Flashbacks of a Fool (2008) User Reviews

I saw it 1st

[sebastian_n · 7/10 · 8 February 2008]

This is my 1st ever post on IMDb so I apologise in advance if it's crap! I was 1 of the 1st members of public to see this film as I attended a preview for research and marketing purposes and i had to fill in a questionnaire at the end...yadayadayada (U know what i mean). The film was not what i expected at all. I was expecting a load of drug taking scenes and thought the whole film would have a "dirty" feel to it such as "Blow" or "Pulp Fiction" but it actually turned out to be a very sensitive film. I was moved by the emotional story of this guy's messed up childhood. I was extremely impressed by Claire Forlani's performance even though she's not in the film for that long. This film will give you goosebumps and a trembling lip from the emotional roller-coaster that is this Flashbacks Of A Fool. Good film. Girls in their 30s to late 40s will prefer it to guys. Great 70s Soundtrack (and that's coming from me, a 23 year old!) The soundtrack album should be really good.

Thanks for devoting 2 minutes of your life to read this! I really appreciate it.

Sometimes it takes a knell...

[gradyharp · 8/10 · 13 November 2008]

Films of reflection are too few and often the result of climbing to a summit only to gaze back at the shadows never cast in the greedy race for the top ends i tragedy. FLASHBACKS OF A FOOL suggests, by its title, that the story may be different, that there may be some redemption at the core of an abusive life.

Writer/director Baillie Walsh sets his story in opening frames of intense sexual, drug accompanied debauchery. But as the credits fade, the lead character Joe Scott (Daniel Craig) faces a morning of hung over reality. A wealthy Hollywood star whose lifestyle has hastened his aging, Joe is 'managed' by the stern Ophelia (Eve) who is tiring of Joe's wasted lifestyle. Her warnings, as well as Joe's agent's confrontation that Joe is too old looking for a new screenplay, is compounded by a telephone call that Joe's boyhood friend Boots (Max Deacon) has suddenly died, leaving Joe's old first girlfriend Ruth (Claire Forlani) an early widow. Depressed and drunk Joe walks his beach and reflects on his youth. The 'flashback' tales us to Joe's teenage years (the young Joe is Harry Eden) with Boots as his closest friend and Ruth (Felicity Jones), the girl Joe craves. But hormones rule and Joe is an easy prey for his married next door neighbor: during one of their trysts a tragedy occurs that results in Joe's fleeing home for the 'successful' yet empty life he finds in Hollywood.

At the request of Joe's mother (Olivia Williams) he flies back to England where he is forced to confront the early damage he caused in the lives of his family and friends. Daniel Craig and Harry Eden are excellent in their mirrored roles of the young and the older Joe. In fact there is not a weak member of this fine British cast. Though the story takes place in England the film was shot in South Africa (cinematographer John Mathieson) and the rickety beach houses on the small bay where Boots and Joe spend their time is picturesque and adds the right sense of isolation to the story. At 114 minutes the film goes on a bit too long with areas for editing a bit too obvious. But the overall effect of FLASHBACKS OF A FOOL is a satisfying journey through a memory that holds a light to the incidents of youth that can alter too many lives if not mended. Grady Harp

It really pulls you in

[jjd430 · 8/10 · 1 November 2009]

This flick is starting to hit the US cable movie channels. I had never heard of it. I came away moved and impressed by this Daniel Craig project. "Shake your hair girl with your ponytail. Takes me right back..." OTHER: I found myself getting the female actors mixed up, but that's really my only problem with it. They look alike. The SA location fooled me completely and looked great. A refreshing change from the usual gritty rowhouse environment in which many British movies of this type are set. The film "Wish You Were Here" pushes similar buttons as this flick. Loved Ruth's 1970's wardrobe and the arcade that was apparently the center of life for these teens back in the day.

Loved the director's economy of actors. Most others would have had that arcade FILLED with extras cluttering up the scene. But in a memory, are there any extras?

