Halloween Movies on Netflix Canada for 2015

Horror-Movies-Netflix-Canada

Since you’ve seen “The Exorcist” how about some others?

Halloween is a fantastic holiday. It might not come with the benefit of a day off work or presents or a bunny handing out chocolate eggs, but its got style. And it inspires watching lots of horror, thrillers, and just plain ol’ weird movies to get into its twisted spirit. That being said, Netflix Canada has a great list of flicks to stoke that Halloween fire (and for those who’ve exhausted the classics – The Exorcist, The Thing, Halloween, just to name a few – Netflix has a bit more of an eclectic mix). Check out some recommendations below:

It Follows (Grade: A)

Just released on Netflix Canada on October 19 – if you have not seen this horror movie, go watch it on Netflix now. It’s one of the best horror films in recent memory.

Afflicted (Grade: B)

While generally not a fan of found-footage films, this horror-travelogue has some fun with a classic movie monster and some really cool POV action scenes. Also, it was filmed on a shoe-string budget and made by Canadians, so that’s pretty cool too.

Oculus (Grade: B+)

A haunted house movie that works. Especially because its about a haunted mirror. The subject matter is laughable, but the film draws you in with its warped reality and sympathetic characters. It will make you feel crazy.

The Sacrament (Grade: B)

Another found-footage movie filmed under the guise of a VICE documentary about a charismatic cult leader (who everyone creepily calls “Father”). The arrival of the VICE outsiders signals unease…and then bloodshed.

Evil Dead remake (Grade: C+)

Not as kitschy or fun as the beloved original, but the remake has better gore and creepy set-pieces. But Ash is sorely missed.

The Conjuring (Grade: A)

Hide and clap. ‘nough said.

The Cabin in the Woods (Grade: B+)

Not one to start off with if you’re not familiar with horror movies. Plays off on a lot of horror movie stereotypes and cliches, and a ton of fun. Not scary though.

Sinister (Grade: B)

Holy shit, those 8mm family films. Terrifying. The rest of the movie can’t reach the heights of the opening, but pretty creepy overall.

Jacob’s Ladder (Grade: B+)

An oldie but a goodie. A Vietnam vet learns that New York isn’t quite the same as he left it. A bit of a slow burn, but lots of disturbing imagery. The stuff of nightmares.

Orphan (Grade: B)

A movie about an evil child that torments a mother and her family (but mostly the mother). Enjoy it for the thrills and the frustration that no one else can see this child is the devil except the mother (who obviously no one believes – but the film provides a good reason for that). Speaking of evil child films…

We Need to Talk About Kevin (Grade: A)

Not actually a horror film, but a disturbing drama about not bonding with your child. Probably because they’re a psychopath.

1408 (Grade: B+)

John Cusack. Stephen King adaptation. Samuel L. Jackson. And as surprisingly effective one-room horror-thriller. Cusack does great work as a cynical writer who spends a night in a “haunted” hotel room. He learns too late that quotations weren’t needed.

The Faculty (C+)

Just a fun sci-fi horror high school romp. But there is a scene where a scalp falls off in a shower that I’ve never been able to forget…

Tucker and Dale vs Evil (Grade: B)

Another Cabin in the Woods style movie. Two hillbillies keep running into co-eds who end up dying. Good for lighter fare after the heavier stuff.

Session 9 (Grade: B)

Underrated psychological thriller set in an abandoned mental hospital undergoing asbestos removal by a team of workers. Atypically, most of the film is set during the day (i.e. when most people work) but still manages to scare with the claustrophobic set and great cast (David Caruso!).

Leprechaun (Grade: D)

Jennifer Aniston battling a little green man who drops one-liners in an Irish lilt and is compelled to shine all dirty shoes he comes across. Cue dirty gym shoes being thrown to slow him down.

Honourable mentions: Creep (found-footage with Mark Duplass, could be good), the television show Hannibal (specifically, Season 1, Episode 5 will haunt you), Carrie (a classic, but you’ve probably already heard about it), Halloween: Resurrection (Busta Rhymes battles Michael Myers after he says “Trick or Treat…motherfucker!” Absolutely amazing trash), Kiss the Girls (Morgan Freeman/Ashley Judd thriller – formulaic but well done), The Call (Halle Berry as a 911 operator in a race against time to save a girl from a serial killer – a quick watch), Maniac (a horror film shot entirely from the POV of the killer. First ten minutes is great, the rest…not so much.), The Strangers (“Because you were home.”), The American Scream (documentary about homeowners creating the best haunted house).

