"Whisper your way to success. 168th Rule of Acquisition "


My Soul to Take (2010)

Directed by: Wes Craven
Written by: Wes Craven
Cast: Max Thieriot, John Magaro, Denzel Whitaker, Zena Grey, Nick Lashaway, Paulina Olszynski, Jeremy Chu, Emily Meade, Raúl Esparza

We really have had it all wrong about schizophrenia. Wes Craven has revealed within My Soul to Take a brand new working theory of schizophrenia that is bound to turn stupid old science on its head. It's not about misfiring neurons, chemical imbalances, childhood trauma, or anything silly like that; schizophrenics are simply people who have become jam packed with extra human souls. Most people just have one soul, and schizophrenics can have two, three, or even seven souls. The world is made clear. Take that, science!

It's been sixteen years since the fall of the dreaded 'Riverton Ripper'. On his last fateful night, he was gunned down in the height of a murder spree, only to spring to life in the back of an ambulance on the way to the hospital. The medical staff is, of course, poorly equipped to handle a psychopathic maniac, and so the entire thing crashes and blows up, Ripper and all.

Being a sufferer of schizophrenia, his death releases seven souls to the magical soul ether, free and able to jump into brand new bodies to start the magical cycle of life all over again. One of these souls is, of course, really nasty; a mean murdering soul who only wants to live to kill. The other six are okay, if a little bland and boring at parties. Now, you might not know this about souls but, they never travel far - all seven freed souls jump into newborns that were being grunted out in the small town of Riverton that very same night.

All seven of those babies grew up into a diverse selection of young people, to include The Jock, The Nice Cute Girl, The Christian Girl, The Geek, The Geek's Best Friend, The Black Guy, and The Whacky Asian Kid. One of them - and it's a big mystery who - is a vessel for the really nasty murderous soul. On their 16th birthday, the bad soul has decided to perform a reunion of sorts, and sets out to kill off all six of the other goody two-shoe non-murdering souls.

All of the characters and their introductions are hammed out in the first fifteen minutes with a style of exposition that's about as subtle as a roll call. All seven kids meet, along with other nameless youth of the town, every year on their birthdays at the river side location where the Ripper had blown up in the ambulance. We know it's the exact spot, because the ambulance is still there; yes, the city decided to never, ever remove it, presumably so that kids would have a rusty old husk to smoke pot in.

The Jock (and we know he's a jock because he always wears a 'Varsity' jacket and is mean to geeks) hosts the little ritual by introducing every single character we're going to meet - their names as well as their stereotypes. Then some jackass stumbles out dressed like Gregory Rasputin, and one of the Riverton Seven is supposed to drive him back into the river, to dwell there for another year. This year, it's The Geek's turn. However, it all goes wrong when the cops break it up before The Geek can summon up the guts to dispel the puppet demon, which of course means they're all going to die. Good going, Geek.

I didn't like My Soul to Take. Rarely is a film so thoroughly bad in so many ways. The mythology behind it is one of the most nonsensical lumps of rambling horseshit ever to be put to film. Schizophrenia is now multiple-soul-disorder? This is the sort of garbage meth addicts scribble about when they're taking a break from making bird cages from rusty wire hangers. It is just a childishly stupid notion that is an outright mockery of any semi-intelligent idea about the nature of schizophrenia. You might as well make a film that suggests AIDS is due to the work of microscopic aliens building a chain of used VHS stores in a victim's rectum.

This grade school conception of how-life-works continues with the supposed propagation of the souls into brand new bodies. As mentioned, the souls (for whatever reason) don't fall far from the tree and all take up residence in nearby newborns. This, of course, answers the entire question on when life begins. Babies don't have souls until they actually leave the womb. Before then, they are just soulless lumps of crap. I guess that settles the entire abortion issue, once and for all, and no one will mind anymore when I suggest a rousing game of 'Fetus Football'.

