Don’t sweat it Nzinga, Strassia obviously watched a different Unbreakable than all the rest of us watched because there are several scenes where Bruce Willis shows superhuman abilities including super-toughness, superstrength and mind reading. All in full view of other people who act dumbstruck that someone is doing something superhuman in their presence.
There’s no way you can handwave that away and call it a delusion.
Hmm. Yeah, man. Strassia, I don’t know about this. The weight lifting scene was clearly real deal super strength.
I don’t know. I thought one of the major themes in Unbreakable is that you’re never really sure if he is a superhero or not. And by the end, it doesn’t matter. It’s like the item in the Pulp Fiction briefcase. They never really answer it, because there is no real answer. He is a superhero, he isn’t a superhero, he’s both and neither, all at once. If that’s not true, then the movie is actually worse than I remember it being.
As for Twelve Monkeys, I say there was a twist. The movie gave it as given that the Army of the 12 Monkeys was responsible for the virus. In the end, we found out that that’s not true. That’s a twist, even by Roadfood’s definition.
If that’s not a twist, then Shutter Island doesn’t have a twist. In psychosis movies, it’s a given that the hero will turn out to be his nemesis. Willis tries to stop the boy from seeing dead people, but Willis is a dead person! No-Name chases down Tyler Durden only to find out he is Tyler Durden! Leonard Shelbyhunts down the man that killed his wife, but he is the killer!
So when you first see Shutter Island, you’re presented with a detective hunting around for an inmate named Andrew Laeddis. So the first thing you think is that he is Laeddis. You can quickly confirm this by realizing that “Laeddis” is not a name any Hollywood writer would use without a reason.
So just because an ending is easily guessible, it doesn’t mean that there’s no twist. Shutter Island had a twist, despite being guessable. So your reasoning that Twelve Monkeys was twistless simply because it was predictable doesn’t hold water.
He clearly is. In addition to surviving a train crash he has also never been sick or injured a day in his life, save pneumonia, which is part of his “weakness” (water.)
He also clealy knew that the one man he didn’t let enter the stadium had a gun, and that the man towards the end of the film had a house full of people he was going to (and in one case, diud) rape and kill.
And then at the end when he shaked Mr.Glass’s hand, he sees the images of him
causing the train crash, as well as a previous plane crash and a fire…I think?
Arguably, CITIZEN KANE is a primal “movie without a twist ending.” There’s an expectation that the investigator/reporter will find someone named Rosebud that will be a key to understanding the complex life of a complex man, but he doesn’t. The audience is shown Rosebud at the end, being consigned to the trash flames, but it’s sort of a non-twist ending – knowing what Rosebud is, explains little or nothing.
In terms of a double-twist that therefore isn’t a twist, Agatha Christie’s WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION basically winds up with the suspected culprit being the guilty one after all… similar to THE HOLLOW, as noted above.
My nomination is Moon. When watching, I kept thinking to myself “This is a great setup for the twist, I wonder what it is going to be. Is it all in his head, or is it something else? Sam Rockwell is doing awesome job.”
Turns out, the movie is straightforward. As a viewer, you do not always have the complete information, but what is given is 100% accurate–it does not mislead. I have to admit, I was rather disappointed that they could not come up with something to spark up the third act. It turned what started out as a good to great movie into a “meh”.
Again, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. The movie gave it as a given that the characters in the movie believed that the Army of the 12 Monkeys was responsible for the virus. That is entirely different from Shutter Island having as a given that Leo is an investigator.
Also again, I think one of the best ways to distinguish “twist” from “surprise” is to compare the typical murder mystery. If a movie starts out with a dead body, and a mountain of evidence that points to Sally as the killer, and then at the end our hero the detective proves that Joe is the real killer, is that a twist? You can apply the same argument above and say that the movie gave as a given that Sally was the killer, because it gave as a given that there was a mountain of evidence indicating Sally as the killer.
Thirdly again, if you really don’t see any difference between the “givens” in the murder mystery and Twelve Monkeys on the one hand, and the “givens” in Shutter Island and Sixth Sense on the other, we have no common ground on which to have this discussion.
The train crash was pure luck. It happens that people survive in bizarre situations like that. And the weight lifting scene looks more impressive than it is because he is using concrete weights. They are lighter for their size then steel weights. I haven’t seen the movie for a while, but I don’t think he ever tops 400 lbs, even with the paint cans (the set my dad had you couldn’t fit more than 250 on the bar). That is impressive for a one time lift, but not outside the bell curve for the kind of shape he looked to be in. I would have been shocked if he did eight reps, but I have seen guys who looked in that kind of shape bench 350 once. They were sore the next day, but they did it.
So what if the only time he got sick water was involved? Once Mr. Glass’s motivations and sanity are called into question, why should we believe his rationalizations. If he had gotten sick in the water, and later broke his leg skydiving, he could have rationalized that his weakness is the Greek elements or some other line of reasoning that lets him maintain his delusion.
As for the gun and the creep, he was good at picking out threats. He was chief of security, he had some experience and talent in that direction. There are clues that experienced people pick up on (see here). The piece of evidence that is most convincing is the scene with Mr. Glass at the end, but even then, he sees the clippings and starts to get a bad feeling, and it’s not like Mr. Glass is hiding it. Mr. Glass wants him to figure it out.
His status as a super hero needs be ambivalent for the story to work either way.
However if it turns out that the person who was killed traveled back in time and was responsible for their own death, Sally & Joe both being misdirections who were innocent, *most *people would consider that a twist.