Happy Halloween!

Advertisements

Her

Joaquin Phoenix, contemplating life in Spike Jonze's Her.

Joaquin Phoenix contemplating life in Spike Jonze’s Her.

It’s funny to be in a room with non-movie buffs. I take it for granted that everyone knows the basic synopsis of every new release, the headlining stars, and the directorial talent behind the camera. Being a big fan of Spike Jonze (Being John Malkovich and Adaptation are two of the most inventive films of all time), I was excited to see what shenanigans he would get up to with Joaquin Phoenix and Scarlett Johansson’s voice. I was recently in a room with a few friends when the trailer for Her played, and one person looked around at everyone in disbelief and said “really?” For those of you who don’t know, Her is an unconventional love story about a man falling in love with, yes, the operating system on his cellular phone. Really.

That reaction got me to thinking about the movie (I saw it a few months ago, and wasn’t overly enthusiastic about the film itself) and how the concept isn’t that far-fetched. Technology has made human connection an entirely different beast – some would say we’ve regressed, rather than progressed. But it has opened up a whole world of new relationships because physical presence isn’t a prerequisite anymore. A person in Bangladesh can be in a relationship with a person in Brazil, and no one bats an eye. People fall in love over text message and instant dating websites. Really, Her is just the logical extension of this process. What can be more long-distance than the distance between a human being and an electronic program?

The most important scene in the film (in my mind) is not the eyebrow-raising central romance, but a blind date between two live individuals – Joaquin Phoenix and Olivia Wilde. When they first meet, the brief silences are awkward and their small talk is numbing. So, like most people in social situations, they immediately order drinks to loosen up. It’s a really interesting scene to me, because they both can’t talk to one another without help, and even then their interactions are still surface-level. Meanwhile, Joaquin can bare his soul to his intelligent operating system, making a connection more real and human than an alcohol-fueled date with a complete (but living and breathing) stranger. I think it’s because with his operating system, there’s no risk. He believes that an operating system can’t hurt him, but people can. It turns out he couldn’t be more wrong.

In that one scene, the theme(s) of the film are confused. Is this a movie about technology impeding and poisoning our relationships with other people? Or is it about technology opening up doors to new relationships that we wouldn’t have otherwise? Maybe it’s not about technology at all, but just lonely people, trying to break out of a prison with no walls.

It’s not just about scoffing at the incredulity of some sad sack falling in love with his computer system. Really.

Sidenote: I’d give the movie itself a “soft” B. It feels a little bit lost and meanders at times, never coming into a truly moving or cohesive package.

Why “Based on a True Story” May be a Bad Thing for the Movies

Freaky-Stories-Cockroach

Happened to a friend of friend of mine.

In the late ’90s, on the Canadian children’s channel YTV there was a show called Freaky Stories. It starred a giant purple cockroach who narrated three animated urban legends while scampering around the counters of a dirty, dilapidated diner. But before he began any of the tall tales he always prefaced his stories by telling the audience it happened to a “friend of a friend of mine.” While this was obviously a wink to the absurdity of such stories being true (i.e. crocodiles swimming in New York City’s sewers – obviously false, or is it?), films choose to use a phrase that sounds more legitimate, but means exactly the same thing: “The following is based on a true story.” And it’s starting to get a bit ridiculous.

This fall, it’s been hard to go more than a week without hearing about the latest “true story” movie. Here’s a brief snapshot of some of the most acclaimed or anticipated movies of 2013: 12 Years a SlaveCaptain Phillips, American Hustle, Saving Mr. Banks, Lone Survivor, and The Wolf of Wall Street. And all of them have to prominently remind audiences that what they’re about to see are films “inspired by” or “based on” true events. It’s maddening. And I’d argue that it’s a bad thing for the movies.

based-on-a-true-story

How I feel when the magic words are uttered.

When did being based on a true story become a barometer for a movie’s quality? Honestly, it’s really just a trivial detail about the making of a film that has no bearing on whether the finished product is good or not. And for some reason it’s the only trivial detail about a movie that’s acceptable to tell whenever anyone mentions the film title. Like: “I really liked The Conjuring followed up by “did you know it’s based on a true story?” Here’s a fun experiment: tell someone that you like a fact-based well-known movie (i.e. Apollo 13, Rush, every other Ron Howard film) and six out of ten people will remind you that it’s based on a true story. True story.

