Soultaker (1990) User Reviews (99)

"Do you have a phone so I can call Martin to take over my role?"

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 2/10 · 2 August 2007]

OK, I saw this film through Mystery Science Theater 3000, but I did see the movie, so I figured I would leave a comment on it. I just love once again how Joe gets stuck with the crummy roles while his brother and nephew's are just getting the Oscar winning roles left and right. Soultaker is technically what you would call the movie that was meant to be good. It seemed like the director and actors just took this movie extremely seriously and had very cheesy effects, a story that didn't make much sense, and not to mention pretty crummy acting abilities. This is one of my favorite MST3K episodes, simple because a lot of what they mention is what we are thinking throughout the film and I'll explain why in a moment.

Natalie and Zach are a couple who broke up and are now trying to work things over. But since Zach is in upper lower class and Natalie is in middle class, it just ain't gonna work. But on the way home, they and Zach's friends get into a car accident and now the angel of death/Soultaker is after them to meet his quota of soultaking. But also it seems like he's had some kind of other life relationship with Natalie and just can't seem to move on. So now Natalie and Zach must race against the ever appearing five million times a minute clock to save their souls and lives.

Well, I guess Zeppelin was wrong when he sang that there was a stairway to Heaven, I wonder if Black Sabbith was wrong too, lol. Basically there are a lot of plot holes in this movies, like no one can see the characters and they can't be killed, yet somehow they can still press buttons and open doors? The Angel of Death had a very strange face and was a bit distracting from the story itself. Soultaker was just a lousy film that was rushed and makes you just feel so bad for Joe, the under-appreciated Sheen/Estovez brother.

2/10

It's another case of a not that horrible film getting the "MST3000" treatment.

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 7 April 2014]

"Soultaker" is not a good film--that I won't even try to argue. However, I know bad films and currently have reviewed more bad films than anyone on the planet. And, compared to the many, many horrible movies I've subjected myself to, it just isn't THAT bad. So why, then, is it currently #40 on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 List. In other words, of the thousands and thousands and thousands of eligible films on the site, only 39 have a lower overall score than this one! This means it's horrible, right? No. This means it was featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and fans of the show assumed it was horrible because it was on the show. Sometimes movies on "MST3000" are bad or sub-par and that is all. This would also explain why "Girl With the Gold Boots" is also on the list, even though it's among the director's BEST! Too often people just assume the films they make fun of are that bad--but seeing it without the running comments reveals that SOME of the film isn't bad- -such as the main plot idea.

The plot is VERY simple. A total jerk is driving like a nut and wrecks his car--killing himself and the three others in the car. As their bodies are lying dead in the wreck, the souls of the four are alive and well and walking about--though no one can see them. Soon, a guy who looks almost exactly like an old version of Emelio Estevez shows up and starts sucking souls out of the four bodies. He dispatches one but stops when he sees the girl--she is the reincarnation of a girl he loved when he was alive--before he became a grim reaper! During his hesitation, the three manage to escape and run from him. This is funny, as Estevez' character NEVER runs and they constantly run--yet he always catches up to them--just like the guy from Halloween!! Can the three manage to elude the reaper and manage to be reunited with their bodies?

The film is funny to watch because of the clothes, BIG hair and styles of 1990. And, the acting isn't very good. And, it's a chance to see Joe Estevez, the black sheep of the Sheen/Estevez clan because he is a politically conservative guy--unlike his older brother Martin Sheen. But the idea of the plot is interesting--even if most of the rest of it isn't. Not bad enough to make any worst of list--but bad enough to laugh at and marvel at the amateurish way it was made.

An ambitious story that falls victim to the limited time and talent available

[lemon_magic · 3/10 · 1 May 2005]

OK, I read the director's comment about this movie (featured as the 'frontmost comment'), and I have to admit that I can identify with his position.

Micheal, I hope your career recovered from this particular setback and you went on to other, better things. I've seen this movie in the MST3K form. Even with all the chopped continuity and snotty remarks being tossed out by the robots, I saw a potentially decent movie with an ambitious set of ideas trying to struggle out from under the limited budget and limited actors available to it. And this is one of those films ("Mitchell" is another) where the MST3K crew took a lot of cheap shots at the lead character even when she actually deserved better. You know they had some unfair fun at the actress' expense because it made for a livelier episode.