The extremely childish nature of the film bleeds into the murderer itself. The Geek fails to complete the inane ritual of driving the caricature of the Ripper back into the river, and soon enough his friends start dying for real. The monster is reborn, looking just as Rasputin-y as the fake puppet. My Soul to Take wants to make sure that you know this is The Ripper, and not just some angry Russian hobo, so, in the first scene where he cuts down The Whacky Asian kid, he actually says his name as a sort of battle cry. He charges down the bridge shouting, "RIPPPPPPPPERRRRRRRRRRRRRR!" with all the menace of an 8-year-old pretending to be his favorite professional wrestler.

Why don't all of our iconic villains do this? Show some brand name pride! Picture Hellraiser's 'Pinhead' shouting 'PINNNHEAAAAAD' in a menacing tone as he lurches out of the shadows. Ooooo, scary. Then imagine how much scarier Freddy Kruegar would be if he belted out a good "KRUUUUUUEEGARRRR!" while leaping out of, what, a friggin' pie or something. This is assuming you're having a dream about pies. I digress. I think the point is that I hated this god damned movie with a deep burning passion.

Most of the scares within the film are of the bullshit variety; Riverton is a town where friends like to jump really fast at each other from behind, just to say 'hi!'. Lame jump scares of this type seed all 88 minutes, and each burst of music is just there to highlight a stupid kid being overly-quiet and accidentally startling some other stupid kid.

In between the murders, the film doles out extraneous typical high school bullshit in a vapid attempt to keep us interested. The Jock likes to womanize a lot and The Geek has the inevitable awkward crush on The Cute Nice Girl. The Cute Nice Girl doesn't really know he's alive. There's also a collection of 'Mean Girl' style bad girls who rule the hallways with cruel and snobbish flair, and have some sort of side business selling - crap, something stupid. There's even a scene of said bad girls strutting down the hallways to the disco beats of Franz Ferdinand. I mean, you can't have a film involving high school kids without a scene of fashion savvy high school girls strutting down a busy hallway to the beats of some popular dance song, can you?

Inexplicably sewn into this entire mess is some sort of bizarre subtext about condors. I don't know what the entire deal with condors might be about. The Geek loves condors, and so I guess Wes Craven does too. But this entire subtext leads to one big WHY. Why condors? They're everywhere in this movie! Even the end credits of the film is a motif of cartoon condors, smiling and flying all cute-like about in a star-filled sky. One of the cartoon condors is wearing a tie. I just don't understand this. Why is that fucking condor wearing a tie? WHY IS THAT FUCKING CONDOR WEARING A TIE, WES CRAVEN?

The ironic thing about the title of this complete pile is it simply has no soul to speak of. My Soul to Take is amalgamated crap, crudely stitched together with fibers of pure nonsense to make a confused and schizophrenic being that shudders and mutters to itself as it shambles down the sidewalk of utter cinematic failure. This is perhaps the worst theatrically released horror film of the year. Wes Craven has lost his freaking mind.

This is a Day Two Review.



Rating: (0 out of 5):

Share

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Cash Bailey's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2010
Posts: 1921

Can I open myself up for an almighty thrashing... but I'd like to say that Wes Craven is a hack who has only ever made two (maybe three) good movies. The original ELM STREET, SERPENT AND THE RAINBOW and the flat, mediocre (but successful) SCREAM rounding out the three.

Everything else he has ever made has been pure shit.

Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3884

I can't thrash you for that. I agree about the two you mentioned - I've actually always thought Serpent and the Rainbow was an under-rated film.

I do have an affection for the original The Hills Have Eyes. I realize it's far from a perfect film, but I do like it's camp factor.

After Cursed, I don't know why I even thought Craven might make something tolerably entertaining ever again. My Soul to Take was actually a far worse film than I thought I was going in to see.

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

Offline
Joined: 08/14/2010
Posts: 1825

Craven is a hack and I shudder every time he's called a Master of Horror. He should have stuck to porn.

__________________

This is not a dream... not a dream. We are using your brain's electrical system as a receiver. We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year one, nine, nine, nine. You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing. Our technology has not developed a transmitter strong enough to reach your conscious state of awareness, but this is not a dream. You are seeing what is actually occurring for the purpose of causality violation.

