My Soul to Take (2010) Reviews

• Everyone is a Critic

  twomainiacs2014-03-11

  Whew.....everyone's a critic. If you like scary movies....strange, scary movies.....strange, scary movies with a plot.....strange, scary movies with a plot and fairly good ending.....then get the popcorn and have a good time with this one. Look.....if I took every movie I have ever seen so seriously I had to dump on it more than enjoy it. Well.....there would be a lot of movies I would never watch. My Soul To Take is a good movie. It keeps you wondering, guessing and a little annoyed you didn't see it coming. Admittedly, I do scroll through the reviews to get an idea of how people viewed the movie and how they rated it. I have my own 5 Star system which got this film a 4.5. If you are new to IMDb.....never, ever take the scoring system to heart. Even a really BAD film based on reviews will perk my interest to watch it and see for myself. For those of you who use IMDb regularly.....this movie didn't earn the 4.7 it got. I would have said 8 out of 10 personally......but then that is me. Please don't throw this one away based on critics who "know the price of everything and the value of nothing"....Zonker from his guru days. ......enjoy......Cookie Q(:-}

• Interesting concept but poor executions

  A_Llama_Drama2010-10-17

  I'm sad to be giving Wes' new film a meagre 6/10. I mean, 6 out of 10 isn't even that bad for a horror film but for a Wes Craven horror film it is a terrible grade. I like Wes' films because of the fact that he can make a simple story (psychopath killing people, voodoos and zombies, terrorists on planes) into something complex and interesting. With Nightmare on Elm Street he managed to prey on the fears of adults and children as well as offering ideas into dreams and reality. In Scream he gave his victims and killers modern sensibilities and repeatedly asked "are movies responsible for our actions?" He shot some beautiful scenes in Haiti for Serpent and the Rainbow and looked at the effects of religion governing politics. So here he is with a movie about souls and fate. The plot sees a psychopath (Abel) with split personalities loose his grip on normality and go on a killing spree, ending with him dying (or did he?). On the night that he died, 7 children were born including his own son, Adam (do you notice the religious connotations there?) who had to be cut out of his dead mother's womb. Adam (Bug) and the 6 others enjoy a ritual every year to ward of the evil spirit that they think may still want to murder them for they might just be the souls of the victims of Abel's bad seed. Now at 16, Bug is suffering black outs, nausea and migraines and people are beginning to worry that he might have inherited his father's illness. It sure doesn't help that his older sister, Leah, spreads lies about him to the school out of spite for she feels her life was ruined the night that Bug was born. On the anniversary of the Ripper's death, one of the 7 is murdered and the 6 begin to worry that their souls may be tainted. At 96 minutes, it is a longer than usual "horror" movie. Craven fills the daylight with musings of souls and inheritance and the night with murder and bloodshed. Craven side-steps the horror clichés to an extent, allowing his characters to fall prey to inevitability rather than silly choices. It's an interesting idea - imagine you had the soul of a murderer locked inside you and you weren't at all aware. As for the victims, knowing that you were meant to die in a repeat incident wouldn't be a comforting thought now, would it? Bug is different though. He seems to be a fractured soul, the good soul of his father who is gathering the pieces of souls from the victims, keeping them from truly dying. As I've said, interesting. However, in amongst all the philosophy and social pariah fun, there are a heap of bad points. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be that much at stake. Bug's transformation from meek and innocent to strong and in charge isn't powerful enough to really get you behind him like you would Nancy or Sidney. The deaths of the students, although it's meant to be unfair that they were singled out from birth to die aren't shocking and you never really feel that they're fighting to live. Secondly, the set pieces aren't at all remarkable and apart from the discovery of one body beside a temple which results in the only real cat and mouse scene, there's nothing to really remember or go "wow" at. Horror needs location, it's integral to the feel. Fred Krueger's boiler room in dreamland; the town in Haiti; Stu's farmhouse with Hallowe'en playing on the telly; all were integral to the films. Finally, the movie is a bit confusing. The ideas are never fully explored, leaving audiences entirely at a loss to understand if it's a by the numbers slasher or something deeper. Bug's unique skill is barely hinted at(even if there are a lot of scenes involving him mimicking his friends) and it makes it hard to understand just what he's on about during his confrontation with the ripper. Oh, and the Asian dude gets it first. But thankfully, Craven injects his film with his own unique ways. On scene involving a bird costume in a classroom is creepier than you'd expect thanks to Craven's expert directing skills. He's assembled a talented cast of young (YOUNG) actors. Brittany, Fang, Alex and Bug are well crafted characters who are played believably. The supporting cast of teens do well with their very limited dialogue and characters. He also delivers us a horrific bad guy who grunts more than Leatherface and murders just as violently. Some crackling dialogue between brother and sister and foster mother gives it the feeling of being more than just a horror movie (which is what you expect from Craven) and a lot of irreverent high school jinx give us some laughs before the carnage ensues. Overall, not a bad movie but certainly a mediocre Craven one.