IMO, the fact that the movie actually tried to be ABOUT something, and had a few decent, effective moments here and there, should keep it out of the 'Bottom 100' ("Tangents/Time Chasers" is another movie with a plot and a heart that doesn't deserve to be there either).

But it is still not a very good movie. I don't blame the writer/lead actress for being who she is. It's just that her acting and writing skills needed a few more years to mature before she could pull off a vanity project such as this or carry a feature film. The writing and characterization is amateurish and slapdash, and the dialog is often barely up to ABC Afterschool Special standards. The cast sincerely gives it their best effort, and the acting in general is definitely head-and-shoulders above abortions like "Future War" or "Space Mutiny", but there aren't any really professional level performances here, with the exception of 'Big Joe' Estevez, who is hammy but suitably intense. I never saw the full original cut, but MST's sampling of "Soultaker" was representative enough to make these facts plain.

Oh, and the film has Robert Z'Dar in it. That is, IMO, a real 'Kiss Of Death' for any movie that hopes to be taken seriously. Yes, he's big and scary looking in his role, but I just hate the guy as an actor. (In real life, I wish him well and hope he is financially comfortable).

There were little things I liked about the film. For instance, the camaraderie between the male lead and his dead buddy added some warmth and humor to the movie and made it a lot more watchable. The idea of an elevator in the hospital that opened its doors to the Afterlife was an inspired way to invoke some spooky vibes without springing for special effects, and I respected whoever worked that into the script in attempt to keep the budget manageable. It didn't really work, but it might have with just a little more tweaking.

So anyway, Mr. Rissi, better luck with your other projects - your involvement with this misfire wouldn't keep me from watching something else you did if the 'buzz' was good. And Ms. Miller has nothing to be ashamed of - she was young and ambitious, and the movie wasn't THAT bad.

A decent movie with a poor script

[Denkriston · 5/10 · 28 January 2007]

Soultaker is not as bad a film as some would make it out to be, but it is still not good. The directing is well-done, and I think one of the better areas of the film. Joe gives a good performance; all the other actors are decent, save for David Shark, who is sub-par.

The technical aspects of the film aren't bad. The dialogue is hackneyed at spots, but I think the biggest weakness of the film is its pacing. It starts out well; introducing the characters and setting up the premise, but hits its biggest snag halfway through. The film suddenly stagnates as the characters sit around a house. It appears to be trying to build tension, but instead it's boring and drawn-out. It then picks up the pace again but quickly loses it during the incredibly long hospital sequence at the end. By that time the audience has already figured out where the plot is going and it's all just stretched out to be exhaustingly long.

All in all, despite its clearly small budget, it's the underlying screenplay, not the technical aspects, that hurt this movie the most.

Not deserving of the bottom 100, but not much good either

[williampsamuel · 4/10 · 17 January 2015]

The deservedly overlooked Soultaker tells the story of four teenagers who crash their car into a telephone pole a high speeds, but don't die- at least not right away. Although their bodies enter a coma, their souls remain conscious, although totally unaware of what's happened to them. Before long they're attacked by the titular Soultaker (Joel Estevez), one of many angels of death, who has come to… wait for it… take their souls. Will the teens elude fate? Can they make it to the hospital before their parents pull the plug on them? Did they hire any writers, or just mash together clichés from other horror films?

So yeah, Soultaker is basically another dead teenager movie, but without all the blood and gore. As such, it won't cause utter revulsion in most reasonable audiences, like the Hellraiser and Friday the 13th sequels did, but doesn't offer much of an attraction for goremiesters, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that while there's nothing particularly horrible or inept about it, there's nothing very good about it either. It looks rather cheesy, none of the characters are especially interesting, and the whole thing proceeds rather slowly.

It's also not all that scary. Sure, there's a bad guy trying to kill them (although since they're already disembodied spirits re-kill might be a better term) but he moves rather slowly, like he doesn't really want to catch them. Which is odd, because if he doesn't, he'll have to give up his soul as a penalty. Maybe he's having a hard time because Natalie (Vivian Schilling) reminds him of his girlfriend from back when he was human, and he's beginning to fall in love with her. Between the kill or be killed aspect of his job, and the creepy affection he seems to feel for Natalie, it's possible that the Soultaker isn't really evil, but is himself just a victim of fate. Unfortunately the movie keeps going back and forth on this question, so we never get a straight answer.

