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-
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-