My Soul to Take (2010) User Reviews (167)

Interesting concept but poor executions

[A_Llama_Drama · 6/10 · 17 October 2010]

I'm sad to be giving Wes' new film a meagre 6/10. I mean, 6 out of 10 isn't even that bad for a horror film but for a Wes Craven horror film it is a terrible grade. I like Wes' films because of the fact that he can make a simple story (psychopath killing people, voodoos and zombies, terrorists on planes) into something complex and interesting. With Nightmare on Elm Street he managed to prey on the fears of adults and children as well as offering ideas into dreams and reality. In Scream he gave his victims and killers modern sensibilities and repeatedly asked "are movies responsible for our actions?" He shot some beautiful scenes in Haiti for Serpent and the Rainbow and looked at the effects of religion governing politics.

So here he is with a movie about souls and fate. The plot sees a psychopath (Abel) with split personalities loose his grip on normality and go on a killing spree, ending with him dying (or did he?). On the night that he died, 7 children were born including his own son, Adam (do you notice the religious connotations there?) who had to be cut out of his dead mother's womb. Adam (Bug) and the 6 others enjoy a ritual every year to ward of the evil spirit that they think may still want to murder them for they might just be the souls of the victims of Abel's bad seed. Now at 16, Bug is suffering black outs, nausea and migraines and people are beginning to worry that he might have inherited his father's illness. It sure doesn't help that his older sister, Leah, spreads lies about him to the school out of spite for she feels her life was ruined the night that Bug was born. On the anniversary of the Ripper's death, one of the 7 is murdered and the 6 begin to worry that their souls may be tainted.

At 96 minutes, it is a longer than usual "horror" movie. Craven fills the daylight with musings of souls and inheritance and the night with murder and bloodshed. Craven side-steps the horror clichés to an extent, allowing his characters to fall prey to inevitability rather than silly choices. It's an interesting idea - imagine you had the soul of a murderer locked inside you and you weren't at all aware. As for the victims, knowing that you were meant to die in a repeat incident wouldn't be a comforting thought now, would it? Bug is different though. He seems to be a fractured soul, the good soul of his father who is gathering the pieces of souls from the victims, keeping them from truly dying. As I've said, interesting.

However, in amongst all the philosophy and social pariah fun, there are a heap of bad points. Firstly, there doesn't seem to be that much at stake. Bug's transformation from meek and innocent to strong and in charge isn't powerful enough to really get you behind him like you would Nancy or Sidney. The deaths of the students, although it's meant to be unfair that they were singled out from birth to die aren't shocking and you never really feel that they're fighting to live. Secondly, the set pieces aren't at all remarkable and apart from the discovery of one body beside a temple which results in the only real cat and mouse scene, there's nothing to really remember or go "wow" at. Horror needs location, it's integral to the feel. Fred Krueger's boiler room in dreamland; the town in Haiti; Stu's farmhouse with Hallowe'en playing on the telly; all were integral to the films. Finally, the movie is a bit confusing. The ideas are never fully explored, leaving audiences entirely at a loss to understand if it's a by the numbers slasher or something deeper. Bug's unique skill is barely hinted at(even if there are a lot of scenes involving him mimicking his friends) and it makes it hard to understand just what he's on about during his confrontation with the ripper. Oh, and the Asian dude gets it first.

But thankfully, Craven injects his film with his own unique ways. On scene involving a bird costume in a classroom is creepier than you'd expect thanks to Craven's expert directing skills. He's assembled a talented cast of young (YOUNG) actors. Brittany, Fang, Alex and Bug are well crafted characters who are played believably. The supporting cast of teens do well with their very limited dialogue and characters. He also delivers us a horrific bad guy who grunts more than Leatherface and murders just as violently. Some crackling dialogue between brother and sister and foster mother gives it the feeling of being more than just a horror movie (which is what you expect from Craven) and a lot of irreverent high school jinx give us some laughs before the carnage ensues.

