There's the big reveal at the end of Soderbergh's Ocean's 11.

Tangentially, that was the first script that I turned to as an aide in structuring a story of my own, a union-organizing feature with the beats of a caper. Unfortunately, it's a 145-pp script that services 11 (or more) characters, so maybe not the best intro to screenwriting.

Thanks Scott. I'll have to give Ordinary People, Nuts and Manon of the Spring a watch. Still finding the best fit for the flashback reveal. But other examples will help immensely.

I think my main issue arises from LOST. All the flash-backs, flash-forwards, flash-sideways. When I'm writing/picturing a flashback in my head it involves the sound effect from LOST.

In my story I think the narrative is definitely enhanced with the flashback, but like most stories, they can be told more ways than one.

Thanks again.

Just food for thought --

The compelling device of LOST is the flashback (includes flash forward, sideways).

The events on the island is the intrigue. The flashbacks are why we care that it's happening to these specific people.

Flashback is just a storytelling tool. It has no inherent value (good or bad). What gives it value is the writing.

Flashbacks are used in the Bourne films.

I thought the flashback at the end of Shutter Island was handled beautifully. It sent me reeling back into earlier scenes to dissect every piece of dialogue, every facial expression... and I love when a movie does that to me. I suddenly understood the characters for who they were, that there were no good men or bad men in this story, and that I could see every side of the situation. I didn't feel cheated, I felt enlightened! It was one of those moments when you feel like you're peeking in on something intimate. And that last line was a delightful punch in the gut...wrapped up the entire story and character arc.

I have to admit, during the first act, I thought the movie was falling into a familiar trap. It stumbled through exposition, and my sister walked out and never looked back (She's young, though, and her type of movie is more action than psychological. But you can see how taking too long to get to the point can wear on some people's patience). The difference between this script's use of backstory to set up a later flashback and the scripts that use backstory poorly boils down to these few points:

- Throughout the movie, we learn about the protagonist's dead wife (using a dead lover or relative for motivation is already a dangerously common device)... BUT we see her in the way that he sees her. When we eventually get bits of conflicting information from other characters, we're not sure how it all fits together or who to trust and we're intrigued.

- We find out that there is not just one event that has affected the protagonist, but three equally horrible ones that resulted from a domino effect. And the protagonist is the one who knocked over that first domino.

- Everything has been there from the beginning. Outwardly, the characters appear to change, but they still have the same roles in relation to the protagonist - a friend is still a friend; albeit in a roundabout way, those who offered help before are still trying to assist him. There are even clues in the dialogue, in the way the characters address one another. Trying to avoid spoilers here, but I thought that was a clever little technique. (Make him feel like he's in charge...)

- The script appears to be moving one way, then, as expected, turns on its head during the second act...but then does it AGAIN right before the third act in a way that a lesser script might have stuck with (an explanation to the story that is just 'okay'), and when the truth is revealed, it pokes fun at you for thinking it was actually going with that. Now, the reason I believe that fake explanation was so disappointing is because it's so easy to tear the protagonist out of that story and stick somebody, anybody else in there, as long as they have the same skills the protagonist had. Strive to make it so that your protagonist is stuck deep - he does not just affect others, he is affected by them in return, no matter how much he may want to deny it.

I'm sure there are more points to be discovered here, but those are what come to mind right now.

(P.S. I fully expect that I have used 'effect' or 'affect' incorrectly at least once in this post. They simply show up too many times. If I haven't... phew!)