Daniel Craig plays Joe Scott, a one-time big deal in Hollywood whose life is just empty, drinking, drugs, and self obsession are his only interests. Living in Los Angeles his life is far from his roots in the east coast of England, in a small seaside resort. For Joe though life turns further upside down one day when a phone call from his mother Grace (Olivia Williams) tells him that his childhood friend Boots has died. After a morning of anger Joe heads to the beach with a bottle, heading into the sea he floats on the surface reflecting on that crucial point in time where his life changed forever.

 

Flashbacks Of A Fool is the sort of movie that would appeal to a person of a certain age, and into a specific scene at the moment of their life where things changed more than at any other point in their lifetime. I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s, I lived on a beach (in a house obviously) and found a certain wonder in the magic of that beach, during my early teenage years I was obsessed by two things sex and music, the movie is centred around exactly the same time. One of the pivotal moments of the movie occurs when an old World War two mine is washed up on the beach all the characters live on, where I was growing up this happened all the time. For all these reasons I can relate to the character of Joe, watching the movie was like a glimpse back into my past, with me being the titled fool. Like all flashbacks you remember the weather either to be perfect or horrendous and as such the weather in the movie is one or the other, usually perfect. I think if you’re below 35 years old (unless you are an old soul in a young person’s body), that you really will not get this movie. This is a movie that offers a dreamy time to reminisce the good times, along with a rather unpleasant series of events.

Sex features highly in the movie, rather like the way Channel Four (a UK based television station) used to lure its viewers in, Flashbacks Of A Fool pulls in its audience with the promise of sex and a certain sort of titillation. Opening with silhouetted figures enjoying a threesome, sex next raises its head during a flashback to a fairground ghost train, where young Joe and his friend Boots are vigorously masturbating in order to obtain enough sperm to wipe in the hair of the girls that pass by them in their carriages. Joe finds himself later caught in the crossfire between two women, sexually frustrated neighbour Evelyn (Jodhi May) and the delightful David Bowie/Roxy Music obsessed Ruth (Felicity Jones). Like any child, the most straight forward option, the quickest way to get to the goal (the goal here being sex) is the path that Joe takes.  It’s one of these diversions that cause the issues that change his life, and cause him to put his childhood behind him even though he was still a child.

Director/Writer Baillie Walsh lived through the period of time portrayed in Joe’s flashbacks, as a result he pictures everything just perfectly, delivering us to a time where everyone made home-grown produce, and a highlight of living near the beach was beachcombing looking for treasures washed ashore. I love the fact that Joe’s mother has a “friend”, a woman whose presence is unexplained and giving you good reason to suspect she may be a lesbian, this sort of thing happened a lot back then. He also has given good attention to the clothing, makeup, music, and the sort of filming locations used; if it were not for the fact that you are fully aware when the movie was made you could easily believe that this movie was a product of the day. Aspects of the movie are biographical in the movie (from Walsh’s life); though nowhere does it explain what aspects these might be.  Realising that the majority of the audience are not going to be above the age of 35 Walsh tries his best to explain as best he can about that point in time, specifically using the wild, mysterious and mature Ruth (the same age as Joe but way above his level of maturity) to explain things, in an educational moment she explains to Joe the meaning behind Bowies Jean Genie, although really she is explaining to the audience. While trends of the day like putting your head in a polythene bag to see how long you can breathe for without suffocating,  help us to understand how the more innocent aspects of this time were never far away from something far more serious.

There are moments in the movie that have been framed and captured so perfectly, Ruth dresses up young Joe (played in flashbacks by Harry Eden from Bleak House) with a jazzy Bryan Ferry style jacket and make-up, then the two perform a mimed version of a performance to Roxy Music’s “If There Is Something”, a track legendary in both its running time and its style. This same score later becomes the theme for the movie, personally when I think back over the movie it’s the most vivid image created in my head.

The cast are particularly good many of whom are doing favours for Walsh, because like Craig not only did they live the time, but they fully understood it and know that this is an area of history forgotten to all but those that lived it. Along with the cast members mentioned there is also the delightful Claire Forlani, Keeley Hawes, and Mark Strong, all of whom act very naturally, there is no faking here.

 

The cleverest aspect of the movie is that for the Los Angeles scenes of the movie, Walsh captured similar looking environments from both the UK and South Africa in order to save money with the movies production costs, and unless you knew better you would never for one moment  suspect this.

The crucial aspect of the movie, its mission statement if you like is all about change, and most importantly letting go of the past; life is short and it’s important to make the best of everyday, as the movie progresses Joes reflections of the past help him to address his future.

While not for everyone, Flashbacks Of A Fool is for someone, and if nobody else it was for me; from providing me with forgotten images from my past, and breaking free all those memories; to most importantly keeping me entertained for two hours. So for every bad review on this movie you read, remember this one and hopefully you’ll give it the chance to work its charms on you too.

Of course, when I first heard about the film adaptation I was both excited and apprehensive. How could such a powerful and complex trilogy be adapted for a mass market cinema audience, and how could it sidestep the controversy of its anti religious themes? The answer: it didn't.