Private J.V. Vasquez's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2005
Posts: 1980

That review was hilarious lol and that creature looks like Hell's version of Big-bird. I like Wes Craven movies, some of them I really like a lot of the stuff you guys mentioned and I really like "The People under the stairs". But his most recent stuff eh, although I did like "Red-Eye", but it seemed like recently he has lost a lot of his mojo since he go really successful. But a lot of the 80's stuff I love, come on "Deadly Friend?" lol I don't know probably that's me being sentimental. But eh every since Scream its like I don't know he went off the deep end. Cursed was entertaining, but the acting in that I wanted to die although the whole Werewolf giving the bird was so stupid and funny at the same time.

__________________

"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"

Thomwade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/26/2010
Posts: 1311

I don't know... New Nightmare was pretty solid.

I confess, I have trouble calling him a hack when Uwe Bolle is out there. I mean, there is somebody who keeps getting work and has yet to produce a single thing worth sitting through.

Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3884

Moonbutterfly7 wrote:

although the whole Werewolf giving the bird was so stupid and funny at the same time.

The werewolf flipping off people was Wes Craven's subtle way of saying "This movie is a big stupid joke and I want you to laugh at what a big stupid joke it all is."

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

Private J.V. Vasquez's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2005
Posts: 1980

Hah probably which is why I think its funny one of my horror friends was so mad at that scene he was like "That's was so stupid I hated that." I wouldn't say Wes was a hack though not yet at least. I mean I would rather watch that than Micheal Bay any day. I will tell you that. I bet him and Jerry Brickhimer like to look at stuff that we love and fuck it up. Which I think is a lot more evil.

__________________

"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"

Chris McMillan's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2009
Posts: 1392

Thomwade wrote:

I confess, I have trouble calling him a hack when Uwe Bolle is out there. I mean, there is somebody who keeps getting work and has yet to produce a single thing worth sitting through.

Well, House of the Dead is pretty cool in a big, loud, extremely stupid way. It's my favorite rainy-day-and-I've-got-a-hangover film. Hey, some people like 60's Godzilla movies, I like Uwe Boll video game flicks.

Just remember, it's not a guilty pleasure if you don't feel a little guilty for loving it.

__________________

Visit my blog: http://shadowoverportland.blogspot.com/

zwillis's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2010
Posts: 38

It took me a while to say that "I don't like Wes Craven very much." He's a big name in the horror game, you know--then this slice of doo-doo pie, My take soul too something or other, whatever, was the straw that broke a weak camel's back.

I re-watched Wes Craven's New Nightmare a few weeks back, because I saw it in the theater years ago, but I couldn't remember if I liked it or not. Indeed I viewed it, and indeed I really wanted to hang myself with an Ivy League looped red and green sweater from an industrial sized ceiling fan (do those exist?) that could realistically hold my weight.

Thinking back, I was probably confusing Wes Craven for John Carpenter films, and as I got older, I realized John Carpenter was making all the good ones and Craven...ehh, well, there's Craven.

I don't want to completely hate on the guy. He's definitely done something worthwhile for the genre, I just think that most of us grew up out of his vision.

__________________

Zak Willis from West Philly

Superheidi's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2004
Posts: 14914

Chris McMillan wrote:
Thomwade wrote:

I confess, I have trouble calling him a hack when Uwe Bolle is out there. I mean, there is somebody who keeps getting work and has yet to produce a single thing worth sitting through.

I have trouble calling Uwe Boll a hack when Ulli Lommel is out there.

__________________

"Another great thing about being 70,000 light years away from the nearest Starfleet vessel is that once we finally get back to Earth, we can makeup bullshit stories. Off the top of my head: 'We met Amelia Earhart,' 'We singlehandedly eliminated most of the Borg fleet' or 'Paris and I turned into giant pink lizards and mated.'"

I'm the owner and editor of PlanetFury. You can also find me at PlanetEtheria.com

asharceneaux's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/21/2006
Posts: 1555

Serpent and the Rainbow, People under the Stairs (that's his, right? LOL) weren't too bad. The New Nightmare wasn't completely worth the money I paid, but it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen.