Best movie I've seen in quite a while

[imdbbl · 29 November 2008]

I thought Flashbacks Of A Fool was about a decadent narcissist fast living actor and the crazy life he led with all the sex,drugs and parties. Well, it is but only in the first minutes of the film, what you'll see here is his childhood.After the death of his best friend, Joe Scott sits back and in a extended flashback the movie shows us how he was as a teenager and how life was in the 70's.The story is very interesting and the movie was beautifully shot and the musical score couldn't be more appropriated(just ignore that final music when the credits roll over).There's also a lip sync scene you won't forget. Daniel Craig was great, he has great charisma, I would really like to see more of him outside of the 007 franchise.Harry Eden did a great job as well and seems to be a very promising actor. Best movie I've seen in quite a while.

8/10

Such is life

[travis-lipshus · 7/10 · 4 April 2013]

Flashbacks of a Fool. Daniel Craig proving his ability outside of Bond has played patron to both lead actor and executive producer in this cagey 2008 film. He plays aged actor Joe Scott, a Hollywood veteran who experiences a rude awakening for the shallowness of his life when fame begins to fade. His life, that of copious amounts of cocaine use, an abundance of loose sex with beautiful women, expensive wine and no real connection to anything just isn't going well allegedly.

Meet young Joe Scott, the star of the second act and most of the film played by Harry Eden who delivers a powerful performance exploring the romanticism of the female and her sexual fruits for most of the film. Joe as a teenage boy supplies the detail and meaning for act one, the cause of a washed up crackhead years down the track.

Written and directed by Baillie Walsh who has a sterling resume of involvement in music producing previous documentaries on INXS, Oasis and Massive attack, develops in the story great nostalgic rhythms created by a host of details but the soundtrack especially, a dilemma of David Bowie and early Roxy music.

An even greater Romanticist than Amory Blaine, every sexual encounter for Joe Scott is like speeding round a blind corner, indeed the first shot of young Joe is of him and his best friend masturbating together. Here builds the reason (they're not gay) for his returning to England for his old friends funeral in act three.

The casting is correct providing the trimming to already well characterised and emotional identifiable roles. This allows nostalgia to sweep you along with the second acts new adolescent pace connecting stories recited by your parents and filling it with everyones common knowledge of fashion and hey I'm not discounting epigenetic memory either.

Costume design is fantastic the familiarity of the present and retro delivered near perfect again being helped along by the casting. The awesome cinematography beginning with the splendid blue horizon in the beach side Malibu coastline contrasted against the rugged British summer and their excuse of a beach.

With some eventful appearances from Eve, Mark Strong and Gina Athans (see below) its worth watching just for the off chance the film incites some feeling in you lost by the bashing of hollywoods seasonal crap.

Just one of the women Joe Scott penetrates The ending ties the first two acts together, barely and far too bluntly as if lacking closure to some (my girlfriends sister) but the emotional carry through from the middle defining point allows it to sublimely close, at least for me, being stoned does help.

If you enjoy good music and diabolical sluts then you'll be stoked. Its two out of five joints!

By Travis Lipshus, for more reviews check out http://travislipshus.blogspot.com.au/

Well, I just don't know what to think!!

[lavabubble · 6/10 · 22 April 2008]

I really wanted to love this film. I liked the concept, the fact that it was a personal film to the cast and crew, and the under-hype that was going on about it - Brit film at its best perhaps. To be honest, I didn't love it. I maybe liked it, in some parts enjoyed it, but certainly didn't find it the soul-achingly poignant drama I think perhaps it was meant to be.

If I'm honest I think that maybe too much attention was paid to the cinematography of the piece and that maybe Baillie Walsh's previous career directions affected the finished article - the opening sequence was more like Tales of the Unexpected than a feature film and I think a couple of the songs were overused, thereby lessening their effect. We all have a soundtrack to our life but life is more than a music video, which I feel this had overtones of. The 'scrambled' looking scenes and cut aways did nothing to add to the drama of the moments nor the progression of the story itself.

I found it watchable but I think had there been slightly more meat on the bones of the script it would've been vastly improved. The performances of the actors were on the whole outstanding and without such convincing characters this film would've been a disaster, hence the reason I gave this a 6 and not a lower score.

Would I watch it again - probably not. Would I heartily recommend it to a friend - probably not. Why? Not because I think it's a terrible film, just because its only a tenth of the film it could've been.

There is nothing foolish about this film.

[robhastings1000 · 9/10 · 19 April 2008]

Although Flashbacks of a Fool is Daniel Craig's pet project – he's the film's executive producer as well as its star – it actually contains surprisingly little of the blonde hunk (though for the ladies out there, you do, admittedly, get to see his bum).

