Movies you liked better before the Twist - Page 2

I Know What You Did Last Summer was better when it was a book named Killing Mr. Griffin.

Breakdown is a great uneasy, suspenseful mystery until the 'reveal', after which point it changes tack almost entirely. The rest of it's still a perfectly watchable thriller, but I always thought it was a shame that they undercut all the intrigue so soon in the film.

While reading "The survivor's guide to the apocalypse" yesterday, there was a pasage in the "false utopias" chapter that read like this:
"Or when you're trying to cross the surrounding forest guraded by the magical critters*"

I go check the footnotes on that page:

*: Adrien Brody is NOT considered a magical creature.

Made me chuckle.

And "High Tension" takes the cake here because the twist doesnt account for the split personality's abilities/actions, "unreliable narrator" my ass.

It was even better than that when it was a book named I Know What You Did Last Summer published five years before Killing Mr. Griffin (admittedly by the same author. I went through a brief, shitty Lois Duncan phase as a youngster). Without the added slasher trappings, it could have made for a decent suspense flick.

I have to agree with High Tension winning this thread. No other movie has ever completely taken me out of the film with its twist the way this one did. None of the "unreliable narrator" claims work when the film shows us things that just make no sense from that perspective. Feels completely tacked on.

Interestingly, I was completely spoiled for The Usual Suspects. It was several years ago and I wasn't even aware there was a twist, per se, just a really big ending. I rented it and mentioned it to a friend that I was going to watch it when I get home and he just immediately spoiled it for me. If anything, I paid more attention throughout the story to look for signs. Still enjoyed it.

Ohhh, I forgot to point out (in my words):

"I am legend".

Simply because the twist (or rather the lack of the original novel's twist) ruins the movie's potential; the alternate (controversial sticker on the dvd case my ass) ending takes out a bit of the sting, but the movie is still hurt by that departure from its source.

In this case, I don't think it has to. The movie starts as the camera begins recording Marie and the rest of the movie is her retelling the events of the previous night. It doesn't matter if the twist doesn't account for her abilities because essentially Marie is making the whole story up as she goes along. I don't really care for the ending either, but in that context it works. The only scene that's really a "cheat" in that sense is the head from a severed head scene.

If this was applied to a good "twist" movie like "the Usual Suspects", it wouldnt work, because the movie reveals how it has been bullshitting you, the viewer, from the start, thus making the twist a "holy fuçk, that was clever".
Revealing that alll the stuff you've just been shown has been the main character insane rumblings doesnt work, because its like saying "we were lying to you the whole time"..."A tale of two sisters" does the same "unreliable narrator" stunt, but pulls it off by the use of flashbacks and hidden clues to make it work.

Also, hate to post this, and even quote it but:

http://www.cracked.com/article_15621...t-endings.html

"In this French film, it turns out that the obese serial killing truck driver—think Larry the Cable Guy except stronger and with more charisma—was actually an alternate personality of Marie, a hot lesbian played by cutie Cecile de France.
Yes that French version of Natalie Portman is the one who stalked and killed a handful of grown men using seemingly super human strength to dispatch them with ease. This leads to many puzzling questions, not least of which is, how in the hell did she manage to give herself a blowjob with that decapitated gal's head? (By the way, it's kind of a messed up movie.)

Why it sucks:
Violent, gory, and featuring a sequence of gratuitous lesbian masturbation, "High Tension" was on track to become one of the great horror films of our time. That is, until its final ten minutes, where the filmmakers raised their middle fingers to the audience and said, "Hey, you know that awesome movie you were just watching? ...yeah, well, fuck you. None of it happened."


This might not have been so irritating had there been a logical way of explaining why over half of what was shown on screen was physically impossible for Marie to accomplish like snapping people's body parts off with bookshelves, and being in two different places at once. We guess, as is often the case in life, the answer can be chalked up to superhuman lesbian strength and teleportation abilities. Or maybe it can be chalked up to the fact that the filmmakers stole the entire plot from a Dean Koontz novel called Intensity, and in an effort to conceal their unoriginality, they tacked on an ending stolen from about a thousand split personality movies that came before it."

The problem is that it would make no sense for him to be keeping the gun if he wasn't a cop. When your job is to get rid of hot guns, generally you don't keep them in your basement in evidence bags.

Would the world have changed much if the reveal had been the (according to legend) scripted to keep the secret "Obi-Wan killed your father"?

My point exactly.

None of her tale has to be logical or match up. None. It's all (well, except for some carnage) BS.

And what do we call a narrative where a plot development makes everything that came before completely irrelevant?

That's right: it's called bad scripting.

Worked for Bob Newhart.

She's an insane, obsessed, closeted lesbian that is in love with her best friend. A best friend that happens to be straight woman (ie: attracted to MEN). Creating a stereotypically disgusting male in her mind as "the bad guy" that she needs to fight off and protect her love interest from makes perfect sense for the psyche of the character whether you like the film or not.