I would be fine with movies claiming to be “based on a true story” if they at least did it honestly. Like “inspired by reading a first-hand account about what happened from one party’s perspective, ignoring other viewpoints, eliminating extraneous characters, making artistic choices and warping the chronology of dialogue and moments to fit the film’s thematic purpose to the point where the actual film is unrecognizable from the actual events that occurred.” So much better, and we could avoid the confusion that occurs when people conflate the events of a “based on a true story” film with the events that actually happened. I.e. the backlash against Argo‘s depiction of Canadians would be minimized if the film had an honest disclaimer indicating that it only has a tangential relationship with reality.

Prefacing a film with the “true story” claim is also an exercise in laziness. Part of a filmmaker’s job is to get the audience to “buy-in” to the reality that’s playing onscreen (i.e. suspending our disbelief). The “true story” claim does the legwork for them – i.e. all of this happened, you don’t have to be wary of the film’s authenticity because it really happened. So instead of, y’know, orienting the audience or properly laying the groundwork for why we should care about these people, most films of this ilk engage in checklist storytelling – i.e. going from event to event (often in chronological order) with subtitles denoting the date and time when it occurred. Generally speaking, this isn’t engrossing filmmaking.

This is not to say that all films based on a true story are bad. One of my favourite films is The Social Network, which is also ostensibly based on events that actually occurred (even though there are inaccuracies, blah, blah, blah). My argument is that films are good in spite of being based on a true story or not, so heavily underlining that a film is a “faithful depiction” is irritating. It’s just a piece of trivia that has no bearing on the quality of the film itself.   And then even if a “true story” movie is actually entertaining and intelligent, it gets deconstructed for how historically authentic it is. So even if a movie based on a true story is “good” it will be criticized for its inaccuracies, which entirely misses the point (going back to the Freaky Stories comparison, it’s like criticizing the teller of a good urban legend that the story actually happened to a friend of a friend’s cousin, rather than just a friend of friend). The purpose of a film “based on a true story” is to strive for emotional authenticity rather than historical authenticity. The  label only works to obscure this point.

If you want a movie based on true events, rent a documentary. Although even those may misleading too.

Sidenote: I recently rewatched City of God (think of it as the Brazilian Goodfellas) and the film uses the “based on a true story” trope as a twist ending. Just before the credits, and after you’ve watched over two hours of gang wars, drug dealing, and tense shootouts does the film then flippantly note that the entire thing is based on true events. At this point, you’re already engrossed in the film because it’s a story well-told without the added baggage of “being based on true events.” You either buy-in to the events happening onscreen or you don’t, without the manipulation of a claim to legitimacy.  Another good subversion of the “true story” claim is Fargo, which claims to be based on true events even though it isn’t. The Coen brothers simply use the claim as it was intended: to legitimize what would otherwise be a tall tale.

 

Prometheus, Damon Lindelof, and The Problem of the Mystery Box

I was a huge fan of the show Lost for its first couple of seasons. The first season is still a spectacular piece of television with its innovative use of flashbacks, strong characterizations, and the mysteries the survivors of Oceanic Flight 815 face as they look for a way to escape. But with each passing season, Lost became a show of diminishing returns, turning previously interesting characters into one-note stereotypes (Jack screams, Sawyer schemes, and Michael wanders around yelling “Walt”) and piling on mystery after mystery without any resolutions. It was really sloppy storytelling and  it was frustrating, but worst of all, it became boring to watch. However, the lasting legacy of Lost is that it created a vibrant and robust community of fans who dissected and analyzed every frame of the show – coming up with their own complicated theories, pointing out references to classic novels and philosophies, and ultimately just trying to come up with a cohesive explanation for the meaning of the images flashing on screen. Unfortunately, its also created a filmmaking era of meaninglessness masquerading as profundity.