Craig plays Joe Scott, a movie star who has plenty of money and sexual satisfaction in his life, one which - when he is not indulging in coke-addled rumpy pumpy at least - is mostly spent looking out to the sea from his minimalist cliff-top pad.

Yet he has no real friends and seemingly no real future – "there's no role for you ANYWHERE," his agent tells Joe, a moment after he has seen his client throw his prized mobile phone out of a restaurant window.

As Joe begins to wonder what has happened to his life, we are taken back to his adolescent days of first love on the quiet English seaside, to discover what this Brit has in fact been trying to hide from with a life of debauchery and excess in LA.

Even a fan of this film should be able see why some might find it slow and slightly dull, as it does rely on the viewer sharing in a sense of glory in the mystical power of great records, the tragic romance of nostalgia and regret, and the theme of washed-up stardom.

Perhaps that provides limited scope for the film to garner a wide audience, but for those who can find true enjoyment from subtle portrayals of youth and humanity as much as from the more obvious merits of rapid plot progression that will matter little. The direction is superb, the script never feels rushed, and the wistful tone of someone looking back to their yesterdays to get on with their today is rare in its realisation of artistic vision.

There's no big finale, but that's not to say that the conclusion is anything less than perfect in its mood and its timing. A literate film that is there to relish on a quiet afternoon, Flashbacks of a Fool feels more typical of a book by Ian McEwan (though thankfully it bears little in common to the cinematic version of Atonement) than a film starring the current Bond. It could also have you listening to Roxy Music for the rest of your weekend, even if you've never before had the urge to sing along to Bryan Ferry in the bath - a pleasing added bonus.

There is nothing foolish about this film – watch it accordingly.

Two films in one

[Skipfishh · 6/10 · 30 October 2023]

Following the formula of several films when telling a story (present and past), this one begins with a millionaire and bon vivant movie star (Daniel Craig) stopping to remember his past, which starts to be told in the form of flashbacks. That thing we've seen many times: the beginning and the end take place in the present, while the core takes place in the past, told in memories.

And that's where this film, more than any other that follows this formula, is divided into 2 distinct films. I say this because the entire initial and final parts set in the present are very weak, from the scenes to the actors, not even Daniel Craig (Joe) is good, the worst being Claire Forlani (Ruth), who stars in a soap opera-style scene corny at the end. On the other hand, the entire plot that takes place in the past is spectacular in every aspect, it even seems like other people wrote the script and directed it. From the brilliant work of actors Harry Eden (young Joe) and Felicity Jones (young Ruth), to the script full of quality musical and literary quotes and very beautiful photography, and concluding with a superb soundtrack with Roxy Music and David Bowie, everything is perfect. In fact, there's a scene in young Ruth's house to the sound of "If There Is Something" (a masterpiece from Roxy Music's first album) that is so magnificent that in itself it's worth the entire film.

My final rating is 6.5 out of 10. It would be 10 if it didn't have a long start and end in levels far below the intermediate block.

Quite possibly my favourite movie of 2008 - A story told with heartfelt emotion

[Sux_S_P · 9/10 · 26 February 2009]

There's a saying I heard a long time ago... "The person that's got everything has nothing" and this movie kind of explains one way of looking at it (in my opinion).

In a materialistic influenced world we live in it can be easy to fall into how believing happiness and wellbeing comes only from having all the things wealth can bring i.e. the clean cut minimalist house walking out onto the white sand overlooking a beautiful serene sea, a selection of gleaming new sports cars, the tailored clothes etc etc. But I guess for some people who have reached this place/goal in their life have focused on the goal so much that they've forgotten where they've come from and what they may have been running from.

Now what this gem of a movie does is carefully and meticulously unravel the story of a troubled man in this very situation, dealing with the daemons of his past, the spontaneous difficult decisions he had to make as a boy which has carved this stone cold embodiment of a man on the edge of existence.

Now I'm not going to break down and dissect this film and give a whole rundown on how and why I think this is a great movie but I will say this. The story of a nasty main character (amazing job from both Daniel Craig and Harry Eden) and showing the world that he lives in and lived in by slowly letting the viewer past his metaphorical protective wall while allowing the viewer to piece together how and why he is the way he is, is presented exquisitely.

