I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Sorry, this movie sucks

Absolutely the worst movie.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Joe Scott is a washed up actor who returns back to his hometown after a dear friend has passed. He is a very selfish and angry person, but as he gets closer to his home, the more human and caring feelings begin to take hold of him and change him.Those are the best things about this film. The good nostalgic feeling about family, old friends, familiar places and music you grew up with. It shows what a humble and optimistic feeling that is. There are moments with the main character in the first and third acts that are almost heartbreaking and you can almost feel what he is going through. Realizing how self-centered you've been for too long and forgetting to look around and enjoy.Unfortunately the film slows down heavily after the first 30 minutes when the "Flashback section" begins. These 40 minutes of the film were not appealing and dragged the whole experience down. The characters in this section act in a way that made me not care in the slightest and I began to think that these were two different films put into one. I wanted to get invested, but that story line was off putting and provocative, even disgusting at times because of what certain people did. If someone else likes this part of the film, that's good, I wish I could feel the same. But it just didn't work for me. Showing the character change and become a better human worked well enough in the present time line for me. The past time line would have worked better for me if it was left more ambiguous.The last act again is better and I cared for Joe returning home and reconnecting with his life. The greatness in this film lies in its quiet and calm moments when characters are reflecting and not when its trying to chock or exploit the audience.If you ever watch it, then watch the first 30 minutes and then skip ahead 40 minutes and watch the ending. Those are the parts of the film that are gonna leave you feeling optimistic.

The nights blur into one; the respect and acknowledgement towards both the artistry and craft behind producing what it is the lead works towards within his chosen industry seemingly vacant; the wall up ahead they're charging towards with a look to hit head on, looming; the realisation that one must begin to confront one's lifestyle and ask oneself some serious questions prominent. Thus begins 2008's Flashbacks of a Fool, a really quite involving British drama from a music video-director turned film maker in Baillie Walsh about an actor from England living the high-life, but on the road to ruin, in America's vacuous; sin strewn; sun drenched avenues of Los Angeles. Begin to lop a dragon's tail off and he won't notice, not, that is until it begins to get perilously close to his actual body; herein lies our lead's scenario, and an event from the outside world coming to force him to identify this has the film eventually come to play out as a rather fascinating film.Daniel Craig plays Joe Scott, the aforementioned actor and titular fool, whom we see for the first time engaging in a coke and alcohol fuelled sex binge with two other women within his luxurious L.A. home. Come the morning, the socialites leave to the tone of a rather shallow conversation; their car heading on out paving way for an aide named Ophelia (Eve) to come in with a big black rubbish bag so as to tidy up. Scott appears graciously at ease with the fact she sees him nude and with the house in such a state, we feel Ophelia is aware of what's gone on and the sense of this happening all too often is effectively put across via their dialogue suggesting a long and fruitful understanding. Scott's life is, despite being full of certain things, ultimately empty; his attitude positively narcissistic with his habits eerily hedonistic. He states himself that he doesn't wish to see himself "through the eyes of somebody else", suggesting a bottled up awareness of his lifestyle; the lifestyle of which is a positively gutless, barren, hollow, fatuous one that has still seen him obtain so much money and other luxuries.The film appears icy, cold and methodical in its cinematography; but necessarily so this capturing the world and lifestyle lived therein. Scott isn't someone totally irredeemably: apparently capable of both compassion and deliberation, fleeting moments that they are they, showing a distinct surge away from his usual demeanour when he comes to accidentally injure his secretary and later silently occupies a space in his beach-house propped up by books on a counter and a telescope looking out to see, iconography of the cultured and active. Around him, Mark Strong's Mannie Miesel, Scott's agent, and the "hottest new director in Hollywood" are at lunch with our lead trying to arrange roles and projects. Each of them appear as aggressive, shallow and awful as each other but with the director appearing noticeably drained of any kind of sophistication; effectively suggesting an equally narcissistic edge to those whom dominate the film-making world of America's Hollywood. Disagreements ensue, general alienation with L.A. and its people seems to be coming out in physical form on Scott's behalf before the film's catalyst in the form of a phone-call arrives from back home in England.The film's body is made up of those titular flashbacks, a harking back to 1970s seaside Britain and a young Joe Scott played by teenaged actor Emile Robert, as he goes through this patch of life as an adolescent existing with his male friends; girl friends; family and neighbours. His best friend is a certain boy named Boots (Deacon), whose death in the modern day has caused Scott to go back; his life with Boots back in the day proving just as frivolous as it does in contemporary America for Joe, with the attitudes towards both girls and the elderly on show for what they are. Away from Boots is one of the neighbours, the elderly Mrs. Rogers (Karlin) whom speaks of generations past when things were far more regimented and thus far better, but despite being the lone sane voice of what might be the entire film, is casually dismissed by the youth of the day. Young mother of one Evelyn (May) offers dangerous proposals of a sexual nature out of her own wedlock to Joe as, elsewhere, young Ruth (Jones & Forlani, in different guises) appears far more normalised than any of the other girls and offers Joe a seemingly genuine relationship with somebody both their ages. One day; all of the lies, cheating and animosity comes to culminate in a devastating act which shakes the characters inhabiting this small town to each of their cores.Craig plays the part to a tee; his own going on to somewhat dominate American acting circles and the international film circuit, particularly in the form of the James Bond franchise, in recent years keeps Flashbacks of a Fool on an effective and constantly grounded curb as Craig himself essentially returns to Britain so as to engage in the producing of a home-based film. Joe's running away from death and tragedy in 70s Britain has only led to further disenchantment with everything and everyone else around him; a running and hiding from one's responsibility and mistakes lead only to further sin and drowning, all of it captured with cold professionalism by director Walsh. As a one part redemptive text; one part stark and frank coming of age tale and one part sociological commentary on the ins and outs of the hollowness of Hollywood, Flashbacks of a Fool cuts to the bone in its effectiveness.

I stopped going to the cinema in the early 1990s, got fed up with being disappointed with over-hyped crap. Flashbacks of a Fool was in the background on BBC1 last night, got drawn into it (no adverts!).If, like me, you left teenage love behind in early 1970s UK then watch at your peril, this will turn you inside out. It's about what was, what is and what could have been; the film generates a sense of loss, perhaps redeemable, who knows? To reach out to someone after nearly 40 years cannot possibly work ... can it? If you didn't leave love behind in early 1970s UK then it's passable, nothing more.Daniel Craig cannot act, but in the context of this film it doesn't matter; the story, images, soundtrack and supporting cast just steamroller over such minor considerations.Now off to the attic to search for some vinyl.

Joe Scot is a successful British actor in LA, but his life and career are beginning to fall apart. When Joe receives news of the death of Boots, a former best pal from his adolescent years, a crisis approaches that has its roots in a twisted sequence of events that had occurred almost twenty years previously. "Flashbacks of a Fool" relates how an incident in adolescence can taint an outwardly successful life with a sense of failure and remorse. The pivotal episode had involved Boots and a precociously charismatic girl, and the story is told in flashback as Joe remembers how the threesome's triangulated connection had fragmented and rearranged itself after a tragic accident. Unfortunately the film neglects to explore Joe's bond with Boots, and fails to show the friendship's crucial importance. Instead of focusing attention on the central figures, too much time is devoted to the comings and goings of various peripheral characters and Joe's seduction by a sluttish neighbor.Writer/director Baillie Walsh spins his narrative with high quality yarn, and the result goes well beyond interesting, and almost enters the territory of the exceptional. Despite its shortcomings the film has strong emotional content, the motives and relationships of the characters are believable, the acting of the fine cast is excellent, and the cinematography is luscious.