Again, just because you guessed he witnessed his own death does not mean that revelation was not meant as a twisty “gotcha” moment for the audience.
Damn, can’t edit my post. As far as a film that I thought would have a twist and didn’t, The Happening (or perhaps I should say, “The Crappening.”)
Halfway through, the characters start wondering if the plants could be sentient and defending themselves by attacking human beings. “No,” I say to myself, “that can’t possibly be what’s really going on, that is just too incredibly stupid.” Nope. It was the fucking plants getting revenge on people for destroying trees. Horrible horrible movie.
When it comes to definitions, I’m afraid I’m going to trust the OED before I trust some guy on a message board. And FWIW, I studied film in college and never encountered your particular definition of “plot twist”. A twist is just an unexpected development in the plot. In the case of Twelve Monkeys, you can Google the name of the movie and “twist” and see how many people out there are currently using the term to refer to certain revelations in the movie.
*People use the word “twist” in exactly this way all the time. I don’t know where you got the idea that standard murder mysteries don’t have twists. They very often do.
*It doesn’t. It’s just easier than saying “an unexpected development in the plot”.
Some more possible examples of movies where the twist is that there’s no twist:
In Adaptation there are some plot twists late in the film, but it seems to be leading towards a big twist ending and instead keeps things ambiguous all the way through. There are suggestions that Charlie isn’t a wholly reliable narrator (IIRC at least one scene does turn out to be merely his fantasy), that his twin brother Donald doesn’t exist, and that Charlie did not really experience the action-packed climax of the movie, but none of this is ever made explicit. There’s never an on-screen revelation that Charlie is crazy or that he was dreaming or that some of the action we’ve seen was from Charlie’s (or Donald’s!) fictionalized screenplay.
This one isn’t as important to the story, but in Napolean Dynamite the main character’s older brother Kip has an online romance with a woman named Lafawnduh who he’s never met in person. IIRC, he even says he’s never seen a full body photo of her. When she comes for a visit, one might expect that the movie is about to pull a comedic twist and that Lafawnduh will in some way be totally different than Kip expects. She’ll be hideous, or actually a man, or a dorky white woman who was pretending to be a hip black woman online, or a con artist, etc. But nothing like that happens. Lawfawnduh turns out to be exactly what Kip expected. She’s a perfectly nice woman, fairly attractive, and for some reason actually does like Kip.
Not a film, but I’ll have to nominate the infamous deep fat fryer scene in the BBC show Spooks. In the story, two MI-5 agents infiltrated an ultra right-wing party, but their cover was blown. They were captured and interrogated by the bad guy in an industrial kitchen. As the cute female agent Helen got her hand held just mere inches above the hot, bubbling, boiling oil of the deep fat fryer, you were thinking “Surely they’re not going to fry her?!”. In this type of show, normally what would happen is that a SWAT team or something would burst in and save the good guy in just the nick of time. Alas, there was no twist. Her hand, and then her head, were fried extra crispy. 
I expected that the dreadful writing and unbelieveable characters would improve as the film went on but it continued to be total tripe right up until the end.
So that was a non twist in itself.
The OED just records how words are used, it’s not an arbiter of officiality. No doubt there are people that use the word ‘twist’ to mean anything from mild surprise to something much more strictly delimited.
Back to the OP… I think there are two possible qualifying categories
Where a mystery is presented, IOW “who is the culprit” and we assume that prime suspect cannot be ultimate culprit, but they are, as in the South Park example.
Where we assume there will be a surprise reveal outside of the realm of any mysteries actually presented, because of the genre (takes place in mental ward, is a movie by M Night) but in the end, the only reveals, if any, are answers to mysteries that were explicitly presented as mysteries (main character is not a mental patient, M Night movie has no surprise ending).
I think #1 is fairly common, so I’m guessing examples of #2 will be more relevant and interesting.
To temper the pointless linguistic debate about “twist” (since however the OP defines it is what really matters for the purpose of this thread) I’ll reminisce about the raging debate that occurred on the Lostpedia wiki regarding whether “twist” was an adequate term to describe Lost cliffhangers, or whether the term “mindfuck” as another level above “twist” was necessitated (yes this was a big big debate there for quite some time)…
Yes, I know what a dictionary is. I didn’t say that Roadfood wasn’t allowed to use the term “plot twist” in some way other than that defined by the OED, I was responding to his claim that his personal definition more accurately reflected the way the term is commonly used. There’s nothing to stop Roadfood (or anyone else) from using “twist” to mean whatever he wants it to mean, but if the question is how most people use the term then the OED is by far the better authority.
The OED is not available free online, but Merriam-Webster Online similarly defines “twist” as “an unexpected turn or development” (4a).
If the OP intended a narrower definition of “twist” then s/he should say so. Otherwise, I think we can proceed with the standard definition in mind.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master - that’s all.”
Is that really true though?
OED deals more with listing various documented usages, not with statistics on which are more popular or “how most people use the term”.
“Plot twist” is a lot more narrow of a concept than “twist”.
“Twist” as a cinematic term is even more narrow, and has probably taken on differing connotations post-6th Sense. Does the OED really keep up with extremely modern changes in language that take place in narrow disciplines? I think some kind of updated film glossary or maybe even Urban Dictionary would be a much more appropriate and accurate source for something like this.
But anyway all that is academic. The term means whatever the OP intended it to mean for the purposes of this thread.
Fine, we admit it – we’re all wrong. Well played, sir!