BUt eveyrthing else. Meh. Mediocre director who panders to stupid teenagers.

Thomwade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/26/2010
Posts: 1311

Superheidi wrote:
Chris McMillan wrote:
Thomwade wrote:

I confess, I have trouble calling him a hack when Uwe Bolle is out there. I mean, there is somebody who keeps getting work and has yet to produce a single thing worth sitting through.

I have trouble calling Uwe Boll a hack when Ulli Lommel is out there.

You have a very good point.

Thomwade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/26/2010
Posts: 1311

One question though...should horror/fantasy be held accountable for not being scientifically accurate? Doesn't, say, [Rec] fail that test? I mean, is a horror film not allowed to take liberties?

zwillis's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2010
Posts: 38

I have to admit, this got me on the floor break dancin' with laughter: "It is just a childishly stupid notion that is an outright mockery of any semi-intelligent idea about the nature of schizophrenia. You might as well make a film that suggests AIDS is due to the work of microscopic aliens building a chain of used VHS stores in a victim's rectum."

__________________

Zak Willis from West Philly

Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3884

Thomwade wrote:

One question though...should horror/fantasy be held accountable for not being scientifically accurate? Doesn't, say, [Rec] fail that test? I mean, is a horror film not allowed to take liberties?

Of course - otherwise every film would be set in boring old reality.

Films may introduce new fantastical notions to the state of reality as long as they follow a sort of coherent logical thought. In the case of [Rec], the logical thought is that evil spirits do exist in the world, and they are beginning to creep into reality via a form of raging possession. This is really the fundamental premise of [Rec], and is really a very simple one. It is clear and does not open up a bunch of head scratching questions.

In contrast, My Soul to Take makes a HUGE leap that leads to tons of questions an inconsistencies. Keep in mind that this is a film set in the "real world", albeit with these critical changes:

First, it does conclude that we do, after all, have souls - okay, I can deal with that.

Then, despite the fact that multiple personality disorder is extremely controversial - to the point that it may, in fact, not even really exist - the film also supposes that individuals with split personalities may be suffering from 'extra souls'. Eh, really?

The film goes on to require that souls, when freed from the human body, don't reincarnate anywhere else on earth - they reincarnate as close as friggin' possible to where the person died. Are souls lazy? Do they not like to travel? Are they actually confined by space and time and forced to the closest 'vessel'?

The film then goes onto suggest that some souls know they are souls and thus are not really linked to their bodies. The 'killer' soul is well aware of the other six, and wants to kill them all. Now we're supposed to believe souls carry memories? Okay...

The film then goes onto suggest that prenatal infants do not have souls, as we obviously saw that the seven kids in the film only got their souls when they were born. What happens then to kids who are born prematurely? Does one just rush in? Or is it soulless for awhile? For that matter, what if no one's died in the area recently? I mean, if there are no souls in the area to fill up the vessel, then does it become Republican?

I'll stop with my bad joke. I could go on. My point is, of course films can become creative and fantastic; but they must retain an internal coherent sense of logical structure that does not raise too many questions about their foundation.

We all want to temporarily believe in the fantasy created by films - but when believing in it makes us feel stupid and dirty for doing so, the whole thing becomes ruined.

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

Cash Bailey's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2010
Posts: 1921

Superheidi wrote:

I have trouble calling Uwe Boll a hack when Ulli Lommel is out there.

I think Lommel belongs in his own special category for film-making ineptitude.

He's at such a level above (or is that 'below'?) other bad directors he really does occupy a space all his own.

Offline
Joined: 08/14/2010
Posts: 1825

I don't expect horror and sci-fi films to be scientifically accurate just not moronic.

As far as Uwe Boll have you seen Seed, Tunnel Rats, Postal or Rampage? I liked them. He seems to have found a way to make decent movies by not writing any dialogue and allowing the actors to ad-lib everything. Rob Zombie might want to study his technique.

