Thumbs up if the alternative is someone sitting there describing what happened to a character introduced solely to be told what happened. Movies aren't theater.

Agree with bolo boffin... If the flashback can aid the forward progress of the story being told and help the writer avoid a scene full of talking head exposition, I say double thumbs up! Audiences are pretty savvy... they don’t need to be spoon-fed anything. Let them see what happened. Two great films that offer examples of well executed flashbacks (aided on occasion by Voice Over that enhances a scene) are THE GREEN MILE and THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION... both adapted from the works of novelist Stephen King... written for the screen and directed by Frank Darabont.

bolo and Kevin, I concur. In fact, I'm going to be re-posting a series I did earlier this year on flashbacks and voiceover narration, my argument simply this: If done well, both can be effective narrative devices. With emphasis on "done well," as their bad rap in Hwood is, think, largely based on writers using them poorly.

Thumbs down. Way, way down. I rarely like the use of flashback when in the hands of accomplished writers/filmmakers; they truly scare me in the hands of those of us still learning our way. I'm not saying there's never been a "decent Flashback" -- not saying that at all. And I agree -- THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, one of my fave films, does a great job. But examples like that feel few and far between to me. Too often, and these days even IN the hands of those who've been around the block many more times than us, poor flashbacks about put me over the edge. Those employed in this summer's Superman/Man of Steel and The Lone Ranger??? Eeegads, had me wanting to throw things at the screen and dash out of the theatre! I sucked it up and did neither, but ugh, hated both those movies. Personally, I'm always gonna try to find a better way.

JoniB22: Agreed: the use and execution of a flashback IS, more often than not a hinderance to the story and, when badly constructed, tends to stop the flow of a film. However, I’m still 'thumbs up’ on them, if the writer knows how to use it to the story’s advantage. But then there’s always the chance that it gets compromised in the production. I didn’t see 'Superman/Man of Steel' but I did sit through 'The Lone Ranger' and found the ‘story of Tonto' within the film badly rolled out. 'The Lone Ranger' was 85% all flashbacks. Such an approach can work (PRINCESS BRIDE?). However, The Lone Ranger scenes with kid in the museum (in the present) seemed like expository insight into 'Tonto'... and in my opinion brought the move to a screeching halt each time they appeared. Makes me wonder how many of the producers (9) got themselves involved with the writers (3) and the 'star' of the film in ’shaping' the screenplay? I believe Scott recently talked about how well SHAWSHANK manages to keep moving the narrative forward with the Director’s use of flashbacks. Having Morgan Freeman’s voice as the V.O. ain’t bad either. ‘Describing' the flashback itself is where most flashbacks fail the audience. Offering additional insight into the story (not just a description of what is happening on the screen) is when a flashback becomes an asset to the reader/viewer. If it can’t do that then it should be kicked to the curb.