Damon Lindelof, one of the creators of Lost and one of the writers of this summer’s disappointing (in my opinion) sci-fi epic Prometheus, has become trapped in “Mystery Box” screenwriting – which amounts to raising a lot of questions with few, or any, answers (the answers are supposedly to come in the sequel, or the next episode, but just look at the history of Lost to realize this isn’t always the case). J.J. Abrams did a TED talk about the idea of the Mystery Box and how it guides his films and TV series. It’s an interesting talk – if a little bit meandering at times (the Kleenex box, really?). The central theme of Abrams talk is that “mystery is the catalyst for imagination.” Unfortunately, thats where the substance of the talk ends as he jumps from watching his favourite scene from Jaws, ruminating on how easy it is for today’s generation to create their own films, and then finally ending the talk with a bit of trivia about the filming of Mission: Impossible 3. The talk is supposed to be about infinite possibilities through “mysteries” (the word is used very liberally) – like through a writer’s blank page or a film department’s special effects technology – while Abrams tries to make the case that there is nothing more beautiful or inspiring than a blank piece of paper because Citizen Kane could eventually be written on it. Fine, boundless potential and possibilities are great for the creative process – but stifling when used for the entertainment itself. I think a lot of Abrams’ point about the Mystery Box was lost, or incorrectly identified, as being: “mysteries – in any shape or form – are good.” I think Damon Lindelof in particular is guilty of this.

Prometheus is a film awash in mysteries. We have the two lead scientist characters who discover mysterious cave drawings on Earth that show a large alien creature pointing to a distant galaxy formation. Within that basic premise we have at least three different mysteries – who is the large alien creature, what is the distant galaxy formation, and what will the characters find when they get there? Prometheus isn’t interested in rich characterizations or anything incidental to the mysteries, so the next scene of the film is the two scientist characters being awakened on route to the distant galaxy formation with a eclectic crew and an android – where they face even more mysteries. Yawn. This is the worst formulation of the Mystery Box theory of filmmaking – question on top of question, with nothing else of substance. Oh, there are infinite possibilities all right – but remember, nothing (i.e. a blank sheet of paper) has infinite possibilities too.

The “Mystery Box” isn’t even an original idea, though it has obscured the original idea’s purpose. Hitchcock originally came up with it – a MacGuffin. Something that is meaningless in and of itself but drives the plot forward. Think of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, or any object that Indiana Jones chases after, or every world domination plot that James Bond foils. The problem of the Mystery Box is that filmmakers focus on explaining why the MacGuffin is important – even though this is a completely unnecessary and fruitless endeavour. In Prometheus, the concept of the “Engineers” (who they are, etc.) is a MacGuffin to get the crew on the planet and then ruthlessly kill them in a myriad of ways. It isn’t – nor should it have been – the entire plot. That’s the problem with Prometheus – the entire film is based on questions that are meaningless. Sure, it’s a mystery who these alien creatures are, it’s a mystery how they got to the planet, it’s a mystery why they want to SPOILER ALERT kill us, it’s a mystery why the android on the ship who apparently has no emotion reacts with spite, anger, and other emotions as the plot sees fit, and it’s a mystery why the two scientist characters are married when the husband is absolute douchebag and they otherwise can’t stand each other, but who cares? This slavish devotion to mysteries and the Mystery Box creates a plot that is a MacGuffin – in other words, there is no MacGuffin to move the plot forward because there is no plot to move forward, besides talking and philosophizing about meaningless things. It’s why these films – and Lost – frequently feel like they are in suspended animation.

I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this if this type of entertainment was recognized as the colossal waste of time and giant “screw-you” to the audience that it is. But people take this seriously and that’s what makes this form of filmmaking unforgivable. There’s probably over a million words of text dissecting the minutiae of Prometheus already, offering theories about what the film means, etc. and I find it infuriating. Where’s the million words of text describing why the Crystal Skull was so important to Indiana Jones and the Russians – or why E.T. has special powers and likes Reese’s Pieces – or how the technology of the Ghostbusters works plus the philosophical and moral implications of trapping a supernatural being? Because the answers to these questions are frivolous and irrelevant. Prometheus masquerades as a pseudo-intellectual film with “big” questions about the existence of God and how human beings were created but it’s just another lacklustre popcorn picture. Our time discussing and analyzing entertainment should be devoted to pieces worthy of it. This one ain’t.

That’s where Prometheus, Damon Lindelof, and the Mystery Box fail – the script is essentially the equivalent of a sheet of paper with an alien drawn on it. Sure it’s got infinite possibilities, but after all the theories and intellectual deconstruction, all you really have is a sheet of paper with an alien drawn on it.

Oscar Predictions 2012: Utilizing the Power of the Crowd

Best Picture Winner (Predicted) "The Artist"

UPDATE: The HSX was solid again with correct predictions for 7 of 8 categories. Meanwhile the Metacritic user poll for the rest of the awards was disappointing, correctly predicting only 8 of 16. The crowd ended up correctly predicting 15 of the 24 awards – which is better than I did (14) or Roger Ebert did (11) last year.