I don't want to give anything away on the plot and story but I have to say there where two parts that absolutely blew me away and I'll just give you a vague hint. One involving a shot of artwork with intention of displaying a contrast of relation between the background and foreground giving an artistic viewpoint on the real subject matter (works on so many levels) and the other being a close up shot which encapsulated a lot of emotion and made my heart just drop.

all in all the whole production was done well, especially the editing (even though it's obviously apparent they had some great content to work with) and did, for me, what all great stories do, kept me entertained through demanding my full attention and rewarding that attention in the form of an emotional roller-coaster.

Last note: please try not to second guess while trying to predict what's coming next and how it ends. Just enjoy the story that is being told because it's been executed very well.

PS: I would have given this a 10 but wanted other readers to take this review seriously as I do love the art of storytelling, especially a good movie and it's unfortunate that there's too many marketing teams pushing up star ratings here on IMDb.

Thanks for reading my first review and I hope you enjoy "Flashbacks of a Fool" as much as I did.

Where the circle ends

[raulfaust · 7/10 · 8 January 2015]

"Flashbacks of a Fool" is a film that I wanted to see for a long time, but I only found it last week, in a second-hand moviestore. The story is very original, and everything that happens throughout this story isn't possible to be seen coming-- at least for me. There's a good character development, and it's indeed interesting to see how was the relationship between Joe Scot and Boots when they were teenagers. In my opinion, there's a lot of homoerotism in the scenes involving their youth-- which is quite common for young men, anyways. However, what makes this film even more interesting is the quality of the direction. Baillie Walsh proves to be really talented; nothing is too rushed, or quickly showed. There's affectivity in every scene he has built, and the cast is also professional to deliver what he wants to. Even the bodily fights are able to show realism, although it's not an action or adventure movie, which proves how careful is the director of this. I'm just not giving it a better rating because the ending could have been better written, but I'm sincerely praising the guys involved in this project for such a good job.

basic

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 25 February 2019]

Joe Scot (Daniel Craig) lives a hedonistic Hollywood life. His closest relationship is his assistant Ophelia Franklin (Eve). The self-obsessed actor's career is failing and he gets fired by his agent. His mother calls with bad news about his childhood friend Boots' passing. It's a seaside town in 70's Britain. Teenagers Joe Scot (Harry Eden) and Boots are trouble makers. Joe has a fling with neighbor housewife Evelyn (Jodhi May). He falls for Ruth (Felicity Jones).

The structure is thirty minutes of Daniel Craig, fifty minutes of the past, and twenty minutes of Daniel Craig to wrap it up. It's a rudimentary structure coming from director Baillie Walsh who is more experienced as a music video director. The start has a few interesting bits and Daniel Craig. I don't buy the agent having a fit. Agents are weasels and they would never outright fire a star. They would more likely ghost them. As for the finale, there isn't much drama. Essentially, one can't go home again. Craig is good but I question whether the bookend segments need to be that long. The meat of the story is the flashback. In that section, the story is hampered by a lackluster lead. It does have the electricity of Felicity Jones but the boy has limited acting skills. He is very pretty but lacks charisma. There is a general lack of intensity with the movie. The best scene may well be Felicity Jones dancing in slow motion. This has some interesting bits but lacks tension overall.

If you are willing to become emotionally involved - this film is for you.

[mjdog · 9/10 · 10 May 2008]

This film was right up my street. I would recommend it to anyone who is happy and indeed eager to become emotionally involved in a story. I have to say that the lip sync sequence was outstanding and it stayed in my head for days afterwards. I was thinking about the film for days after I'd seen it. There was something incredible for me in the way the whole film was shot but especially the flashbacks to the seaside - it awoke something for me from that era that I had forgotten about from my childhood and I found it strangely comforting. Not that I grew up near the sea but it struck a chord deep inside. How great to be able to capture something so brilliantly and bring it to life for others. I am envious of Baillie WALSH for this but thank God for him also. I look forward to seeing what else can be done.

Daniel CRAIG was stunning in the role, and brought it to life by showing us something we haven't seen in him too often - the sadder/nastier character - although his physique was maybe a little too perfect to make the decadent, fast living, hedonistic junkie completely believable - although I will forgive him for this! Harry EDEN who played the young Joe showed us all the awkwardness of youth and adolescence along with the desperation to grow up and all it's pitfalls. He was stunning on screen and oozed fragility. I would have liked to see the link showing how young Joe became an actor but understand there is a limit to how long a film can reasonably be.