The movie also fails to answer important question about the state the teenagers find themselves in. For starters, what exactly are they? I get that they're disembodied spirits, but what is their relation to the material plane? They're not ghosts; they can interact with their physical environment in ways like opening doors and firing shotguns, and they also appear bound by the laws of gravity. But they can't be seen or heard by other people, and I'm pretty sure there was a brief shot which suggested they don't appear in mirrors, which is all the more confusing because usually things without a reflection don't have souls. I also would like to know more about the rings that the Soultaker uses to take souls, but no luck there either.

I was unable to find much online about the production or marketing of this film, except that co-star Vivian Schilling also co-wrote it and co-produced it in hopes of starting a successful acting career. That didn't happen, but apparently she did become a fairly successful writer of supernatural fiction, so at least some good came out of this project. All in all, Soultaker isn't a terrible movie, or unwatchable, but it lacks any compelling reason for you to watch it. There's a lot worse out there, but there's also a lot better.

Soulsucker

[JeffG. · 2/10 · 4 May 1999]

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."

It's a horror and a comedy -- two movies in one!

[jeffq · 14 September 2003]

This movie really is a decent horror flick, especially given its low budget and some inexperienced players. I found it interesting in both its original and Mystery Science Theater 3000 versions, for different reasons. The original is good for suspense; the MST3K version is good for humor.

As a straight film, it has an intriguing premise and a good level of suspense. Vivian Schilling makes a good heroine (and is definitely easy on the eyes). Gregg Thomsen is a bit whiny as the reformed bad-boy. Joe Estevez is quite menacing as The Man, AKA the eponymous Soultaker. (The creepiest character, in my opinion, must remain unnamed to avoid spoilers.) There are a few plot oddities, but they're actually not as bad as most big-production horror movies I've seen. It does make more sense uncut, as suggested by other reviewers. Some scenes omitted from the MST3K version (before and during Summerfest, at the convenience store, and Zach, Natalie, and Mrs. McMillan at the McMillan home) are important to understand all that's going on. On the other hand, some of the foreshadowing (the news reports, the policemen's scenes) make it too easy to see where things are going, so I found them less interesting. (I don't like to be spoon-fed solutions to mysteries.) The "R" rating probably comes from the drug references, an important plot point in the relationship between Natalie and Zach that got short shrift in MST3K. The Summerfest band, which I really liked, gets a bit more time in the original, and the soundtrack put me in a good '80s nostalgic mood. All in all, the original "Soultaker" beats the heck out of many horror films I've seen in recent years. I give it ***1/2 for story and suspense.

The MST3K version is quite entertaining as comedy. The movie retains some of its suspense, but the excellent riffs really make it more funny than scary. The time cuts to fit the movie into a MST3K episode don't really add much to the main plot confusion (contrary to several other reviewers' statements), but do make the subplots less clear. (That's what motivated me to rent the original). The running jokes about Tonya Harding, Joe Estevez, and Vivian Schilling's dual role as writer and actress, along with many other clever quips, make for an excellent MST3K episode. I give it **** for the running jokes and many dead-on riffs.

I'd recommend both versions for viewing. It's better to see the uncut version first, so you can enjoy the original story and then the silly stuff without distraction, but the other way works too. By the way, the reviewers who rag on the MST3K version seem more interested in insulting MST3K fans than giving a credible review of either version of this worthy movie. See them both!

Yeah, it's a pretty bad movie.

[zenith_azimuth · 3/10 · 26 August 2008]

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?

Another movie that years ago made the old Bottom 100 thanks to MST3000

[bellino-angelo2014 · 5/10 · 22 September 2019]

The old Bottom 100 was heavily populated of movies that were featured on MST3000. Mostly because the movies were terrible or mostly because there was the assumption that the show featured the worst movies of all time. This is NOT true but they always picked movies for which they could obtain the rights for the airing. This explains why some of the movies that were featured in the show have to this day appalling scores. Movies such as PUMAMAN, MITCHELL and GIRL IN GOLD BOOTS are not that terrible yet they were both featured on MST3000 (thanks to lots of fans of the show that gave lots of 1) and the Bottom 100. And SOULTAKER ranks among those movies that didn't totally deserve all the hate, yet it has a score of 2,3.