Overall, not a bad movie but certainly a mediocre Craven one.

Poorly written, ill-conceived & lacking in Craven's expert touch

[Shattered_Wake · 4/10 · 9 October 2010]

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's OK but could have been so much more

[francis-cy · 6/10 · 28 May 2014]

It was a pretty interesting idea, but some core aspects about a horror film were done very poorly in this one, particularly pacing. it felt too fast and when you watch the film you'll see what I mean. There is minimal exposition (which is key to building character development and the characters are 1 dimensional. It was sufficiently gory and had a freaky villain but the twist at the end didn't really match the person of the killer. The film has some great atmosphere too used jumpscares quite a bit.

It could have been so much more but it would have had to fix all these issues, particularly pacing and characters

I Can't Believe Wes Craven Made This Garbage

[indyj1 · 2/10 · 9 October 2010]

Despite numerous warnings to avoid this film, I shelled out my money, including the ridiculous $3 extra for 3D glasses, figuring, it's Wes Craven, how bad can it be? Well, the answer is, extremely, horribly, atrociously bad. MSTT made Shocker look like Citizen Kane. I've seen better efforts at the After Dark Horrorfests and coming from The Asylum on SyFy.

MSTT had a script and dialog of the level of some fresh-out-of-some-two-bit-drama-school reject, not of a nearly 40-year veteran of filmmaking. Half the dialog made no sense whatsoever, and the emotions of the actors was usually misplaced.

While the story had promise, the execution failed completely. At first, the action seemed forced to get to the central elements Craven was looking for, then the resolution bogged down in complete incoherence.

Craven can't blame some one else's script or studio insistence on cuts, 'cause this atrocity was all his. If this is the best he can do, he should retire. He's proved he has nothing left to add to horror.

And if my negative comments still don't dissuade you from seeing this atrocity, make sure you at least seek out 2D instead of the extra money for 3D, because...

THERE WAS NO Discernible 3D IN THE FILM WHATSOEVER!!!! Scenes which should have popped out of the screen, such as the ambulance crash, DIDN'T! It's quite obvious the studio realized what a piece of crap MSTT was and how it would plummet in ticket sales once work of mouth got out, so they did post-filming 3D conversion to bilk the poor suckers who went to see it opening weekend out of a few dollars more.

The only reason I didn't rate this a 1 is because, sadly, I have seen worse. But this one should be avoided at all costs.

2/10

Wes Craven hits a career low with this lame rehash of his earlier classics but none of their scares nor ingenuity

[moviexclusive · 3/10 · 13 December 2010]

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.

What an awful waste of my time (possible spoilers)

[hthrbrnt · 1/10 · 8 October 2010]

First things first, I work at a theater, and when I received the hard drive for this movie, it said and I quote, to make sure that "we honor Wes Craven and give our viewers the best viewing experience we can." Psh, the viewers will be begging for their money back after watching it.

Can Wes Craven not make a good film anymore? That's how it appears. The movie started off with a very neat introduction, making the movie seem like it had potential. But after that, I was basically wondering when this awfulness would end.

The storyline after the introduction until the end did not make sense. It almost felt like there was no script for the movie and instead they improv'd it. And since they film movies out of order, there was no way it would make sense.

Oh, and let's hit on the characters. We have the Jesus freak, the sort of mentally challenged boy, the slut, the slutty boy, the mean girl, the awkward weirdo, and the blind kid (who I didn't even know was blind until halfway through the movie).

Did this movie need to be in 3D? N to the O. NOTHING comes out at you; it's just a way to scam moviegoers out of their hard-earned money.

So please, DO NOT see this movie. Ever. It's not even worth renting.