__________________

This is not a dream... not a dream. We are using your brain's electrical system as a receiver. We are unable to transmit through conscious neural interference. You are receiving this broadcast as a dream. We are transmitting from the year one, nine, nine, nine. You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing. Our technology has not developed a transmitter strong enough to reach your conscious state of awareness, but this is not a dream. You are seeing what is actually occurring for the purpose of causality violation.

Tristan Sinns's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/26/2008
Posts: 3884

zwillis wrote:

I have to admit, this got me on the floor break dancin' with laughter: "It is just a childishly stupid notion that is an outright mockery of any semi-intelligent idea about the nature of schizophrenia. You might as well make a film that suggests AIDS is due to the work of microscopic aliens building a chain of used VHS stores in a victim's rectum."

That line is dedicated to my friend Eric Spudic, who is not microscopic, not an alien, and isn't in anyone's rectum (we hope), but does in fact run a used VHS store.

Welcome to the site, by the way ;D

__________________

I made this website. I'm sorry.

zwillis's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2010
Posts: 38

Tristan Sinns wrote:
zwillis wrote:

I have to admit, this got me on the floor break dancin' with laughter: "It is just a childishly stupid notion that is an outright mockery of any semi-intelligent idea about the nature of schizophrenia. You might as well make a film that suggests AIDS is due to the work of microscopic aliens building a chain of used VHS stores in a victim's rectum."

That line is dedicated to my friend Eric Spudic, who is not microscopic, not an alien, and isn't in anyone's rectum (we hope), but does in fact run a used VHS store.

Welcome to the site, by the way ;D

I'm Eric sure is tingling with delight. Thanks for having me!

__________________

Zak Willis from West Philly

Superheidi's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2004
Posts: 14914

Thom, I don't think scientific accuracy is a requirement in any fantastic film. I think the film should make sense within the laws of the universe they create for the story, though. Usually bad films break their own rules and that's why they don't make sense. Even though REC didn't make much scientific sense, it played by its own rules consistently and that made it all feel 'right'.

__________________

"Another great thing about being 70,000 light years away from the nearest Starfleet vessel is that once we finally get back to Earth, we can makeup bullshit stories. Off the top of my head: 'We met Amelia Earhart,' 'We singlehandedly eliminated most of the Borg fleet' or 'Paris and I turned into giant pink lizards and mated.'"

I'm the owner and editor of PlanetFury. You can also find me at PlanetEtheria.com

Thomwade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/26/2010
Posts: 1311

I don't disagree with you on that. If it makes sense within the movie? I am not worried how it compares to "reality". But by, if it ignores it's own rules? Or seems like the filmmakers just made it up as they went along? Or the ending seems tacked on with no regard for what the movie established (I am thinking Burton's Planet of the Apes or High Tension)?

I think Tristan definitely proves that the problem isn't the supernatural explanation for schizophrenia-but the logic or lack of in which it is applied. Happy

Private J.V. Vasquez's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2005
Posts: 1980

I watched "My Soul to Take" the latest Wes Craven movie, and my god that has to be one of the worst he has done the writing and story concept made no damn sense. The actors were kind of terrible, the only thing I liked about it is when the kid does that class presentation and his friend runs around as the California Coindor and throws up on the class bully.

Plus I was laughing at how funny the sister was mean to "Bug" and the mom was like "You're 19 and still in highschool when are you going to grow up?!" I was like lol wow um there are just no words.

__________________

"I hurt" - Karen Cooper "Night Of The Living Dead"

Thomwade's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/26/2010
Posts: 1311

You know, I kind of like the idea of a person who collects souls and it being a good thing. But execution is everything.

And for someone with such a religious background, Craven sure writes cliched and unrealistic religious characters.

User login

The Los Angeles film school
Cosplay Costumes

Enter your email address:

Get Planet Fury news in your inbox!

  • Planet Fury Privacy Policy


Graphics created by ArtSkull
Pretty-Scary.net, FanGirlTastic, and Planet Fury © Copyright 2004-2012 Heidi Honeycutt
Site layout, design, and code awesomeness by Tristan Sinns