• I Can't Believe Wes Craven Made This Garbage

  indyj12010-10-09

  Despite numerous warnings to avoid this film, I shelled out my money, including the ridiculous $3 extra for 3D glasses, figuring, it's Wes Craven, how bad can it be? Well, the answer is, extremely, horribly, atrociously bad. MSTT made Shocker look like Citizen Kane. I've seen better efforts at the After Dark Horrorfests and coming from The Asylum on SyFy. MSTT had a script and dialog of the level of some fresh-out-of-some-two-bit-drama-school reject, not of a nearly 40-year veteran of filmmaking. Half the dialog made no sense whatsoever, and the emotions of the actors was usually misplaced. While the story had promise, the execution failed completely. At first, the action seemed forced to get to the central elements Craven was looking for, then the resolution bogged down in complete incoherence. Craven can't blame some one else's script or studio insistence on cuts, 'cause this atrocity was all his. If this is the best he can do, he should retire. He's proved he has nothing left to add to horror. And if my negative comments still don't dissuade you from seeing this atrocity, make sure you at least seek out 2D instead of the extra money for 3D, because... THERE WAS NO Discernible 3D IN THE FILM WHATSOEVER!!!! Scenes which should have popped out of the screen, such as the ambulance crash, DIDN'T! It's quite obvious the studio realized what a piece of crap MSTT was and how it would plummet in ticket sales once work of mouth got out, so they did post-filming 3D conversion to bilk the poor suckers who went to see it opening weekend out of a few dollars more. The only reason I didn't rate this a 1 is because, sadly, I have seen worse. But this one should be avoided at all costs. 2/10