I felt the same way. Initially I loved the "dark ending" when I saw this one in the theater but when I watched it on DVD I couldn't help but feel like it ended how it did just to show how big Darabont's balls are. I don't see how it helped the story at all beyond providing a temporary "shock factor".


A brief note on From Dusk Till Dawn: I said it in 1996 and I'll say it now. HOW THE FUCK DID PEOPLE NOT KNOW THERE WERE VAMPIRES IN THIS THING!?

Guys? We're two pages in already...

Eastern Promises anyone?

Only if you take any of Marie's tale at face value.

Blade Runner.

I just can't jive at all with the 'Deckard is a replicant' ending. Though I've written him off as just being a miserable bastard all this time, I can really see why Ford kinda hates that idea. Scott just ignores what comes before for the sake of a "Wouldn't it be cool if..." ending that really makes little sense when contrasted with the rest of the film. Deckard running off with Sean Young, knowing their time is probably limited is more effective to me than the "Oooo Gotcha!" ending that Scott strives for.

I even like that on the Blade Runner doc most of the people involved in the production dismiss the ending as just something that Ridley wanted to do. Even the people making it knew it made no sense.

Fuck you Scott. I'm totally on board with that film until the end.

Well that's just the problem. For Deckard to be a replicant it would mean that EVERYONE is seemingly in on it, and for reasons the film can't be bothered to state.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

The "unreliable narrator" theory doesn't work in the slightest, as the narrative includes scenes that the "narrator" did not witness. And to say that nothing has to make sense because it's a story she's telling is the worst kind of bullshit justification. It's a movie. Of course the story has to work. In the end, whatever twists they might be throwing around, it's still their job to tell a story that works. They don't do that. A story that makes no sense is a bad story. Period.

Funny that this thread should come up, as I just watched The Game for the first time last night. So spoiler warning if you haven't seen it.

First of all, I simply can't buy that Van Orton would be in any way pleased or grateful in the end. But even leaving that aside, the idea that this company was able to perfectly anticipate every single move he makes, and control or pay off every single person he encounters, is ludicrous beyond belief. They not only work out that he'll head to the roof, that he'll fire that gun, and that he'll jump, but which side of the building he'll fucking jump from!

Fuck that movie.

Then I watched Timecrimes. Infinitely better plot construction, with a twist that actually works. Made me feel better.

Do you mean to tell me there isn't a single scene where Verbal isn't present in his telling of the "how much of this is BS?" tale to Agent Kujan throughout USUAL SUSPECTS? Or was Harry, the narrator, present when Perry gives the father what he deserves at the end of KISS KISS BANG BANG?

I was only explaining why the bad guy in her head would be a dirty mechanic. I've always had a hard time defending the film even though I enjoy it. Its one of those guilty pleasures for me but I'll give Darkmite some credit. What he's been saying does make total sense. You can call it a cop out but juxtaposing it against other universally worshiped films that use the same plot device helps his argument tremendously. Its an "easy" story telling device but so are a lot of things. I completely understand people not liking the film but it really does "make sense" if you're willing to accept Darkmite's explanation.

Ironically, High Tension is one of the very few "twist ending" films I can watch over and over. I just like to see it go. Unlike The Sixth Sense or Momento, High Tension gives you fun in place of spending a whole film building for one "gotcha!" moment at the end.

First of all, you won't catch me praising The Usual Suspects, and for exactly the same reasons. I'm not sure why you'd assume that attacking that film deflates my argument. Apparently, it's me and Ebert against the world, but I don't like The Usual Suspects. It's a big cheat, because there's no reason given to assume that a single thing Verbal says has any basis in reality whatsoever. It's two hours of a bullshit con.

Second, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is an entirely different animal. Harry goes way beyond the standard narrator function. He stands outside the movie, pointing out that this is, in fact, a movie. He freeze frames and backs up, bitches about the cliches in the story, and throws in fantasy elements to point out the weak points in the plot. He's an omniscient voice.

Sounds like you're bitter for getting conned.

And that Harry is more of an audio-commentator than narrator...

I won't deny that. I just think that a story is required to play fair with its audience. I disliked The Wizard of Oz for years for the same reasons. As I got older, I took a deeper look at it, and realized that the entire first act is structured to set up the dream ending, so I hated it less.

For me, The Usual Suspects perfectly fit into the subject of this thread. It tells a good story, then takes it all back. But for some reason, the vast majority of film geeks don't hold that against it.

I'd have to go back and watch it again (been a few years), but I always got the sense that a good chunk of the film and what Verbal said was true, he just fudged it up with bullshit.

I've learned to steer clear of mentioning my dislike of popular films on these forums but you were brave enough to uncork it so I'll poor a glass... The Usual Suspects: Great upon first viewing, almost no repeat value for me. I already know I'm inconsistent with these "it was all made up!" films so I guess you can save it.