Similarly to NOTES ON A SCANDAL and THE MOTHER - this for me was the kind of film that I could enjoy over and over and each time still feel that I am a seeing something I shouldn't - like a secret - and watching every delicious moment without being noticed myself.

This surreal whimsical story of growing pains, regret and redemption is Obscure but Wonderful.

[jeromewillner · 7/10 · 22 August 2021]

This surreal whimsical story of growing pains, regret and redemption, parallels a lonely coastal hamlet in the 1970's as the flashback; with a contemporary luxurious and stylish, but lonely uba-villa in the noughties as the outcome. Jo's life has been colourful, and a phone call in a moment of crisis, takes him Right Back To When He Was Young. We are reminded that the past is ever present in our lives, and has the power through music and emotions, to re-connect us to what really mattered to us; even as we lost ourselves in worldly affairs. Obscure but Wonderful.

Didn't Craig Read the Script Before Promising to do This Movie?

[Waerdnotte · 2/10 · 22 April 2008]

This is perhaps the worst movie I have seen since Igby Goes Down. It is truly awful. Walsh cannot direct or write. He can make pop videos and probably rather good adverts. The script is woeful, the story pointless. Craigs character, whilst shown at the beginning as a self-obsessed, over indulgent movie star never redeems himself throughout the movie, which I imagine was meant to be the reason for the two hours of tiresome clichés. Craig's character at one point asks his agent if he has read the script to movie he hopes to be in. I was left wondering if Craig even read the script before he agreed to be executive producer and lead actor! The audience in the cinema I saw this movie in were just laughing at the ridiculously melodramatic ending. A naked Daniel Craig, and a quick flash of Jodie May's tits do not make a good movie. Utter, utter testicles. Walsh may think a good taste in music and architecture and Daniel Craig walking around like John Wayne with hemorrhoids makes a great film but he is sorely mistaken. He should never be allowed near a movie camera again, and Daniel Craig should apologise for being involved in such an enormous pile of the brown stuff.

Having seen Shine a Light last week I thought it would be quite difficult to plum such depths of mediocrity but Walsh has managed it.

A simple, but highly compelling and emotive tale .

[Otoboke · 22 October 2008]

How far do our decisions in life take us, and how long do we eventually live by the ripples that such choices create? Flashbacks of a Fool, the debut feature from writer and director Ballie Walsh, takes it upon itself to divulge in such questions, and the answers that it gives, although extremely simplified and a little underwhelming in scope, nevertheless pack a resounding and emotional punch. Taking its time to develop rounded characters that stay within the confines of real life whilst managing to retain a sense of compelling relevancy, the feature tells a story that most audiences should be able to take something from. Sure it sometimes moves at a snail's pace, and suffers from an extremely incoherent third act, yet despite the movie's biggest problems, it's the things that Walsh does right that makes Flashbacks such an enjoyable drama for anyone that likes to explore the darker sides of human desire.

A story with three distinct, crudely sewn together acts, Flashbacks of a Fool tells the story of a has-been actor, now spending most of his days drinking, doing drugs and paying women to sleep with him. Opening with current day Joe Scott (Daniel Craig) the movie introduces us to the waster in a very poignant and effective first act that details Joe's incessant need for indulgence at the expense of everyone around him. This in turn then sets up the real meat of the story, which in turn is set a good twenty or thirty years in the past, back in Joe's teenage years. Through this lens we observe Joe as he chooses the paths that eventually lead to the character we have so far been introduced to. Of course, we know instinctively where it's all going to go, and Walsh's script sometimes gets caught up in details involving this development, but in turn it is these details that give Flashbacks its heart and soul.

The details I'm referring to of course are little things called characters; Walsh makes sure to keep Flashbacks of a Fool rich in characterization, by using only a minimum ensemble. Through this the film manages to convey both the character of Joe and his decisions in an objective light; we see the decisions he makes, and the people that those decisions affect, most of the time without him realizing. Coming full circle with a scene that capitalizes on the real selfish nature of both his and another character's choices, the movie achieves its resonating moment of poignancy through a death that is built upon drawing tears. From here on in Flashbacks never quite reaches the same height, and the pacing and overall structure is bothersome, particularly during a mostly useless third act which staples itself to act two as a kind of conclusion that fails to offer much –if any- resolution.

