Flashbacks of a Fool (2008)
#31
Posted 11 March 2008 - 12:09 AM
#32
Posted 11 March 2008 - 02:14 AM
Is this some sort of Lost episode?
Don't think so.
#33
Posted 11 March 2008 - 09:36 AM
#34
Posted 11 March 2008 - 10:36 AM
Looks like it might be quite a good and interesting film, but then I thought the same about ENDURING LOVE, which turned out to be a preposterous, self-regarding, pseudo-intellectual, flashily-photographed and deeply boring Brit drama of the very worst kind.
So this could go either way. As Yoda might put it, difficult to spot from just the trailer, a decent film is.
Yes. And I thought Venus was going to be a sentimental bore judging from its trailer, yet it turned out to be charming, witty and sincere.
#35
Posted 21 March 2008 - 01:32 PM
Abysmal, both sides of the pond. Yes, yes, I hear the screams of "Quality can't be judged by profit!!!!!" True. But crowd-pleasing movies can have integrity too. Anyone remember a nifty little number with a hero we could root for, known here and there as, quite simply, CR?
#36
Posted 21 March 2008 - 03:18 PM
#37
Posted 22 March 2008 - 05:59 AM
Projected box office take:
Abysmal, both sides of the pond. Yes, yes, I hear the screams of "Quality can't be judged by profit!!!!!" True. But crowd-pleasing movies can have integrity too. Anyone remember a nifty little number with a hero we could root for, known here and there as, quite simply, CR?
Dodge, can you also hear the screams of "What are you talking about?" Its a tiny, low budget independent film aimed at a specific, mature audience (i.e. nobody who saw Transformers). I don't understand the CR comparison at all. Does Wild Hogs' box office take mean that its worth two No Country for Old Mens, or four There Will Be Bloods?
#38
Posted 22 March 2008 - 01:38 PM
Projected box office take:
Abysmal, both sides of the pond. Yes, yes, I hear the screams of "Quality can't be judged by profit!!!!!" True. But crowd-pleasing movies can have integrity too. Anyone remember a nifty little number with a hero we could root for, known here and there as, quite simply, CR?
Dodge, can you also hear the screams of "What are you talking about?" Its a tiny, low budget independent film aimed at a specific, mature audience (i.e. nobody who saw Transformers). I don't understand the CR comparison at all. Does Wild Hogs' box office take mean that its worth two No Country for Old Mens, or four There Will Be Bloods?
My dear friend and one of my all-time fave posters: you're reading too much into the CR comparison. First off, I'm not suggesting that DC should only do big-budget action movies. And I'm equally not suggesting that he only play superheroes like Bond. Budget size means no more to me than whatever he packs in his briefs. I do not give a hoot. BUT...I do care--how shall I put this?--about the use to which he puts his creative monster. The skill with which he wields it. And the creative pow he packs. I'm all for flawed heroes and small-budget films. But Flashbacks smacks of arthouse dud and big-time emotional bummer. And now that he's laughing en route to the bank, do we really need Dan Craig to tell us that life sucks? I'm still in his corner and rooting for Dan to make a decent movie, FAST, in between his Bonds. Go, Dan! Meanwhile, are we still pals and would you like to go bowling some day?
#39
Posted 23 March 2008 - 05:07 PM
[/quote]
So - now that he is doing well for himself, he is not allowed to do films anymore, that deal with personal problems or problems at all???
#40
Posted 23 March 2008 - 07:01 PM
#41
Posted 27 March 2008 - 10:54 PM
-----UPDATE-----
'...maybe we can push it--play with the dark side a bit more.'
I'm liking the trailer for this. Definitely interested in checking it out once it hits theatres.
#42
Posted 28 March 2008 - 03:26 AM
#43
Posted 03 April 2008 - 05:52 PM
Click on link on page to download folder with great pics of Dan on set and interview.
(Credit to Dtd)
#44
Posted 03 April 2008 - 06:04 PM
#45
Posted 03 April 2008 - 10:12 PM
"© MMVII SHAKEN, NOT STIRRED FILMS LTD. AND DRS ENTERTAINMENT LLP ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Distributed by Miramax International."
could it possibly be what Craig has listed as he's working as exectutive proucer?
Edited by Orion, 03 April 2008 - 10:14 PM.
#46
Posted 04 April 2008 - 01:22 AM
#47
Posted 04 April 2008 - 04:22 AM
"
#48
Posted 05 April 2008 - 01:29 AM
#49
Posted 11 April 2008 - 03:07 PM
-----UPDATE-----
Win tickets to the event at London's Empire Cinema
#50
Posted 11 April 2008 - 04:05 PM
#51
Posted 11 April 2008 - 09:21 PM
Hope it gets a US release soon.
#52
Posted 14 April 2008 - 01:35 AM
Lily Allen's 'hospital gown chic' at premiere... but Daniel Craig looks dapper
Last updated at 01:10am on 14th April 2008
It was the glittering world premi
#53
Posted 14 April 2008 - 03:16 AM
-----UPDATE-----
'The film touches on a lot of things we all went through...'
