Alex Cox's review is ridiculous.

What you have to understand about Alex Cox is that he is a Marxist and therefore pre-disposed to oppose anything that doesn't accord with his political beliefs, regardless of its qualities. Happily, the rest of us are much less dogmatic and are able to appreciate Fanny & Alexander for what it is: a masterpiece by a genius.

Alex Cox can say anything he wants the morning he comes up with anything that's even in the vicinity of being in the same ballpark as Bergman. Until then, he can just STFU...

Wow, I too disliked this film, but most of that was just nonsense.

"Be it a grain of sand or rock, in water they sink as the same."

I agree with the others. I like a lot of Cox's writing, but this is reviewing through the lens of politics, even if he never says it explicitly. His problems are purely a question of class, the history of radical cinema and theater (he's referencing Alfred Jarre's Per Ubu for God sakes) and, perhaps, his disappointment in the turn Bergman's work took here in his Opus.

What many consider stylized and imaginary memory and reflection transformed into heart felt art Cox considers an old man's sentimental send off, and he won't forgive Ingmar for it. So be it.

But you can't really experience a movie unless you're willing to meet it half way on its own terms. Bergman clearly went back to his earliest roots of storytelling for this, Dickens, the Gothic, Supernatural, Nordic fairy tales, Shakespeare and the bible. Yes, they can be sentimenatal, black and white, children's tales. He did this in a classic Greek form, only 5 acts instead of 3, and it was a fine move; he had already pushed the cinematic form further for a mass audience than anyone ever had before him except for maybe Bunuel. He was entitled to walk a straight line and tell the tale of his childhood with an emotional truth in any way he chose, as long it was entertaining...and it is.

That being said, I defy Cox to watch the scene with Alexander and Ismael and not see Bergman in his finest form as he explores the supernatural, anxiety, the mystery of the human psyche, love, hate, our deepest primal desires, and the mysteries around us we live in but can never really hope to understand.

Perhaps later, if Cox is ever freed of his politics for a moment, he'll be able to see this. Until then, pity him, he's simply missing out on one of the truly great films that brings joy and further understand of the life we try and live with every viewing.

[deleted]

I think what didn't register with Cox, is "Fanny and Alexander" being a film about the lifetime influences of childhood memory; life seen and remembered from the perspective of children, even if the viewer is sometimes given scenes where only adults are present.

The feeling of the film, itself, has the vaguely mysterious, storytelling air, of old, long neglected memories. The houses are big and the textures and colors in them vivid and larger-than-life. The adults are strange mysteries and often terrifying. Mom is the most beautiful woman in The World, but her behavior sometimes leaves much to be understood; her motives sometimes seeming hidden because childhood innocence is unable to fill-in all the blanks.

Childhood intuition for the sinister, hiding behind legitimacy, is also shown, when kids get bad vibes from bad people and notice the hardness and cruel nature that adults have grown too dull to pick-up on. But other information, like sexual knowledge, doesn't register, so some adult behavior seems confusingly sensual, bizzare and disconcerting; their persons ambiguous and androgynous. With vulnerability and limited information, some experiences are panic-inducing and some adult behavior is mystifying. Ghosts and stories mix with reality. Adults belie personal fears that they think kids aren't clever enough to pick-up on. Mean adults will be cemented in infamy, forever, in a child's life (like a mean teacher who picked on you or a family friend who was a bully; they will be remembered for the fear and loathing they prompted, even after they long forget the damage they caused).

There's also a distinct, "out of time" quality to this film, which is really meant to show a turning point in Western culture, where life would soon never be the same again. In 20 years' time, everything would change drastically with the introduction of new technology, medical advances and a radical shift in dress and styles. The bustle and corset would soon go from regular staples in daily dressing, to the realm of costume wear. Social attitudes would shift in ways that would render some of the social interactions in this film, forever archaic. Advances in mass media distribution would slowly phase-out the oldest, weirdest, isolated traditions of cultures, countries and their populations. The World of "Fanny and Alexander" was on the cusp of combusting into the ether of time, as close and distant as the hazy, cluttered memories in a filmaker's mind, more than 70 years later. With all its oddness and occasional excessiveness, the qualities of childhood memory are perfectly captured in this film. I can't say I love it, but I love parts of it, really appreciate the interesting atmosphere it builds and think it's definitely one of a kind.

Is this the same Alex Cox who directed "Emmanuelle: A Hard Look", a "documentary about the Emmanuelle movies, looking at their making as well as their social and cultural impact"?

His review was basically a complaint that the movie was too long & had a bigger budget than he could ever hope for....and was significantly more creative than anything he has ever conjured up.

His contempt for the film because he despises opulence demonstrates what a simple-minded twat he is...and simple-minded twats understand nothing of Marxism, and this is clearly evident in his "review."

I totally understand where Alex Cox is coming from. He hits the nail on the head for most of the film. The film redeems itself in the final act, only to regress again in the epilogue.