My Soul to Take

To fans of Western horror, the name Wes Craven is something of a legend. This is the guy who created one of the most iconic characters in horror- Freddy Krueger- in the "Nightmare in Elm Street" series. This is the guy who had the smarts to turn the genre on its head and give it a new breath of fresh air in the "Scream" trilogy, and come next year, quadrology. This is the guy whose horror movies- "The Hills Have Eyes", "The Last House on the Left" and of course the "Nightmare" series- are being remade by a new breed of filmmakers eager to be the next him.

Naturally then, the fact that "My Soul to Take" is Wes Craven's first film in five years (since 2005's "Red Eye") and first that the horror- meister has written and directed in fifteen years comes with certain expectations. Indeed, all the usual elements of a classic Wes Craven horror are present- a small town with hidden secrets from the past; a legend that is the stuff of campfire stories; and hipper-than-thou teen- speak- but unfortunately this is far from any classic. In fact, it probably qualifies as one of Wes Craven's career worst, if not the worst.

The opening in itself is baffling. A tightly condensed prologue is meant to set up the legend of the Riverton Ripper, a family man with multiple personality disorder including a particularly murderous one that has turned him into the town serial killer. He tries to kill his pregnant wife, the police rush in and shoot him a couple of times, he wakes rather miraculously to return the favour, the police fire some more, then the ambulance crashes on the way to the hospital and he disappears. Meanwhile on that very night, seven babies are born at the hospital.

The catch here is this- each one of his seven souls has taken over one of the babies, so one of them will eventually turn into a murderer. It's best you remember this, since the frenzied and convoluted manner Wes Craven tells the story makes it unnecessarily confusing. Fast-forward sixteen years later, when the Ripper has become the stuff of local legend, and a traditional prank played on one of them, Bug (Max Thierot), goes awry and apparently brings back the Ripper.

Unfolding entirely over the course of one day, Craven spends the first half of the film setting up his seven characters- the hot jock (Nick Lashaway), the sweet hottie (Paulina Olszynski), the religious chick (Zena Grey), the token Asian (Jeremy Chu), the African American blind boy (Denzel Whitaker), and Max's best friend Alex (John Magaro)- before the start of the blodletting. Sadly, none of the characters are any more than cinematic stereotypes, so whichever order they eventually meet their death doesn't really matter to the audience. The same goes for Craven's clumsy writing, his attempts at witty exchanges falling awfully flat.

By the time the Ripper comes calling, it's pretty much a case of 'too little too late'. Aside from not shying away from the gore, Craven botches any buildup to the climax by piling on the deaths too swiftly. Before any of the characters understand what is going on, they have already been off-ed or are in the process of getting off-ed. Even the extended climax done the Craven way (i.e. several characters trapped in the house with a killer in their midst a la "Scream") feels derivative and unconvincing.

The only consolation therefore is that by the end of the movie, you won't get a headache from watching the movie in 3D, as folks in the US would have (the movie is only available in 2D here). But the real horror is that Wes Craven may have finally, after an illustrious career stretching almost 40 years, lost his horror mojo. "My Soul to Take" is a major disappointment from Craven- let's just hope he still remembers how to make an audience "Scream" next year.

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.

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.

I feel like this film might be describing the possible challenges Wes Craven might have been facing in his own childhood growing up finding his own identity in the repressed Christian environment. And this is also why I find this film so endearing to me, perhaps my most favorite film from Craven, it really is so much deeper than just the main plot, it is about retaining the sense of who we are, that we are not mere product of our parents and genetics, but at the same time, many times our friends and loved one we surround ourselves with represent a part of us too, notice how our friends seem to mirror us so much, and complement us in some way as well. I love the deleted scene of this film how all his friends are walking with him on the road, and then they disappear, as if they were just ghosts. This film works emotionally on so many levels and dimensions, saying so much in an indirect way.

There's been classic films released around the same time with a theme of discovering or retaining our own soul or identity.

I was damn near excited to finally see another Wes Craven film on the big screen! So, I gladly walked into the midnight screening of, "My Soul to Take." And? I left completely disappointed. It's sad to say but I believe this to be one of Craven's worst movies. Why you ask? I'll do my best to tell you why. My Soul to Take starts off with a man finding out that he's the Riverton Ripper by finding the killer's signature knife hidden in his garage. Oh, and we as an audience find out that he has multiple personalities through a very confusing WTF moment. He then unknowingly takes the knife to his pregnant wife, to himself, and almost to his daughter but the cops gun him down. While they take him to the hospital, the ambulance crashes and he escapes and supposedly dies. Flashforward sixteen years and we find that the Riverton Ripper legend is a celebrated holiday amongst the young children, seeing as how seven of those teenagers were born the night he supposedly died. I think you can see where this is going... Anywho, I did my best to try and enjoy this movie but no matter how hard I tried, there always seemed to be something in the movie that made me dislike it even more. It feels like someone came up to Craven while he was writing and said, "You know, we got to appeal to today's audience so.... write the characters like this." And yadda, yadda, yadda. Anyone who's anyone knows that Wes Craven is the Father of today's horror film tactics but it seems that this film is dry when it comes to those tactics. This film wasn't even scary, spooky, or suspenseful in any way. It was downright confusing as hell and suffered the one thing that horror movies suffer today: I didn't give a rats ass about these character. Hell, as soon as you're introduced to them, you want them to die! Hell, you probably might want to kill them yourself! I'm definitely going to make light of one scene where a blind kid on his death bed goes into a 5 minute monologue of how he got stabbed. What's funny about this is that he somehow climbed up the side of a house, crawled through a window, hid in a closet, and attacked the main character mistaking him for the killer..... all while blind. And he takes 5 minutes to discuss this and dies. Wow... where to begin? You know what, I'll leave it at that. This plot was congested with confusing story lines, bad acting (except for the sister named Fang), and an even more confusing pay off. I never thought I'd say this but I believe Craven has definitely lost his horror touch. If anything though, this is definitely worth a rental. Oh, and before I finish this review, let me tell you here and now that this is among one of the three movies this year with the WORST 3D conversions. The latter being Clash of the Titans and the Last Airbender. This movie's 3D serves no purpose whatsoever. So, to save a few bucks, see it in 2D. Or don't see it at all. Trust me, you're not missing anything.

RATING - 5 OUT OF 10.