#54
Posted 14 April 2008 - 03:20 PM
Daniel Craig: 'Just getting on with things'
Daniel Craig took time out from filming the latest Bond movie Quantum of Solace to attend the premiere of his new film Flashbacks of a Fool.
He plays a washed-up Hollywood star who tries to come to terms with his troubled past as he revisits the seaside town where he grew up.
Craig spoke to Newsbeat about his own ego and why, considering all the fuss over those blue trunks in Bond movie Casino Royale, he's stripping off again.
It seemed like Flashbacks of a Fool was quite a passion project for you?
Baillie Walsh, the director, is my best friend so I've kind of believed in his talent for a long time. I wanted him to do a feature film to shut him up mainly. And this script is something that he wrote five or six years ago, with me in mind. Thankfully we've managed to pull it together.
If your best friend writes a film with you in mind and it's as a faded actor, who is an egomaniac and very vain - how does that make you feel?
You can see what sort of friend he is. The fact is that the character's a fading movie star... he's not even fading, he's perfectly capable of working, he's screwing up his life - I mean he's a mess.
Was there ever a time when your ego got a bit out of control?
No.
Really?
Yes. Really.
They do say that movie stars can be stroppy - are you always nice to normal people, real people?
I behave the way I do, I mean I don't try and behave like anything else. If I believe in something then I'll say. I can't answer that question, "Are you different now?" I just get on with things.
You seem to be quite comfortable with the level of fame. But when you first got Bond, it appeared you didn't really like it very much, you didn't like the press attention.
Who would? I mean I don't know who would like that kind of press attention - it's very intrusive. But I mean, I realised that's what would happen and I had to just shut up about it and get on with things. The main thing is that we managed to do the film and we managed to make a good film. That was always my aim and I've just got to try and do another one now.
You famously hated that everybody concentrated on you and your blue trunks in the Bond movie. Yet for the first 10 minutes of this film you're naked and you walk around quite happily naked.
The hypocrisies of life. You're suggesting that I hated that moment, I mean I don't hate it. It's fine. I think everybody thinks that I hate it. It works. It's just the fact that it's the only thing people choose to talk about, that's what bothers me. I get my kit off because that's where this guy is at the beginning of the movie.
And that is obviously what people will talk about when it first comes out as well.
I don't care.
Flashback of a Fool also stars Claire Forlani, Keeley Hawes and Mark Strong. It is released in UK cinemas on 18 April.
http://commanderbond...n...&item=46341 - Radio 1
#55
Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:02 AM
http://au.rottentoma...1/news/1723574/
he failure of Daniel Craig's Flashbacks of a Fool is the big box office story of the week, with the film flopping so spectacularly it didn't even make the top ten.
The film revolves around Daniel Craig's fading Hollywood star Joe Scott, who returns home for a friends funeral and looks back over his life - cue self-obsessed naval gazing from a narcissistic Craig.
Critics were decidedly unsure about the film; many praised the performances and technical aspects, but slammed the general premise, with Little White Lies' Danny Bangs labelling the film "a two-hour whining session" and Empire's Sam Toy describing the screenplay as 'malformed'.
However, maybe marketing was a bigger problem than bad reviews for the film -- a silly title, an oblique, talky plot where little actually happens, and having the current James Bond in a role that isn't James Bond must surely have confused the public to such an extent that they gave the film the widest of berths. And good luck to them.
To manufacture a laboured segue, another film with fool in the title made a much bigger splash in cinemas. Fool's Gold -- a daft rom-com with genre experts Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson playing estranged lovers bought together by a treasure hunt (genius!) obviously tickled audiences' fancies, despite an almost insultingly ridiculous plot and slapdash direction from Andy Tennant (thought of by many as the worst director in Hollywood).
Nonetheless, with the rain pouring down and the threat of a looming recession, it seems our nation's cinemagoers would love nothing more than some perky, sun-drenched, escapist nonsense to get them through these oh-so-troubling times.
That's maybe the reason for another of these weeks' theatrical success stories - Mike Leigh's Happy-Go-Lucky - which came in at number nine in the chart but took by far the highest amount of dough-per-screen. Leigh's optimistic and cynicism-free tale of a school teacher from North London won of the hearts and minds of both jaded critics and audiences - a fact that makes the usually grumpy RT feel warm inside.
Is it a surprise though? A movie of this sort was hardly going to set the box office on fire.
#56
Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:27 AM
Personally, as with all the Craig films I've seen, they tend to be varied and at least intersting, so I'll wait to see it before I judge it.
#57
Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:52 AM
One for DVD, or, better yet, I imagine it'll be showing for free on Film4 before you can say Jack Robinson.
#58
Posted 24 April 2008 - 11:54 AM
#59
Posted 24 April 2008 - 12:07 PM
#60
Posted 24 April 2008 - 02:08 PM
Daniel is one of those people who is willing to give others the opportunity to showcase their talent by utlising his fame to put back something into the profession he loves.