Flashbacks of a Fool

source: Flashbacks of a Fool

A must see movie with good plot, great cast, brilliant acting, talented filmmakers, beautiful film setting and fabulous movie soundtrack (my favorite is 'Sons Of' by Scott Walker). A 'very good' movie should convey to the viewers about important realities in life; and should be able to offer uplifting themes. The filmmakers of this movie delivered all these criteria with ease. I'm still thinking about this movie, even after watching it for the fourth time. I would have to purchase the movie so I can see it again and again; plus listen to the movie soundtrack as much as I want. I read a number of negative reviews about this movie before I rented it; and I don't understand what the negativity was all about. I'd say never read critics' reviews, just go see the movie. This movie definitely has a lot of substance! Kudos to Baillie Walsh, Daniel Craig and the rest of the 'brilliant' cast in sharing with us the viewers such a memorable film.

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.

Joe Scott is a very successful actor who has a reputation for debauchery and drug use to the point that even his own housekeeper dreads coming to work in the morning for fear of what she will find. When he loses a part in a film though, the confrontation with his agent forces him to faces facts about his life which in turn sends him into despair, given that it has come on the heels of the news of a childhood friend's death. Joe finds himself recalling this friendship and other formative aspects of his teenage years. The cast attracted me to this film on DVD even though it had totally passed me by when it came through the UK cinemas. The opening sex scenes caught my eye as they were well-filmed and contrasted well with the music and suggested that the film might be on its way to something interesting. It seems that way the whole way through the modern day set-up but once we flashback that things gradually start going wrong. The irony is that this is where the film is in regards the narrative but it doesn't work. The problem is that we have too much focus on events such as sexual encounters and other memorable moments but nowhere near enough on in regards character development and insight. This started to make me lose interest in the character of Joe and the film itself – something that continued as it went on. This leaves the bookend section back in the present day feeling like it should be touching and moving while also failing to be. Visually I really liked the film because it has a very professional gloss on it with plenty of good shots that one would perhaps expect from a music video director. The problem is that Walsh doesn't deliver on the emotion and complexity in the script or the delivery. The cast do what they can but it is difficult without the leadership in what they are doing. Craig looks physically great and he is an effortless presence on the screen but he cannot emotionally connect and I wasn't touched by his performance. Eden is more of a victim of this though as his turn comes off really stiff and uninvolving. Other turns in the past are more convincing and engaging, which is a shame as they are smaller characters. I did also think Eve was better than I expected despite her tiny role. Flashbacks of a Fool is a disappointment. It looks great but when it comes to the substance and the characters it simply doesn't deliver and ends up being a little dull. I wanted to be moved and engaged in these lives but I wasn't – even if some of the events held my attention by virtue of what they were.

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.

Everything about this film is magic. The casting, acting, scenery - at points like a picture postcard - you have to see it on the big screen but I will be purchasing the DVD when released, script (although at one point i was beginning to think the sex was rather gratuitous and wondered where the plot was heading which is also fabulous as it means the film was not entirely predictable), the soundtrack - I put on my Bryan Ferry CDs when I got home (cool), the tripyness of the whole visiting glamorous Miami lifestyle versus British country quaint and modern day adulthood against 70s innocence. Woah the ending so cool and probably why I wanted to see it again as I wanted to go back to the beginning and appreciate the characters knowing their history. Joe is no fool and there should be a sequel but not called Flashbacks of a Fool II and Ruth should be in it. Pure magic !

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.

This film is about a fading British actor facing his demons from his adolescent days. "Flashback of a Fool" features heavenly scenery just like any national geographic documentary. Every scene is shot in amazing weather, with absolutely clear skies. The home Joe lives in is modern and luxurious, and is certainly my dream house. Yet, all these are not enough to make "Flashback of a Fool" entertaining. The pacing is ultra slow, and even after 1.5 hours I am still wondering what the film is exactly about. There is little drama, and almost nothing (apart from nudity) to engage the viewers. The only dramatic scene is the seaside explosion. This one minute scene unfortunately is the highlight of the film. Only after this scene the film begins to make some sense, but by then I have lost all interest in the film already. Oh, and "Flashbacks of a Fool" is a misnomer because there is really only one flashback which lasts for over an hour. I think I am a fool to watch this dull and boring film.

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.

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.