I’ve started reading James Surowiecki’s book The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many are Amarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and NationsI apologize for the title’s length – and it offer an intriguing way to predict who will win the Oscars: utilize the predictions of the crowd.

The simple thesis of the book is that the collective decision of the crowd – a mass made up of ordinary individuals with their own specialized knowledge making independent choices – will be statistically more accurate, when aggregated, than the prediction of an “expert.” The clearest example comes from the beginning of the book when Surowiecki mentions the (then) popular game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Fans of that show will remember that contestants had three life lines to help them answer difficult multiple choice questions and the most valuable of those life lines was the one called “Ask the Audience” where the 100+ spectators were polled on which answer they thought was the correct one. The audience was correct 91% of the time – even though they were made up of individuals who had nothing better to do than watch a game show taping live on a weekday afternoon. Not exactly the “smartest” group you would think, but the stats prove otherwise.

How this all relates to predicting Oscar winners is that Surowiecki mentioned in his book a website called the Hollywood Stock Exchange that predicts the box office take of new releases based on the crowd’s predictions. This website also looks at the crowd’s prediction of who will win the 2012 Oscars in the top categories (the higher the value the more likely that movie/actor/director is likely to win). Here are the current leaders on the site:

Best Picture: The Artist

Best Director: The Artist

Best Actor: Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Best Actress: Viola Davis, The Help

Best Supporting Actor: Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Best Supporting Actress: Octavia Spencer, The Help

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Descendants

Best Original Screenplay: Midnight in Paris

Last year the HSX correctly predicted 7 out of 8 of the 2011 Oscar Winners (they only one they got wrong was incorrectly predicting the Best Director Oscar would go to David Fincher rather than Tom Hooper). If you need more proof about the power of the crowd, check out the results in Ebert’s 2011 Oscar Pool last year – the majority of the crowd correctly picked 19 out of 24 of the winners (crapshoot categories are – as expected – Best Live Action Short Film, Best Animated Short Film, and Best Foreign Language Film. The crowd can’t help you much there). Ebert correctly picked 11. I correctly picked 14 (go me! – but seriously, go with the crowd).

For those looking to win their Oscar Pool here’s the cheat sheet I compiled for the rest of the categories (based on Metacritic’s polling results using the user picks):

Best Foreign Language Film: A Separation

Best Documentary Feature: Pina

Best Animated Feature: Rango

Best Cinematography: Tree of Life

Best Film Editing: The Artist

Best Art Direction: Hugo

Best Costume Design: The Artist

Best Original Song: The Muppets

Best Original Score: The Artist

Best Sound Mixing: Hugo

Best Sound Editing: Drive

Best Visual Effects: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Best Makeup: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Best Documentary Short: Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom

Best Live Action Short: The Shore

Best Animated Short: La Luna

Shooting fish in a barrel: Award Movies of 2011

It’s about that time again – the lead-up to awards season when all the best movies of the year come out. And it’s fairly easy to predict which films will be nominees, much like its easy to predict what summer movies will top the box office (i.e. Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, the last Harry Potter). Below is what I think will be the films that will be talked about ad nauseum in the coming months (and they may be talked about ad nauseum here too).

The Ides of March

It’s a political film (just in time for the 2012 election) so it’s timely. It stars George Clooney (who did double-duty directing as well), Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Marisa Tomei, etc. This one, I’m predicting, will be nominated in a lot of categories.

The Skin I Live In

Expect this one to be nominated for Best Foreign Language film, and while that category is always tricky to predict who will be the winner, renowned director Pedro Almodovar is known for his well-recieved films (the four films he’s shown at Cannes, including this one, have all be nominated for the Palme d’Or).

Margin Call

It’s about the financial crisis and it stars Kevin Spacey. It’s a shoe-in.

My Week with Marilyn

May not garner nominations for the bigger awards, but I expect Michelle Williams will be nominated as Best Actress for her portrayal of Marilyn Monroe.

J. Edgar

Clint Eastwood. Leonardo DiCaprio. Biopic. Well, this one will be nominated for everything.

The Descendants

Another George Clooney movie – this time from a favorite director of mine – Alexander Payne. The brains behind Election, About Schmidt, and Sideways, Payne has never made a bad movie. While it might not garner many nominations, at least a nod in the writing (or directing) categories would be nice.

