My Soul to Take

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(:-}

I'm not sure all this hate is called for... as a fan of the Scream franchise, I enjoyed the movie! It's a lot like the first Scream movies, several plot twists, several suspects, fast paced, a web of lies falling apart quite quickly that explain part of the story while also leaving you with more questions. I think the dissatisfaction mainly comes from the people that saw this in the theaters and in 3D and thought it was not worth it, and I'll agree with that part, if I had watched this in the movie theater and payed extra to get 3D, I would've been disappointed too.

In conclusion: Good horror flick that follows a similar story line to Scream, but I'm not complaining!

A lot of reviewers compared Wes Craven's early work to My Soul To Take and came to the conclusion the early work was better. I can't disagree with that. The Hills Have Eyes or the Scream series were better but it's clear Wes Craven has a similar type of stories. The whole series of Nightmare On Elm Street that I rewatched a while ago didn't age that well but when those came out I did enjoy them. My Soul To Take doesn't have that effect on me. I watched it but found it a bit boring, just not that exciting or scary. It will for sure not become one of the "classics" like the early ones did. I already forgot everything about it and I just watched it yesterday.

My Soul to Take (2010)

** (out of 4)

Wes Craven's return to the horror genre hits with a major thud and turns out to be his most disappointing film since VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN. The story is a pretty interesting one as a serial killer murders his pregnant wife as well as six other people but after being shot and stabbed he's involved in an ambulance crash. His body is never discovered but it's pretty clear he's probably dead so the community moves on. Sixteen years later the seven kids who were born on the day he died are know dropping like flies so is it a copycat killer, the dead man's son, the killer himself or perhaps just his ghost? There are many, many good ideas floating around this film but in the end it's just way too uneven, confusing and at times laughable to really work. I'll start with the screenplay that has a few interesting ideas including the fact that souls can jump from one body to the next. This is an interesting idea and they do a few nice things with it but it really seems like this psychological idea was nixed at some level and some executive cut in saying this was a horror film and needed more murders. The movie, for the most part, deals with the fears of these seven kids and then we have more psychological stuff about them being haunted and cursed. Then, out of no where, the film seems to switch on a dime to turn into some crazy slasher where the victims are being torn apart. The psychological stuff begins to wear thin as the story grows more and more out of whack and while the screenplay gets a lot of the blame you can also point the finger at Craven. The first sequence on the bridge actually contains some of that Craven magic where your pulse goes from zero to sixty in a matter of seconds and this expands to an earlier scene where you just know the killer is going to come back to life and although you're expecting it when it does finally happen it makes for a good jump. The problem is that Craven really doesn't handle the psychological stuff too well and this is where the movie really loses its way and in the end crashes and burns. I'd be willing to bet that we're going to get a couple alternate endings when we finally get a DVD release because the ending has so much going on you can't help but feel things could have ended in a dozen different ways. One of the worst sequences in the film is perhaps the most bizarre and it's a big chase sequence in the woods. We start off with a possible sexual assault before things changing up and we're seeing the killer chase two different victims. This scene really doesn't make too much sense and in many ways what starts it seems out of place but not a single frame of this long sequence has any suspense to it, which is shocking since we're talking about a Wes Craven film. The performances are about on par for this type of movie so no complaints there. MY SOUL TO TAKE seems to have a lot of interesting ideas floating around but the ideas never really come together and in the end you can't help but feel disappointed. This isn't a horrible movie but at the same time you expect a lot more when Wes Craven is involved.

You pretty much have to give this a second review in terms of the 3-D. I must admit that I didn't want to watch a Craven film in 3-D but that's all that was playing around me. Those expecting stuff to jump off the screen are going to be disappointed and those who put down $12 or more dollars (like I did) for the 3-D are going to be extremely mad because there isn't any 3-D. Well, there are two small things that jump out at you in the entire movie and the rest of the thing is simply flat. In fact, during the movie you can take your glasses off and it's a 2-D print being shown. There was one other person in the theater with me and he actually watched the movie without the glasses on. I'm not sure how the studio is promoting this thing but there's no question this wasn't shot for 3-D but instead converted to it. This isn't a bad thing but to charge extra money for just a couple quick scenes is a major rip off so for this reason alone I'd recommend people to save their money and wait for DVD or try and catch a 2-D screening.

Wes Craven has had a really spotty career, full of ups and downs. I was a bit surprised by MSTT, because it seemed to be far more derivative and unimaginative than I was expecting. This certainly isn't a bad movie, but it was disappointing, especially for Wes Craven. If it had been some unknown director's debut, I'd probably be more forgiving. However, I expect better from Wes Craven, even after sitting through Deadly Friend and Shocker. Like Deadly Friend and Shocker, there were aspects of this movie that I did like, but not enough that I'd give it a good rating. I think that this movie was made for a younger, less jaded demographic (ie, teenagers). For adults, it's just going to seem a bit tired, clichéd, and a retread of several of his older movies (most especially Scream). I was never a huge fan of Scream in the first place, but it was better than this. I'd say that MSTT is worth a 5/10 for adults, while teenagers may enjoy it more (6/10).