A weak entry from a master of horror

[MovieManPat · 7 October 2010]

I can't say I've ever been a huge fan of horror movies. There are some horror films, like The Shining, that I do enjoy. However, I've never really been a fan of your basic teen slasher film that follows the formula so expertly skewered in the Scream franchise. The less I say about the whole torture porn subgenre, the better. But then there's Wes Craven. I've always thought Craven was a unique vision in horror films. On the surface, his films play like your basic formulaic slasher film. But, especially in his earlier films, there is something going on beyond the surface. The first Nightmare on Elm Street played with notions of reality and dreamworld. The Scream movies, as I've mentioned, turned genre conventions on their ear. I've even given some praise to Vampire in Brooklyn. I always thought it was an interesting twist on the vampire tale. One film that both scared the crap out of me and amazed me was New Nightmare. Craven goes all meta, with original Elm Street scream queen Heather Langenkamp playing herself, being terrorized by a real-world incarnation of Freddy Krueger. His more recent films have been a little lackluster, but I was still looking forward to (well, warily looking forward to) My Soul To Take, his latest effort. It's also the first film he's made that he also wrote since New Nightmare. Unfortunately, My Soul to Take is fairly run-of-the-mill in terms of its story and surprisingly tame as a horror film. Like his other films, My Soul to Take seems like a by-the-numbers slasher film with some supernatural elements thrown in. Seven children are born on the day a local serial killer is killed. "The Ripper" as he is called by media had killed seven people. We find out the Ripper is a mild-mannered family man who happens to suffer from schizophrenia. He doesn't remember his murderous rampages. When he tries to kill himself, the murderous Ripper takes over. Carnage ensues. Skip forward 16 years. The Ripper returns and begins killing the now-teenaged children one by one. The idea is that the seven original victim's souls found refuge in the seven babies. The Ripper's soul is believe to have taken refuge in one of the babies as well. The seven teenagers are straight out of the stock high school character yearbook. There's the oversexed jock Brandon (Nick Lashaway), the pretty girl Brittany (Paulina Olszyinski), the strange religious girl Penelope (Zena Grey), the geeky Alex (John Magaro), token black (and blind!) kid Jerome (Denzel Whitaker) and the token Asian Jay (Jeremy Chu). Then there's the meek Bug (Max Thieriot), who has suffered from horrible nightmare and migraine headaches since he was a child. He's the weirdo of the group and wow, does Craven ever pound on that particular nail. The story does make some attempts to connect the events going on with Native American and Haitian spiritualism, but does it in a totally conflicting way. The true identity of the killer is telegraphed very early on, taking a lot of the thrill out of the film. Also, if people were offended by my labeling the two minority characters as token, keep in mind that Mr. Chu is in the film for just a little over five minutes before he is shuffled off the mortal coil. Mr. Whitaker fare a little better. He makes it to the final reel. Here's the thing, he is not at all the part of the story. He shows up from time to time to scare the bullies away from Bug, but other than that, HE'S NOT IN THE MOVIE AT ALL. Max Thieriot is adequate as Bug, the character the movie centres around. Bug is troubled and as the other teens die, he begins to absorb their souls. At least, I think that is what we're supposed to believe. Bug starts acting all twitchy and repeats things the others said to him before he died, usually with some sort of affectation to his voice. In any case, it's very unclear. The movie has been the 3D conversion treatment. I don't know why. Nothing comes off the screen and everything looks dark. Aside from a means for the studio to jack up the weekend gross due to the premium for 3D films, I can't imagine why they did it with this movie. One thing about the movie that I did think effective was the knife used by The Ripper. When I first saw it, I immediately thought of Freddy Krueger's razor glove. It looked mean and nasty and very painful. That, at least, gave me a little shudder.

Entertaining movie.

[MrAlfa · 7/10 · 12 February 2011]

Overall a good entertainment movie. A very promising start, which makes you want to continue the vision, expecting a sequel just as good. Even if it remembers the usual teen movie, the film seems to grow in other directions. It is not a horror movie but a thriller that also manages to give moments of suspense and keeps you glued to the screen. Unfortunately, you soon begin to understand who is guilty, despite a feeble attempt to move the viewer's suspicions and their hope that it is not. The film begins to lose consistency gradually approaching the final, awful and predictable, which finally ruined what could have been a great film of its kind. Considering the garbage around, I'd give the film a discrete vote and six stars. I will put seven so that the overall evaluation can grow: in my opinion it is too low at the moment.