• Poorly written, ill-conceived & lacking in Craven's expert touch

  Shattered_Wake2010-10-09

  The story of 'My Soul to Take' focuses on the sleepy little town of Riverton, a place made famous for a serial killer dubbed the Riverton Ripper who, sixteen-years prior to the film's events, roamed the town, eluding the police and viciously hunting down townspeople. Eventually, he was caught, but never brought to justice. The same night of the Ripper's capture & supposed death, seven children (later to be called 'The Riverton Seven') are born prematurely & simultaneously in the town. Now, in present day, Riverton still feels uneasy about the possibility of the Ripper's return, even those who believe he's dead. These worries are brought to life when one of the Riverton Seven is found dead, sending the town into a panic. Could it be possible that the Ripper is back? Or is there another madman on the loose taking his place on the sixteen-year anniversary of the Ripper's downfall? It must be difficult to release new horror films as Wes Craven or virtually any legendary filmmaker. He started his career with a bang releasing two of the most famous horror films of the 1970s, 'Last House on the Left' and 'The Hills Have Eyes.' After that, he had success in the slasher subgenre with 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' & the 'Scream' series. Therefore, to release yet another slasher, it's obvious that there will be comparisons to those important entries in the subgenre. The problem comes about when the film being compared to the classics is, let's face it, just really not good at all. To start out with the positives on 'My Soul to Take,' because there aren't a whole lot, the concept is pretty interesting. It has kind of a 'Fallen' (1998) feel to it with the possibility that a killer's soul may have traveled and no one knows whom to trust. There are also some creative elements to the film that had nothing to do with the plot (the Condor scene, for one) that added a nice touch to the entertainment value, though none of them are really important enough to have a lasting impact on the film's quality. Finally, the acting from the teens is, surprisingly, pretty darn good. Typically, in a film focusing on younger kids, you'll get solid (or at least superior) acting from the adults & subpar performances from the children. Here, the kids were actually the impressive ones, especially Emily Meade as Fang and Max Thieriot as Bug, while the adults were pretty much unbearable to watch. To be fair to the above-mentioned inadequate actors, they didn't have a lot to work with so that is one excuse they can use to save face. In fact, this film had some of the most poorly written, stilted, contrived dialogue you'll find in a wide-release horror film. Not only were the characters always saying something stupidly embarrassing (especially the dumb jock Brandon), but the entire third act of the film basically had the killer & victims fully explaining all the secrets of the film like a James Bond villain revealing his plan, pretty much assuming that the entire audience is too stupid to understand the film. Add the embarrassing dialogue to the completely convoluted story, and this becomes one of the worst scripts Wes Craven has ever worked with. And that includes 'Shocker.' And that's the real issue here. If you don't have a solid script, it's almost impossible to have a solid film. This was far from solid. While the story wasn't difficult to understand, it did try too hard to be overly complex. It also had a lot of influence from Craven's own previous work, some of which seemed like straight repeated elements of his other films. The awful writing also extended to the Ripper himself. Similar to Freddy in the later sequels of the 'Elm Street' saga, the Ripper always had some silly one-liner that he grunted out, each of which being more (unintentionally?) hilarious than the last. If you're trying to put forth a serious horror film like this was attempting to be, don't make the killer silly. He's the one character the audience should NOT be laughing at. The final gripe to have with this film is the highway robbery that is the post-converted 3D. It was downright pathetic theft. The effects were barely noticeable and completely useless. There was literally almost no difference whatsoever between the 3D & 2D: nothing flying from the screen, no depth to the images, nothing. Just another way for the studio to grab another $2-3 from the theatre-goers' pockets. Overall, it must be said that this film is entertaining. It's never really boring at all, but a lot of this entertainment came from waiting for the next ridiculous thing to happen. It's sad to say, but it must be said. . . if 'Scream 4' isn't a bounceback after this film the way 'Red Eye' was after 'Cursed,' the future for Wes after his illustrious decades-long career does not look too promising. Final Verdict: 3.5/10. -AP3-

• Better than common horror, plenty to think about, very enjoyable!

  jrosekonungrinn2011-02-06

  I love this movie. I can't understand why so many of the reviews are negative. I ended up wondering, what movie was everyone else watching? People are saying it was confusing and hard to follow. It wasn't at all. It was a great mystery with several possibilities, which were all great fun to think about as the movie went on. When the end came up, all was made clear. You just have to have been using your brain through this movie to get it. Then there are also those who say "it's a ripoff of Nightmare on Elm St", and I think, "um, what?" These are the sort of people who say that any movie with a killer animal of any kind is a ripoff of Jaws. Sure, in the endless world of horror certain themes can only be done so many times, but reviews like that are pretty much the same as saying that all horror movies are just copies of all other horror movies. Perhaps one just has to have an interest in souls, mythologies, and pondering possibilities to enjoy this movie. I am a fan of horror all around, I've seen so many and such a range I couldn't begin to get into it. I've seen plenty of mindless slashers (including the enjoyable ones), and more than plenty of crap story lines I wish I hadn't. This was not one of those, and I liked it. The acting was good, especially Max Thieriot as Bug. I thought the twists and turns with Bug were fascinating. They gave the option to question whether or not people around him were real, or in his head. Yes, they were real, but it was one of the interesting possibilities I considered. Overall, the movie was very enjoyable.