The plot: four youngsters drive in the night after a party and they have a horrible accident. Their souls come out of their bodies and they are soon chasen by the soultaker (Joe Estevez), one of the angels that has to take the souls of the dead that roam the Earth. After a boy and a girl are taken away, the remaining couple escapes without respite from the soultaker. At the girl's home, unfortunately, the soultaker disguises as her mother and the three leads, along with the girl's parents, rush to the hospital (along with her real parents) and will they reunite to their bodies? See the film.

As I previously said, the movie isn't that bad. It has a good cinematography and a nice soundtrack. The acting is ok at best, with Joe Estevez (in one of his most famous movies in his long filmography) that is very convincing in his villanious role. And this movie has also a 90s nostalgic feel.

Don't trust the low score and negative reviews, because I think that this is a nice thriller that fans of the genre will enjoy.

Joe Estevez as Johnny Cash as the angel of death

[bat-5 · 1/10 · 11 July 2000]

Seems to me that Joe Estevez spends most of his time hidden under the shadow of his rather successful brother and appearing in really bad movies. Joe spends most his time walking around dressed in black and looking quite moody. He takes orders from a puffy faced angel of death, who you might recognize as the puffy faced villain from Tango & Cash and as the puffy faced cyborg from Future War. Well, Joe and Puffy have a job to do and it involves taking some souls of some kids in a big car being driven by a dumb galloot who questions Led Zeppelin. Well, the car crashes and the chase is on. The lucky kids to escape Joe look like Tonya Harding and Rick Springfield. They're chased around town, break things and Tonya gets leered at by her mom while she's undressing for a bath. The action winds up at a hospital where we learn that heaven is an elevator ride away. In the end, some green lights flash, Joe shouts and Puffy vanishes without a trace. Wish I could say the same for this movie. Watch it from the relative safety of MST.

Vivian Schilling writer and actor

[jerome_horwitz · 3/10 · 14 January 2006]

Soultaker was written by and starred Vivian Schilling. It also starred Joe Estevez, Gregg Thomsen, and Robert D'Zar as the Angel of Death.

The story begins with introduction to Soultaker, played by Joe Estevez. We quickly learn what Soultaker's role will be in this movie.

Next the college aged young people are getting ready for a summer festival, aptly named "Summerfest". In this film, the battle of the classes is omni-present throughout the film. The girls come from a wealthy class, and the guys come from roughly middle or lower class. The class roles seem to play a role in the film for some reason which isn't really clear or pertinent to the story.

At Summerfest we learn more about the apparent class struggles of why Zach isn't encouraged to date Natalie. Soultaker makes an appearance as well, with apparently his boss the Angel of Death. Here D'Zar's character points out who is to die and who's souls are to be taken. It's revealed as well, that Soultaker will have a character conflict regarding Natalie, and how he deals with her because of someone in his past.

Meanwhile Natalie is ditched by her ride to Summerfest, and Zach convinces her to ride home with them. During the ride home, Soultaker takes an active role causing them to wreck horribly at high speeds.

The rest of the story surrounds the Soultaker collecting the souls of the dead passengers, and Zach and Natalie trying to outwit him to return to their bodies so they can continue to live. The class and character conflicts lay in the story, but are really never brought to the forefront or resolved.

There's an attempt towards the end to drag out some of the drama, there's a lot of chasing and running which does tend to be really boring. It's not really acceptable, and it would've been nice had this been dealt with differently, somehow to maybe increase the drama but not bore the audience.

The story and acting are decent. The soundtrack is OK, and even the production values are good.

Robert D'Zar in his brief on screen appearances does a nice job as the Angel of Death. Joe Estevez does OK, however sometimes his role acting a bit flat. Vivian is pretty and does a decent job as Natalie, although perhaps over acting a bit in a few scenes.

This may sound odd, but this movie definitely could've benefited from some pointless nudity. Vivian teases us a bit but that wasn't enough.

In my opinion this was a pretty serious attempt at making a movie. The results, it's worth watching. Just don't expect a perfect production.

