteur ever, didn't want it shown in his lifetime. This tale of espionage bears no relation to the rest of his work, and could have been made by any hack. He showed no enthusiasm for the material, and I can only assume that, having already notched up two divorces and five children, he was in dire need of money. The acting and camerawork are good, but tales involving fictional countries, and fights where the gun-toting villain is so easily disarmed, are frankly pathetic. Respect the great man's wishes and watch one of his masterpieces instead: there are so many.

This film is essentially Bergman does Hitchcock (in the mood of, say, "Foreign Correspondent," but darker . . . and yet with some moments of delightful humor). Bergman is making jabs here at the expected complacency of Swedish society in a situation in which malevolent foreign-based movements would be afoot. Beautifully photographed, and with splendid acting, this film is insightful, taut, intelligent, thought-provoking, and--to sum things up--most enjoyable, with no longueurs, no holes in the plot. Though for some reason Bergman himself ultimately didn't like it, that's no reason for this entertaining and enriching film to be unavailable. If you can find a screening, don't hesitate to partake of it!

This is perhaps the most obscure of Ingmar Bergman's films, allegedly recognized by himself who, dissatisfied with the result, successively opposed its exhibition and edition on video or DVD.

Myths aside, this is certainly an atypical film by the Swedish master. Halfway between a film noir and a Hitchcockian spy thriller, it still fails to captivate the viewer.

The plot is complex and confusing. It seems like a veiled allusion to the Soviet Union and the occupation of the Baltic countries. Are these the metaphorical small country that wanted peace and that was swallowed by the giant dictatorship? Probably. But the film is not clear. Denmark was also swallowed up by the Nazi giant, without offering a fight. Sweden itself was dragged into a humiliating neutrality, semi-collaborating with Nazi Germany, fearful of the Soviets. Only the Norwegians fought, eventually successfully, against the Nazis and the Finns withstood the Soviet offensive, before Moscow was forced to contain the Nazi invasion, abandoning the Finnish war, but holding the occupied territories in Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

In this entire political context, in the aftermath of World War II, to whom was Bergman's criticism directed? To Denmark? To his own guiltyly neutral Sweden? To the occupied Baltic countries? Most likely to all, mainly because they were not able to recover the independence of the occupied Baltic states after the end of the war.

But everything is assumptions. The film is purposely dark and disguised as a simple American thriller, with more form than content.

A minor work, in the very rich universe of Bergman's cinema.