However, the one about the hooker with the dysentery? FACT!

Dawn of the Dead. I mean, I was waiting for Jerry Garcia to start singin' or guitar pickin' and all of a sudden there is a little zombie girl ripping the hell out of some poor guy's neck. What the hell? That movie was totally mis-marketed.

Can't just quote it exactly right now, but there's a line at the afterparty by Deborah Unger saying that if he hadn't jumped himself, they'd have pushed him, implying that his possible reaction was in part controlled or, at least, anticipated. The fact that he jumped from that side of the building was indeed just sheer luck for CRS interests, but him being pushed to the limit (death) however the means -isn't he chased to the roof after stumbling in the cafeteria?- to the point of metaphorically leaving his previous life behind was always in the plan/ game. Yes, right after "losing" everything else, from his reputation to his possessions.

Of course, a normal person would've reacted differently (or would even had suffered a coronary during the fall) and punched the shit out of his brother afterwards, but I don't think that was the point of the movie if you solely view it as a serious thriller. In my humble opinion, The Game is a fable -not entirely realistic and highly improbable, but never impossible- as much as Dickens' A Christmas Carol is. It is dark, twisted and ludicrous if you must -CRS indeed has a huge staff behind- but also with an upbeat ending if you believe in shit like atonement or redemption. It sure leaves me grinning madly everytime I watch it though I also understand why people never got into this movie's game as much as they didn't get into, say, Man on the Moon.

That's exactly it. The film is completely implausible from the very start, but it's part of why I like it.

...Right before the CRS guy swiftly turns to camera and says "thanks for playing", right?

Now food for thought: I know some people who would've liked the movie if it had been actually about CRS swindling all their players' money. In fact, I remember watching it in the theater and the audience collectively gasping after Douglas' lawyer tells him all his accounts are empty. Personally, I think it would've made for an equally great movie, but also a vastly different one.

Now who here would've preferred they've followed that storyline and why? (considering we're in the the Movies You Liked Better Before the Twist thing). Other than that, we can always go and discuss Reindeer Games or Basic.

I love The Game. Is it implausible? Of course.

I always looked at it like some quasi-realistic fable, as mentioned above. It's fun, and sometimes I like to still slip into that mode of "movies don't have to equal hardened reality, even if there are very few or no fantastical elements."

I don't necessarily need wizards, hobbits or jedis to clue me in that "this could never actually happen."

I don't know. The film was tailor-made for the ending it got. If it did just end up being a scam then almost everything that happens would've been for nothing.

And in that scene Alexia reacts to Marie as if Marie had just killed her family (which, of course, she did), which doesn't make sense if this is all just Marie's fantasy.

Also, if it's all supposed to be a story for the cops there are quite a few bits that don't make sense for her to be telling them. "Oh yeah I noticed the mechanic by the side of the road jacking it with a severed head, but I didn't think much of it. Sure After dinner I went back up to my room to rub one off because I secretly love my friend TMI?"

Guys, surely High Tension gets points for "severed head BJ"! I mean, c'mon!

It would, if the ending didn't make it such a problem area.

Uh oh controversy!

So I'm revisiting HUDSUCKER PROXY lately (it's been years). Loving it... and then the "It's a Wonderful Life" Deus Ex happens. The movie is such a super stylized fable already. The speech, the production design, the overall heightened reality (reminiscent of hypothetical BRAZIL prequel), but I don't know if I can get on board with "Moses stops time and Angel Hud and Barnes have a chat".

I still love the flick and that absurd scene has some great touches (Paul Newman's frozen grin, the geriatric fist fight, the teeth, Durning's joyful pomposity), but I came away mixed, wondering how it fit. Unlike Capra's holiday classic, HP doesn't set up this kind of possibility early on and I found it a bit jarring. I know the Coens love to throw in absurd fantasy sequences, but they're usually dreams (BIG LEBOWSKI, and the Carmen dance in HP, etc). Plus, the snow still falls normally and the 2 fogies are mobile (good VS evil!), although everything else stops.

It didn't break the film at all for me, I'm just a tad perplexed here. Any thoughts on this one?

Well, the Others was shitty and boring to begin with, but the twist was broadcast from a mile away.

Also, Soylent Green was much better before I learned it was made out of people.

It's been a while since I've seen it, but in my memory, the whole thing works. It's such a piece of old-fashioned Capra that the ending seems to fit, especially on subsequent viewings. Admittedly, if anyone other than the Coens tried to get away with this, I'd probably be pissed. But they have a magic touch when it comes to breaking the rules.

Sky High.

Loving it until he got his powers, which I thought ruined the theme of it. I kept waiting for the second twist where it was revealed that the bad guys somehow made him have powers to further their plans and at the end he'd have to use his brains to beat them. Alas, it was not to be. Still a good movie, just disappointing.

Ferris Bueller's Day Off. I was with it all the way up through "Danke Schoen", but then they ruined everything!