As a generic fantasy adventure, “The Golden Compass” is mildly diverting. Well cast, pretty to look at with interesting designs for costumes and artifacts and gorgeous sweeping shots of Norwegian landscapes, it ought to be a very good film, but it falls flat through mediocre, even boring, direction, a pedestrian script, wasting its stellar cast with a sparse selection of dull lines, and thanks to a trite musical score, the film starts to feel like a poor facsimile of Disney. For those unfamiliar with the plot, it must have been daunting, as the story flits uncertainly around, moving desperately fast, but for those familiar with it a growing sense of anger was palpable in the cinema!

Elements of plot are changed inexplicably, the ending is cut infuriatingly short, crucial and excellently evoked set pieces are mangled beyond belief. The CGI creatures look, for the most part, vaguely acceptable, the daemons (souls of humans in the form of animals which walk by their human side) are effective enough, but are made unnecessarily cute, Lyra's daemon Pantalaimon, a cautious voice of reason in the books, becomes little more than comic relief, whilst the armored bears simply look ridiculous, particularly in making the lead bears look like the actors voicing them (a polar bear version of Sir Ian McKellen, good grief!) and the fight between them is depressingly bloodless.

The overall impression is that New Line Cinema have become complacent following the success of “the Lord of the Rings” and have decided that “The Golden Compass” should mimic it, thus we must have the mysterious explanatory prologue, the grand orchestral score, the scene with the collapsing bridge, the sweeping shots of landscape, Christopher Lee on the bad side and Ian McKellen on the good side. A deep disappointment. I dread to think what will happen to the next two installments of the trilogy, especially with this film's instance to “play down” the religious aspect of the piece; the ideological heart of the story.

Why would a Christian Reviewer See this Movie?

The short answer is that I like to think for myself. I don't believe in “a secular” and “a sacred.” Everything is sacred for those who are in Christ. This is a fallen world. Nothing here is entirely good, but it was created to be good and if we look sometimes we can see the good hidden in it. I'm not afraid that some satanic movie is going to rub off on me, rather where light is darkness flees. That doesn't mean I shouldn't use discernment about what I soak my brain in. Still, I'd rather view a movie that turns out to be “filthy” with my feelers up than passively absorb a couple hours of TV complacent in the knowledge that network censors protected my innocence.

So Was the Movie as Evil as “They” Said it Was?

Well, Mr. Pullman is a well-documented, self-avowed atheist who set out to write his answer to the “Chronicles of Narnia.” The film reveals a clear repulsion for organized religion which would rather kill someone than let people question authority. “Here, here,” I say to that sentiment. If only it stopped there.

Most atheists strike as a bit too passionate about there not being a God. I can't really hazard a guess what Mr. Pullman's motives were but I know you have to believe in God to be angry with him. Star Dust the books are of course different than the film. I'm speaking only of the film so I'll try to leave Mr. Pullman out of it from now on.

The Plot

The film touts a land where everyone has an external soul in the form of an animal which they innocently happen to call a demon. The children's souls morph into several animals while the adults are stuck with one animal. If you hurt either the soul or the person the other feels it equally. Kill one and the other dies too. Our heroin must recover a pair of boys she likes, find her Uncle and figure out what Dust is. To aid her she is given the last Golden Compass which will tell her the truth about anything she asks it. She also has a loyal band of Gypsies. Along the way she picks up her own armored bear, a balloon pilot, and a pack of witches.

I figured the witches and demons were enough to stir up the fundamentalists, and that's what all the hype was about. There is more though…read on.

The boys are abducted by “GOBlers” who work for the Magisterium trying to separate the youths from their souls. While most of the film sticks to adventure there are two scenes which explain some of the mystery. Those two scenes are likely the objectionable part of the film to most Christians. The first scene is a video of a dust leaving another realm, passing through a man's soul/pet and entering him. This upsets the magisterium because they don't want other realms to challenge their authority. The second scene is when the character Marisa Coulter explains why she saved the heroin from the other children's fate. Coulter explains that (I'm paraphrasing) long ago their ancestors made a mistake that allowed dust into the world and that's why the souls of adults couldn't change form. The magisterium wanted to raise a generation of kids that didn't have a soul so that they would remain unaffected by the dust, rendering them easy to control.

I know what you're thinking. That's it? That's the plot? Pretty week, uh?

Larger Story: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

If the dust represents the knowledge of good and evil then our antagonists are trying to separate children from their souls so they'll be pliable. They are trying to create a false state of innocence. The protagonists are only guilty of wanting to explore other realms of possibilities. This is an old refrain we've heard before. A connection is being drawn between innocence and ignorance, between obedience and slavery. Satin's line is, “God is holding out on you. If you don't open Pandora's box you don't know what you're missing.” God's line is, “You know who I am. I had to put Pandora's box in reach, because without the option to open it you'd be a slave.”

The message of this film is that demons connect us to the spirit realm, and to the power and knowledge we need to make up our own minds. The truth is that the option to know good and evil made not choosing it an act of obedience. It is evil that would seek to rob us of choice and free will. Every Christian believes that Christ died to restore choice to us. It was once a choice of fall or not, now it's a choice of accept salvation or not.