3/10

I was one of the distributors of Soultaker

[foundationrecords · 10/10 · 11 June 2010]

I have read quite a few comments about "Soultaker" and how bad the movie is or isn't. As a filmmaker myself I can tell you that given the same set of parameters most of the heavy critics on here would have a completely different opinion of Soultaker or most movies done on a low budget if they worked in the business. I had the honor of distributing this film for A.I.P. Studios when it came out. It will go down as one of the most successful selling movies I carried during my time as a distributor. The video stores ate it up, and it rented very well. There was an entire industry devoted to making low budget or "B" movies especially back then. A.I.P. Studios, PM Entertainment, Raedon Home Video, these companies put out product every month that was well received by video stores, the makers of these films had to be clever in giving the audience production value and compared to today were high definition CGI is the norm, that was simply not the case back then and to make a comparison is ridiculous. Can you imagine what these talented filmmakers could do with a big studio budget. I can tell you making low budget movies can be challenging and I believe that is why a lot of us do it, to see how good we could do with such limitations. There are plenty of films that really don't deliver what you think they should with an all star cast and a $50 million dollar budget. The playing field is different and that's part of the magic. I directed a picture called "Meltdown" with Joe Estevez and Robert Zdar in it strangely enough and I can tell you that both of them are not only great people to work with but are excellent actors to boot. That is how "B" movies are done, they have either an actor like Joe who comes from a famous acting family or they are older "A" actors that are no longer at the top of the heap, for example: Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, David Carridine(RIP), Tony Curtis and list goes on. All of these people are fantastic actors and well recognized by the public and a great value to a low budget film. I am glad to see after all this time Soultaker is now a cult classic and has it's place in movie history a time that I wish would come back. Business was incredible back then and Soultaker certainly delivered, so Vivian if you read this my hat is off to you for your efforts and I wish you the best. I know you write books now but it would be great if you would do more movies the business could use your talent.

Interesting

[Gafke · 6/10 · 16 January 2005]

This really isn't such a bad little movie. The basic story is quite interesting: five teenagers on their way home from a summer festival crash their car and awaken to find themselves unharmed. However, one of them is missing, and a mysterious man in black is stalking the rest of them down one by one and seemingly killing them. What the kids don't know, but soon come to realize, is that they are lost souls, thrown from their bodies at the moment of the accident. Their physical comatose selves are in the hospital, and the two remaining survivors have only a short time left to get back into their bodies before the Angel of Death comes to claim them.

A low budget, bad 80s music and an overly drawn out ending are the films only major flaws, but the acting is quite good and the story (written by star Vivian Schilling) is well thought out. Schilling went on to write a book entitled "Quietus" which is a sort-of sequel to this film.

Worth checking out at least once, with or without the MST3K commentary.

Not that bad of a movie!

[kakuraffe · 3/10 · 13 February 2017]

First! OK, when you have to find everyone who worked on the film to come in giving this bad movie 9-10 stars... Wow, that's sad. MST3K called attention to this movie where it would have gotten *none*, I'm pretty sure you should be thanking them instead of whining and trying to mess with IMDb's score.

No. This movie was not good. That's fine! It wasn't horrible, but it was perfect for riffing. And the "attacks on Vivian!"? She really does look like Tonya Harding which was a big thing going on during that time. Just...stop!

MOVIE: The story wasn't bad, I won't lie. When I first watched the movie I was 15 and an aspiring writer myself, I looked past all the laughs I got from the MST3K version (so many laughs) and somehow I got to watch the full movie (I think SciFi played it?) and I was a little more impressed. This was probably the first movie that made me think "maybe I can be a writer!" ... Until I aged a bit.

Having a decent but very THIN plot doesn't make for a good movie. It moves at a snails pace half the time to stretch out the run time (it's been "almost midnight" for an hour!). Creeping mother bath scene, Joe walking around in attempts to catch... someone with no legs? There were just too many scenes that make you think it should have been half the time and know it wouldn't have lost any plot.

The camera work was terrible, though. It was shaky-cam when it needed not be and unnatural/bad angles. Not flattering at all.

I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Vivian for writing and staring in her own story and she's made an adorable movie I just watched recently! If this had been a book she wrote, I probably wouldn't have put it down. As a movie it did not work at all. Cast and crew gave the vibe of not really caring ...or just trying too hard? Not sure which, but that's what ruined the movie for me personally.

Ambitious... but still a below average movie....

