Soultaker

Now I did watch this when it first came out on VHS, and all my friends and I thought it was a pretty good movie, but then again, we were teenagers. But honestly, not that good of a movie in retrospect. Sort of a hair metal, Dokken version of Carnival of Souls. But a bad movie does not exactly mean it is unwatchable; however, this one seems to lack the charm a lot of the regular Mst3k fodder usually contains. But if it was on cable, and I was bored and drinking beer--sure, I'd watch it again. But then again, I've watched Howling VII about five times now, so maybe you really shouldn't be listening to me.

Anyone else think it kind of sad that the director supposedly commented on his own movie? And why did he feel the urge to use caps lock so much?

In his book "I Hated, Hated, HATED This Movie" Roger Ebert recalls a time when he and late partner Gene Siskel viewed a particularly bad clunker. To add insult to injury, the third reel of the film had gone missing and they had to return a few days later to see it. The elusive footage was just as bad as the rest, but as Siskel observed it wouldn't have helped the product any: "If the third reel had been the missing footage from 'The Magnificent Ambersons,' this movie still would have sucked."

I am, I will confess, one of those who has not seen the uncut version of "Soultaker" (having been unable to locate it on television or rental shelves and having other things I'd rather spend my money on). But I find it hard to believe that any amount of additional footage would vastly improve on what I've already seen.

To be fair this is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the worst film to be the subject of a "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episode--indeed, compared to such horrors as "Hobgoblins" and "The Wild World of Batwoman" it's downright marvellous. The storyline (an Angel-of-Death figure is assigned to collect the souls of some youngsters and ends up being obsessed with one of them) is promising--shades of Cocteau's "Orpheus"--and there are some nice moments of symbolism (the butterfly brooch was a nice touch). But overall the film falls short in several areas. To wit:

~The Soultaker--or "The Man" as he's billed--has the most potential of any character in the piece. Such parts are best when they come off as creepy or charasmatic, preferably both. Sadly Joe Estevez is neither, and in several scenes looks more confused than anything else.

~Vivian Shilling, who does double duty as screenwriter and as Natalie, the girl Estevez's character flips for. A writer casting themselves in their own work is not exactly a bad thing--take Mel Brooks, for example. But if I had been in Shilling's shoes, I would have written better dialogue for myself than "How is that possible?" and "I don't understand any of this."

~Zach, the would-be hero of this piece. Zach is the sort of protagonist who's so whiny and ineffective that you end up rooting for the bad guy--or you would be, if the bad guy wasn't played by Joe Estevez. We're told Zach loves Natalie, but it's a bit hard to swallow when his defense of his undying passion to a skeptical friend basically consists of "You don't know her!"

~The entire rich-kid/poor-kid thing between Zach and Natalie, which never really resonates other than as a reason to explain why these two nice young kids haven't got together yet.

~The bathroom scene. The fact that the Soultaker takes a female form to spy on the scantily-clad Natalie isn't so awful. The fact that the female form is that of Natalie's mother throws a very disturbing incestuous angle on the whole proceedings that it's just best to avoid examining it altogether.

Another time, another place, "Soultaker" could have been an excellent film. Sadly, that's not here and now.

Soultaker is better than the average MST3K fodder. It is a B+ movie. A movie that has a pretty decent premise, but falls short on execution. Much like some of Roger Corman's work, it just misses being better than it's budget.

Let's start with the one positive and interesting concept of the movie: You aren't truly 'dead' until a soultaker / angel of death catches you.

That being said, here's the negative: 1)The Soultaker's are pretty much inept. They seemingly can't catch you even though you're dead. 2) They need to get right next to your "not alive but not quite dead" body in order to use their soul-sucking condom device. 3) The seemingly all powerful god-of-soultaker's just sits around while his lackey continually fails. 4) The lackey Soultaker even fails when disguised as the victims own mother?!?

These are just a small sample of problems with the script.... not even to mention the acting issues. However, I still must give credit to the young star/screenwriter Vivian, she did a better job here (in her early 20's at the time) than many "moviemakers" do their whole careers....

After seeing both the original version and the MST3K version, I can recommend both. The original version can be very much appreciated as an ambitious attempt by a young screenwriter to do something different. The MST3K version can be enjoyed simply as a movie with poor execution being rediculed...

Ok, I just had to say a few words here. Yes, I'll disclaim myself as a HUGE MST3K fan....HOWEVER....I am also a sincere student of fine films. With that said, I'd like to address the previous comments regarding City of Angels "ripping-off" Soultaker. City of Angels is a REMAKE of Wim Wenders' WINGS OF DESIRE. It was made in 1987. Three years prior to Soultaker. So....in essence, Soultaker could be said to be "ripping off" WINGS OF DESIRE. But, in truth, it is not a rip off, it is merely a shadow (no pun intended) of many movies that deal with the subject of the afterlife.

Now, on to the meat of things. No, this is NOT the worst movie ever made. That title goes, without reservation, to Red Zone Cuba. Cut, or uncut, it is still Hollywood's biggest embarrassment. However, as it stands, Soultaker is not the BEST movie ever made, slashed for MST3K, or not.

But, come on people (and you know who you are). ANY movie, good, mediocre, bad or horrendous is fair game for movie critics and at-home MSTies everywhere. Who hasn't, after the 98th showing, ripped a little on Star Wars? Even Citizen Kane, Gone with the Wind, and Casablanca have been spoofed! Humor can be seen in ANY film (yes, even APOCALYPSE NOW is not exempt to a few quiet, open-for-comment, moments.)

Honestly, Soultaker is not that bad. Not good, but not that bad. The acting is decent, the story flows, and I have to admit that I actually paid more attention to the story than I did to the bots. I know, I know, that's treason in MST-land, and my head could be in danger of being lopped off at any moment (or at least jettisoned into space).

Let's all just admit that bad and mediocre movies just add to the tapestry of filmmaking and that they are ALL fair game to a little criticism at worst, and a little humor, at best.

Okay, to be fair this movie did have an interesting concept. Given a few script rewrites, some decent actors and a budget, this might have been a fairly decent cult flick instead of the MST3K fodder it turned out to be.

Still, it was better than "Armageddon."