Avoid “Golden Compass” but Not For the Reason you Think

The bottom line here is that, controversy aside; this isn't a great film. The scenery was beautiful, and the steam punk costuming and setting is imaginative but the acting was a little clunky and the plot was full of holes. Sam Elliot was good in his roll but he was pretty much playing himself. Daniel Craig was still 007. Nicole Kidman was beautifully costumed, but a slightly more sophisticated version of her psycho, news-reporter roll Suzanne Maretto in “To Die For.”

As far as the plot holes go, here's an example, why did the “GOBlers” have to transport the children they stole to the remote arctic lands in order to experiment on them. They couldn't find an empty barn in the countryside I guess. What about the Armored Bear who becomes king of his people. Why can't he bring his army of ninja bears along to the fight?

In general the film just fell short of spectacular. It's not awful just not worthy of the buzz.

God Bless and Happy Viewing.

Most of the now-famous James Bond movies were based on the 1953 novel by Ian Flemming entitled ?Casino Royale?. The 1953 novel is set during the Cold War and provides insightful information and delves deep into the origins of 007. Daniel Craig was in the potential ?type-for-cast? category after his starring in the 2004 film ?Layer Cake? through which he starred as a criminal trying to escape his law-breaking past. Daniel is the son of a steel worker as a father and art teacher as a mother and was born and raised in the city of Chester. Casino Royale is the 21st official James Bond movie. The James Bond movies have definitely never grown faint in popularity. Daniel Craig gets the so called ?bashed and bloodied? treatment as a reviewer commented on the filming of the movie. Daniel lost a tooth cap in a punch-up scene.

As Daniel pressed on to filming the rest of the movie he endured cuts, bruises and a torture scene in which he was hit in the ?sensitive spots? by a knotted rope. The ravaged Daniel also injured a tendon in a high-speed foot chase. All of these injuries were endured by painkillers and physiotherapy. What is the price to pay for realism? Daniel certainly endured pain as the price for realism. Daniel Craig commented during filming that ?I got fit for a reason, I didn?t just get fit because I was taking my shirt off, I knew that I wanted to get involved with every step of the film process?.

He said this because ?Casino Royale? was a big step in his movie career. Daniel?s movie career did not take off until the dawn of the new millennium in which in those years he starred in ?Layer Cake?, ?Lara Croft: Tomb Raider?, ?Road To Perdition?, ?Sylvia? and ?Enduring Love?. His most recent roles in ?Munich? and ?Infamous? have rest assured his acclaim. Craig was apparently keen to play the new Bond despite factors of him losing his privacy in the movie business, so ?the script must have been up to par enough for Daniel? a reviewer commented. Casino Royale is apparently geared more towards love and romance that is old-fashioned love and romance, seeing that in this film, not every girl Bond meets is prancing around in a bikini. According to a reviewer, even Daniel was aware of that and agreed that the new movie was more into romance than previous movies.

Daniel is the new Bond that is the first that has blue eyes and is a blonde. James Bond movies will probably continue to entertain moviegoers everywhere. With the movies? hyper expensive special effects that appear infeasible to the average male, and bonds sly secret moves that never go awry will keep the public constellating to theatres everywhere. Moviegoers will continue to be pleased in every way. Will the mushy new romance in ?Casino Royale? be too much for the moviegoer? Who knows, but for now the movies have been successful and many previous Bonds from old movies have well-wished Daniel Craig. Daniel has also signed on for another Bond movie later in his movie career.

Daniel Craig as James Bond
Judi Dench as M
Eva Green as Vesper Lynd
Jeffery Wright as Felix Leiter

DIRECTOR:

Martin Campbell

Running time: 2hr 24 minutes.

Go see “Casino Royal”

I really enjoyed it. It’s a bond film but a little different. Bond and company shifted some when Pierce Brosnan played him, but some of the changes weren’t really for the better. I think Brosnan became a fall guy for people’s discontent about the changes. History will vindicate him.

Daniel Craig makes a great Bond. If you like bond films you’ll like this one. It’s especially fun to see them explain some of the things we associate with Bond like his Astin Martin, martinis and tuxedos. Overall the acting was good, as was the action.

The changes this time were more successful in my opinion. This bond didn’t pull off quite so many supper human stunts. This Bond doesn’t always land on his feet. He nearly dies and he nearly falls in love. He also isn’t as nonchalant about killing. This film is action bordering on suspense. In some way it feels like “The Italian Job” or “Oceans 11” more than old school 007.

What about the “PG-13” Rating?

That’s nice change from “R,” huh? I liked all the Bond films even though at times they relied way too much on skin. Bond’s womanizing was always presented as pitiable more than admirable. He was a man that couldn’t form lasting relationships. In the 70’s that reflected the casualness of the age. Now we think of him as wounded and incomplete. The rating is deserved—chicks in bathing suits, and steamy make-out scenes—but in yet another break with tradition the most skin shown goes to Bond himself.

Larger Story

No larger story here that I can see. I watched 3 films today though, so I might be a little tired.

To contact the author search Myspace for Greymar. I only friendlist people I know so if you really want on my list you’ll have to send me email referencing that you read my articles.