A Dangerous Method

A David Cronenberg period drama about Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. Exploding heads are doubtful, but award nominations (Best Actor, Best Supporting) are a sure bet.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Based on a John le Carre novel (Best Adapted Screenplay nom – check) starring Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, and John Hurt (Best Supporting/Best Actor nominations in there somewhere) and a spy thriller plot. Probably a Best Picture nomination too – it has a good title.

Young Adult

It’s by Jason Reitman – who has directed four films with three of them being nominated for Best Picture. I think it’s safe to say he’ll be continuing the streak with this one, and Charlize Theron may just end up being nominated for Best Actress again.

The Iron Lady

The Weinstein Company always picks films that are often heavily-nominated and go on to win the big prize (The King’s Speech). This year round it’s Meryl Streep (Best Actress nomination- another notch on her belt) as Margaret Thatcher. Best Screenplay and Picture nominations? I would think so.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Tom Hanks stars in this adaptation of a Jonathan Safran Foer novel regarding a little boy’s attempts to come to terms with his father’s death on September 11th. Best Picture nominee? It could be a contender.

I also think Drive (Best Original Score nomination – I hope so) and Contagion (maybe a nod to director Steven Soderbergh?) could have a spattering of nominations as well. Just none of the big awards. Those are saved for the films mentioned above.

My predictions for Best Picture Nominees:

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

The Ides of March

Young Adult

The Iron Lady

A Dangerous Method

J. Edgar

And if last year’s winner is anything to judge by, this year’s winner will be a film that takes place in the past, is rather stuffy and has a muted, dreary set design, generates an inordinate amount of buzz during awards season, and then is never spoken, nor thought about ever again. So, The Iron Lady will win Best Picture.

Trailer Spoilers: 5 Trailers that Spoil the Movie

Have you seen the Dream House trailer yet? No? Don’t.

In two and a half minutes the trailer for this Daniel Craig thriller is able to spoil the biggest twist of the film for no reason. It’s a frightening trend that trailers tend to show the best parts of every movie (comedies are especially guilty of overplaying their hands by showing the best jokes) making it almost redundant to actually pay to see the film in theatres when you get the best bits for free. It seems Hollywood is interested in cannibalizing itself.

If you’re interested in seeing five movies in ten minutes, check out the list below.

5) Spartan (2004)

This is a fairly complex political thriller with one problem – if you’ve seen the trailer every major plot point and twist has been revealed. The scenes with William H. Macy screaming in a jet hangar? That’s the climax of the film and the point the audience discovers that Macy is the bad guy. What else do we learn? The daughter was kidnapped because her security detail was called off to protect her father who was busy having an affair with another woman. Oh, and she’s been reported dead. But she’s actually alive. The only scenes they left out were Val Kilmer running to different locations.

4) Arlington Road (1999)

Arlington Road is an underrated thriller from the 90s that dealt with the paranoia of a university professor (Jeff Bridges) who teaches a terrorism course and begins to suspect that his All-American neighbor might be a terrorist. It’s great stuff, especially because two-thirds of the movie you’re never quite sure if Tim Robbins is actually evil or if Bridges is just finding ominous warning signs where none exist. Don’t worry, the trailer clears everything up: Tim Robbins is a terrorist.

3) Cast Away (2000)

Another great movie spoiled by a trailer that drains the film of any suspense. Tom Hanks crash lands on an island. It looks like no one will find him. Let’s flash forward four years, when he has been found and he can be confused when all his friends had a funeral for him and his wife has moved on. I love that this trailer asks – “Where do you start…when you have to start over?” by showing the scenes of Hanks trying to re-adapt to civilized life. He doesn’t start over anywhere – that’s the last five minutes of the movie.

2) Soylent Green (1973)

What is the secret of Soylent Green? Hmm, well let’s see – two people die when they realize the secret with one being assassinated by covert government forces. The police chief wants the case closed down because top brass wants it closed down. But Charlton Heston refuses to do so and ends up in the cross-hairs. Did you catch those last scenes though? The ones with dead bodies on a conveyor belt in a factory-like setting? Or that other scene with people being scooped into a dump truck? Maybe that’s the answer…could Soylent Green be people?

1) Carrie (1976)

You see that weird looking girl that everyone makes fun of? Yeah, Carrie White – the one who lives in that creepy house with her crazy mother and is named the Prom Queen and then kills everyone with her telekinetic abilities? Well, that’s the whole movie. You should really go see it.