[nunyerbiz · 15 May 2001]

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...

Not a bad movie

[Desdecardo78 · 1/10 · 13 April 2005]

I have seen both the MST3K version and the uncut version. I rather enjoyed it. Either way, it wasn't that bad of a movie. Sure it moved a bit slow at times. I liked it.

As far as MST3K goes, they only did the movies they could get the rights for. Not all the movies they ripped apart where bad movies, it was just so easy to make fun of them. Take SoulTaker for example.

Joe Estevez and Robert Z'Dar's characters where so inanimate and boringly silly I couldn't help but laugh. I couldn't take them seriously. It really created a unique feeling though.

Vivian Schilling did an excellent job with the script. A world better than 95% of the garbage in the theatres today. Her role was played well. Not too screamy not to masculine but just right. The camera really likes her in this movie. I would have casted her in that role after ready the script.

Anyways, this movie deserves a bit more credit than it is given. Please watch the uncut version if you see the MST3K. It deserves that much.

Unbelievable!

[warlorde · 1/10 · 25 March 2002]

This crock of doodoo won a award? They must have been desperate for giving out an award for something. This movie reeks of teeny bopper stuff and it made me sick. Thankfully I watched it alongside MST3K's Mike and the bots so it made it bearable. Horrid acting, unsettling mother/daughter moment, silly premise, if you want a bad movie here it is. Be warned though watch it with Mike and the bots or you will suffer.

1 out of 10. I still can't believe it won an award, and the director is defending this *&&^$$#$^&& piece of ^%^%$^$#%@$#@ movie!

A decent concept...

[thehardyboyz2043 · 1/10 · 14 October 2001]

that got destroyed quickly by the poor quality acting, cinematography, numerous pointless scenes and a terrible villain. Well let's see Joe Estevez is bad (as usual) but he isn't the only casting problem, writer Vivian Schilling is no great actress, in fact, well she sucks. Her script isn't so bad, it's just bad directed. In fact if the direction had been better and if better actors had been cast, this could have been a really good film.

But alas, with all of these problems "Soultaker" fails to be even kind of passable as a horror movie, plus the pacing is just awful too.

The MST crew had some fun with this one but it definitely wasn't one of their better efforts. 5 for that, nothing for the original.

Dude Chasing my soul -- got MUSIC!

[SCIFI-GUY · 5/10 · 18 August 2001]

Hey, I can say something good about this flick. The music's good. Really, it is. Some of the shots are very cool. The first time I saw SOULTAKE-HER (please, ha-ha), okay, okay, I admit I didn't give it a chance because it was on MST3K. Okay, I checked out the real one and the people who run it down in their comments are definitely going overboard.

I'm so sick of that in half the reviews I read on IMDB. Know-it-all armchair quarterback types and wannabees who got nohting to do but shred. I think those people need to get a life. What can you do? Guess what? Snotty people say snotty things. Get used to it. Remember, nobody FORCES anyone to get into the movie business.

But GK Chesterton, I'm with you, dude. The directing was good. Michael, except for that weird popping feet stuff at the beginning, good job. (What were you thinking on that, man?) But I'm sure you will go on to do better things or maybe you already have. Plus, that Vivian chick is cute. No disrespect, but half these guys writing reviews wish they could have her I bet... Like your girlfriend looks better. Right.

For me, what about the MUSIC. I'm a total movie score fanatic and no one seems to say anything about the music, but I was digging on it! I wish they would put out a soundtrack for this movie because I would buy it. I'm not kidding. It's better than the music in THE NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. Of course, I think that was library music, but still!

Ugh, depressing!

[sethn172 · 1/10 · 8 March 2006]

But at least this movie got what it deserved - to be sent to the Satellite of Love to be ridiculed on by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot from Pearl Forrester on "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" "Soultaker" is one of those long lost, forgotten movies that are so bad you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares or depression later on in life. Even though the movie is not that old, it's still a very forgotten type of movie. If it had never been for the intelligent minds at "Mystery Science Theater 3000," the movie would not only seem like it was never made, but the movie wouldn't be very enjoyable by us moviegoers.

