paulijcalderon 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.

sports7272 The only thing that prompted me to review this film was the fact that the worst review rated 2 stars.I would have given it a minus number.I know there are are many bad films made these days,but they are not pretending to be works of art.This pretentious load of rubbish was a complete waste of acting ability.I didn't give a damn about any of the characters.And as for the aging make up near the end of the film,that was hysterical.Were they off to a halloween party?

MickyR 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.

spartacrust I must admit I really did'not expect this to turn out to be such a little gem. I was locked into it from the first 10 minutes or so. But it's a great pity the screenwriter did'not fill in a few more bits of the main characters life. I could have sat there for another 40 minutes at least. Daniel Craig has come a long way since playing the Geordie bouncer and hit-man in 'Our friends in the North' a part which he played so convincingly at the time, I did'not think he'd ever be able to move on. Typecasting is so rife in TV. Realistically Sad in parts, and not the screeching OTT theatricals that you usually get from the Media.