Such is Flashbacks of a Fool's biggest problem; its framing and structure. Although each segment is finely told and expertly shot, the script always comes across as being informant, but incoherently so. As a result, the middle act never truly feels connected to the two that bookmark it, and obviously certain characterisation is null and negated as a consequence. The performances from Craig, and standout Harry Eden who plays Joe as a teenager, are solid enough, and play to the same grounding personality traits to offer a sense of progression from A to B, yet the script's slapped together and undeveloped feel often distracts away from these highlights. Nevertheless, with a wonderful ensemble cast mostly comprising of minor-star English talents, Flashbacks isn't just a powerful, and relevant story told with three dimensional characters; the cast themselves embody their personas effectively and with great consistency, at least until the third act. But then again, you can't blame them for getting confused with such a massive leap in narrative.

Perhaps one of the standout features of the film however lies in its aesthetic design. From the magnificent on-location settings to the retro costumes, cinematographer John Mathieson has the wonderful job here of capturing it all as best as he can, and that he does. Not only does he frame his wide-angle establishing shots with a serene sense of natural beauty, but there are also many instances of remarkable angles, lens effects and framings of much closer shots that embody similar moods; evoking both emotion towards the characters on screen, and at the same time capturing moments usually punctuated with a song from the nostalgic soundtrack with much needed simplicity. And yet, this is essentially what Flashbacks of a Fool comes down to; it's simplicity. Detailing the paths of a young man and how he came to be the wasted, indulgent has-been that he is, Flashbacks is a simple, but highly compelling and emotive tale about humanity, our desires, choices and companions that travel with us along the way. It may not be a smooth journey by any means, but it's got enough heart to make it a memorable and rewarding one.

• A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)

Great cinematography, poor narrative.

[sophiethompson378 · 6/10 · 14 September 2011]

Flashbacks of a Fool… Where to begin? As I began to watch the film, I had no idea what to expect. At first I anticipated a (500) Days of Summer type film, with irregular time shifts and jumps throughout. But after watching Daniel Craig skilfully applying his Touche Éclat I wondered whether it would have more of an American Psycho angle to it. In fact, after viewing the entire film I was still wondering what on earth the film was about. Yes, it was shot beautifully, and Emile Robert played the part of the stern anti-hero (the Young Daniel Craig) to a tee, but in my opinion the film lacked a certain something.. a storyline.

In essence, this is basically a film about an obnoxious twerp who matures and grows into an even more obnoxious adult, who, despite having an enviable lifestyle and physique, insists on maintaining a frown throughout. You hate him as an adolescent, when he stands up his best friend's crush in order to have rampant sex with his mother's friend, and he has sex with said mother again, though this time her daughter ends up playing on an abandoned mine, and ends up getting blown up to smithereens. Oh, and Craig decides to make advances on his best friend's wife just hours after his funeral. And that's about it.

I would definitely recommend this film, if you appreciate artistic cinema and naked flesh, but if you're after a gripping, eventful film, Flashbacks of a Fool is definitely worth avoiding. Not only is there no real conclusion, but if you're like me, you will genuinely wonder what on earth you spent the past 90 minutes or so watching. On the plus side though, the music is brilliant, especially if you happen to be a Bowie fan, and you get to see Daniel Craig's naked buttocks. Repeatedly.

A little confused?

[andyrog1960 · 7/10 · 20 April 2008]

Saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it in places but left overall with the feeling that the characters could have been so much better developed. Was it me or was Daniel Craig still in Bond moody mode? The opening really did drag as we given an insight into Joe's lifestyle over in the USA. Did I hear a dodgy twang in Emilia Fox's accent? Anyway, there was scope for so much more, especially if you consider the popularity of recent throwback series such as Life on Mars. The section centred on the whole beach holiday thing did work quite well. The ending was left hanging as far as I can see - what did he write to make Ruth bawl so loudly over the din of the M25? So, yes, I enjoyed it but I want to know about the chronology - was it set in 1972ish, as the clothing would suggest, because if so that would make Daniel Craig nearer 50 than 40. Wouldn't it? It didn't spoil the enjoyment though. Go and see it and make your own mind up.