In real life: this movie is really bad. In the Satellite of Love: this movie is excellent!

soultaker

[lovelyrita60 · 5/10 · 14 July 2005]

I was reading the user comments today, and I wanted to respond to the person who said that basically people who watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 were Trekkie nerds. First of all, I don't think they have much of a sense of humor. Second, I'm someone who doesn't like most science fiction shows. I have never been a fan of Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna rag on people who are fans of these types of shows. Also, I will say that I did not hate this movie. I respect that a woman could break through and write a screenplay, even though starring in it shows a big ego, I believe. I'll admit at the beginning Joe Estevez scared the bejesus out of me. But during MST3K, I thought Crow's comments were hilarious! The best thing he said was, "You may be wondering if I'm Martin Sheen. Well, I'm not. I'm his more talented but less appreciated brother, Joe Estevez. Thank you." I'm not sure if that;s the exact quote, but I think it's pretty close. This sounds nerdy, but in closing, I don't think MST's fan base is made of Trekkie nerds and I appreciate people who have a sense of humor, for highbrow and/or lowbrow comedy.

IQ and maturity factor here?

[Qme4now · 4/10 · 2 April 2002]

First of all, since I'm one of the people who never saw the MST3K chopped up version of this movie, I can't comment on that.

However, I DID see the original version of this movie on the Sci-Fi Channel and I thought it was just as good as anything else on that Channel. In fact, I thought it was one of their better offerings.

I've noticed in perusing the comments here that the people who write in detail about SOULTAKER with a modicum of intelligence, thoughtfulness and maturity tend to like at least a FEW things about this movie and rightly so. In it's original cut, most reasonable people I think would probably rate it at least 4 or 5 stars out of 10. Five is average to me and I think this movie is about average for a Sci Fi pic.

In contrast to the above, I've also noticed that the reviewers who seem immature, dull and flip and as a result come off as boneheads from where I stand, are the same ones who can't find anything good about this movie and basically trash it without cause based MOSTLY on seeing it chopped up and fricasseed on MST3K. Or if they have seen both cuts it seems they were greatly prejudiced by the MST3K viewing to begin with.

Original Uncut version better than I thought

[SamGetRid · 10/10 · 3 January 2003]

After reading the widely diverging opinions on this movie Soultaker, and being a big fan of the genre, I decided to look at this one -- the uncut version -- myself. While it's nothing to set the world on fire, there are way too many detractors who have overlooked its more interesting and original elements. Defininitely deserves at least a vote of 3 or 4 and those who rank it with the worst movies should really have their heads examined.

Soultaker - not Bottom 100 material...

[a_d_delpiero10 · 6/10 · 27 May 2012]

I will admit that I have only seen the MST3k version of Soultaker, which is a great episode by the way, probably in my top 3. After viewing I was interested to see how the film was rated on IMDb. I was somewhat surprised to see it had an overall rating of 2 (at time of writing).

I have read a few reviews including the rare and insightful comments from the Director and feel it has been unfairly represented on IMDb. Ultimately I don't think it warrants its position in the notorious Bottom 100.

Although the episode was good, this is not typical MST3k garbage. Trying watching Space Mutiny, Werewolf or Future War, which have similar IMDb ratings, to illustrate my point. All of these examples would be very hard to swallow without the quips from Mike and the team.

In defence of Soultaker: The concept at the time was probably quite original, the sound and editing is reasonably good and at times generates genuine suspense (not typical of the Bottom 100 films I have seen) and the acting is not hopeless (Vivian Schilling's performance probably most notable).

I will not deny that there are some issues with execution though and plot inconsistencies. Taking into account all this, the budget and the fact that the MST3k version I have seen was probably edited to suit I think this is worthy of 6 out of 10.

Soultaker - MST3K Episode #1001

[ClarusTheDogCow · 1/10 · 26 May 2003]

It's the Sooooouullltakaaaa!

Wow. What a skin peeling bad movie. Honestly, this is one of my favorite episodes of MST3K.... Just some things to point out...

1) The incestuous lesbian mother-daughter exchange was weird. I do need counseling now.

2) There is no God, there is just Dude.. I love that quote from Crow.

3) Whatever did happen to the Nuns that took the bus home, will we ever know? I have a horrible emptiness in my stomach.

4) Lastly, don't watch this movie un-MSTied... It has Joe Estevez as the main star.. Yikes..

1/10 for un-MSTied 8/10 for MSTied.