I LOVED, LOVED, LOVED this movie

[mtl1979 · 10/10 · 20 April 2008]

Saw it last night. I went to bed thinking about it and woke up thinking about it. This is just my sort of film: sensitive, poignant, melancholy, heartbreakingly beautiful. Yes, there were some things I would have changed (more about Joe and Boots or a longer scene between Joe and Ruth in later life) but essentially this is a film about guilt and self-loathing which eventually needs to be confronted. Imagine the effect of what he and Evelyn were doing when her daughter died as he was growing up? Would that have messed him up about sex and forming close human relationships, i.e. when he does, someone dies? He should have been with Ruth but he was taken advantage of by Evelyn and wasn't old enough to make the right decision. As it happened, the innocence all came to an abrupt halt and he never got a chance. I thought Harry Eden did a fantastic job: a boy on the brink of becoming a man but just so, so innocent (albeit mixed with some flashes of the more selfish Joe to come). We didn't see what happened to Joe in between the time he ran away and the grown up Joe - we can only surmise. I loved the cinematography of the flashback, the soft summer light inside the house, the use of sea waves to link 70s England with modern L.A. The Roxy Music lip-sync was worth the price of the ticket alone. The ending was a bit abrupt but I think it worked. It was painful to watch Ruth cry finally.

A reflection of human absurdity

[hbdave_77 · 7/10 · 20 November 2008]

Daniel Craig is Joe Scott, a Hollywood star who ruined his career as a self indulgent fool in drugs, sex, alcohol & pathetic behavior. After initial few moments in the ruined life of Scott, the movie turned into the flashback showing the absurd youth & the tragic blunders of teenager Scott. Some scenes make me think- i.e. a scene which started with pure lust & ends with a permanent lost of child by a careless, jealous & lust driven neighborhood mother. The scene is really beautifully portrayed showing the momentum of all the characters simultaneously representing different natural human instincts of infatuation, innocence, absurdity, responsibility, care & carelessness. More than the character study the film displays the absurdity of young age & how it grips & entangles one's life for once & forever. One more natural scene gets the attention in the end when out of the flashback Scott went back to cemetery to attend the funeral of his friend who married with his first dated girl & it's so real & natural. Yes, Craig tried to act here leaving his Bond image aside but its portrayal which seems more praiseworthy. It also has certain nudity of Craig (absolutely unnecessary) & boring moments as well. The movie has certain eye candy long shots reflecting ocean & meadows. Direction & script is credible.

Recommend 2 watch.

Ratings- 7/10

nice step back into childhood emotional beginnings and where they get caught up.

[quabalah69 · 9/10 · 4 October 2008]

Cleverly written step back into how our lives get mixed up and don't get sorted at source so they effect our later lives. The simple truths are realised here, many 30-40 somethings will find many references to their own lives,release those feelings and we can live again. Simple good acting, good story, fantastic music, and very good emotional but simple ride, more of the same please. Daniel Craig plays emotionally pent up, spent up actor well, lovely mid scenes of the way we were in the early seventies. The Roxy Music song played in my head for a week after and i;d never heard it before. A must see for any romantic or any amateur psychologist or spiritualist or anybody living a life with repressed emotions...oh thats everybody then.

Beaches

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 17 July 2009]

"Flashbacks of a Fool" was shown recently on cable. The only interesting thing was the presence of Daniel Craig playing a leading character. Alas, his appearance only comes at the beginning and at the conclusion of the story. He plays Joe Scott, a washed out Hollywood star who has fallen so low no one wants him for any of the films where he could have been considered. This is made plain at the meeting he is taking with his agent at a restaurant. We knew from the start he had a drug problem and loves the type of group sex he can get from expensive prostitutes. After the restaurant fiasco, he runs fully clothed into the ocean, as we suspect the worst.

But no, what happens is a flashback to an early time in a beach community with low income bungalows in what we took to be England, but it is a South Africa of the 1970s. Joe, is a teen ager who is with his mother and a young sister spending the summer there. This is the summer where he first learned the joys of sex. It came in the person of Evelyn, an older married woman, who fancies him. Joe likes Ruth, a girl about his own age, but the lad is too involved with seeing Evelyn on the sly. As a result of the illicit love making, there is a tragedy that will change the way Joe faces life and his becoming a hard man trying to pay for his own mistake.

Baillie Walsh is the creator of the film as well as its director. It is an uneven film, with some good moments. Daniel Craig plays a much more human character this time. His sequence at the beginning of the film is about the best thing in it. Jodhi May plays the pathetic Evelyn. Olivia Williams is Joe's mother. Harry Eden has some good moments as the young Scott.

Not very good

[stowbury · 5/10 · 19 April 2008]

There was a ten or so minute interlude about half-way through that worked - some interesting and realistic interaction between the young protagonist and the girl he's getting to know - discussing Bowie lyrics, dressing up, spreading out on the luxurious white carpet and culminating in a wonderful Bryan Ferry and backing vocalist impersonation double act. Unfortunately everything that goes before and comes afterwards is generally dull and unconvincing, verging at times on the preposterous. Some of the dialogue is cringe-making and the tendency to turn on the formulaic swirling mushy musical score to buy some emotional involvement at the slightest hint of a poignant moment had the opposite of the intended effect. Most of the period detail is good but there are also mistakes. The following did not exist here in Britain in the early 70s when the youthful episodes occurred: the kind of door that camouflages a fridge as a cupboard, the one-fingered rather than two-fingered insulting salute, and calling someone a loser. For a film of this kind - about human relationships or the lack of them - the dialogue is very poor indeed - neither witty, authentic or insightful, although the scriptwriter presumably thought it was all three. The central incident in which a mother's lustful pursuit of the teenage protagonist has a tragic outcome is an absurd contrivance and is absurdly milked with the aforementioned loathsome music for pathos that isn't there. By the end all semblance of credibility is lost - instead of coming home the wayward actor seems to have wandered into the valley of the dolls, such is the unnatural knockout beauty that all the women seem to have attained during his prolonged absence, and yet the screenplay achieves the singular feat at this point of being more boring than a random unedited slice of an average person's daily life. Still, the nice scenery and intermittent good moments, mainly that scene in the middle, were enough to make the whole thing just about bearable overall.

Great Drama!!

[cmattocks · 8/10 · 23 February 2009]

I really loved this movie! It makes you to think and talk about it after you have seen it. Sometimes when you are so high in your life you're living,nothing is important more than yourself until something personally hits you This film tells you that you have to go down rock bottom to stop and realize your past and your mistakes you have done. And this one film tells you everything you need to know about mistakes when we are still innocent and young and in the same time even when you are young you still feel guilt of what happens around you. But it is never too late and i think everyone deserves a second chance. It took me 3 months when i decided to rent it and i said to give it a go and i really enjoyed watching it. Very Good Drama!!

The actors are better than the material

[dbborroughs · 5/10 · 5 April 2009]

Daniel Craig commands the screen in a cliché story about an actor on the way down who gets word that a childhood friend has died, which of course spins him off into remembering what used to be. Its a cliché tale thats been done before in one way or another. The film is a very well made and extremely well acted especially by Daniel Craig who proves yet again he's probably the best of any actor who's played James Bond.The problem here is the script which takes way too long to get going. Its almost a full half hour before we begin the hour long center section of the film that explains, in part why things are they way they are. As well done as it is it isn't anything we haven't seen before, and once we returned to the present I kind of had a feeling how bits of the last half hour would play out. Its not a bad film, but it is yet again another one thats good enough to make you wish that it was better.

Moving in what is left unsaid

[poddylobo · 8/10 · 2 September 2012]

Going back to my Music GCSE, I'd describe the structure of this film as having a simple ternary form - A-B-A' - standing aptly in this case for Adult-Boy-Adult'.

The limitations of this 'song form' are plenty and frustrating for a viewer looking for a story - what happens between A and B, or more significantly, between B and A? Are we just looking here at a story of guilt? Are we supposed to draw a link between what happens in B as a way of explaining Joe's (CRAIG) behaviour in A? I'm not sure we're able to make such assumptions.

So instead I could only take each of the film's three sections as self-standing, but that doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy the film as a whole.

Indeed, a film that resists a coherent narrative and prevents identification with its characters is perfectly suitable structurally for such themes of guilt and escape.

That is what makes this film moving. Not for the on-screen emotion, but for what is left out, unseen and lost in the hyphens of the film's structure.