By the end you'll be begging to be put out of your misery

[mibertics · 1/10 · 8 October 2010]

I had the opportunity to screen this film early, and as such I feel that it is my responsibility to warn those of you who are considering going out to view it this upcoming week. Initially I was excited upon hearing that Craven was releasing another horror film; being a fan of the genre I find myself often annoyed with the fact that there haven't been a large amount of extraordinary horror films in recent years. However, as I progressed further into the film, it became quickly apparent that this would not be an exception by any stretch of the imagination.

There are so many bad things about this movie that I can't even begin to describe them. The plot is horrible and transparent, the dialogue is egregiously pathetic, and none of the characters in the film are likable in any manner. My first reaction upon exiting the theater was that of disgust, and not just because of the terrible quality of the film itself, but more because of the fact that there is no way for me to go back in time to warn myself not to even consider viewing it. And coming from me this is really saying something because in most situations I can find at least one redeeming quality for a film in retrospect, or at least convince myself to not think it was a complete waste of my time. I couldn't think of anything here though.

When I first visited the IMDb page for this film the review that was displayed gave the film an 8 out of 10, as well as various snippets of praise. I'm not really sure how any person could feel this is a film that in any way warrants any amount of praise; the only logical conclusion I could reach is that they either: #1. Have simply never seen any other films before (or) #2. Work for the studio who created this film, and are simply trying to encourage others into spending their time and money on something which is an utter disaster and in no way reflects any of the creativity which has augmented Craven's previous films. My advice is that you save your money, or spend it on another selection.

Why the hate??

[catarinasuicide · 7/10 · 17 October 2023]

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!

What Happened Wes?

[noway234-1 · 1/10 · 3 April 2011]

I still can't believe that this movie was written AND directed by Wes Craven. We can all agree that Wes Craven can make great films, he's done it so many times. He's responsible for the revival of the genre back in the 90's with Scream and his movies are genuine classics... but this movie isn't even in the so-bad-it's-good territory, it's just plain bad.

Just a side bar here for a second, Wes Craven is the man that made me fell in love with horror, the Scream series was the first set of horror films I ever watched and he has been a constant in my love of the genre. Last House on the Left was so scary that I still can't watch it again, Hills Have Eyes was hard to follow, but scary and kept me going. Hell I even liked Red Eye and Cursed, they weren't great movies but they at least had a few good scares and were clearly made with love.

My Soul To Take has none of that in it. There's none of the originality that Nightmare On Elm Street had, the tension that Wes perfected in Last House On The Left is completely missing, the desire to understand the movie I felt when watching Hills Have Eyes is long gone here and the creativity and intellect that was in scream is non-existent.

This movie had nothing good to offer at all.

The characters were so forgettable that I can't even describe them, even if I wanted too The plot was overly complex, and not in a cool Inception kind of way. I can handle complex plots, but make it worthwhile... 7 kids being born on the same day as the main villain was killed sounds cool, till you realize that it's not that they were born at the same TIME he was killed, but the same day... there are thousands upon thousands of people born every day, and these specific 7 are the ones he goes after.

The dialog sucks, plain and simple. When you have lines like "No, it's not okay, what I did. It's not okay for everybody to be killing each other all the time" and " Did she tell you not to worry if somebody you thought was dead just might come back alive? If he was evil enough?" then there is no way I can take you seriously. No one in the history of the world has ever talked like this in reality, these lines sound like they belong in a 14 year olds screenplay that he wrote the night before he handed it in for a school assignment.

The scares are non existent, I didn't even jump once. Now this could just be that I'm desensitized because I watch a lot of horror movies, but on the other hand that is usually the intended audience for a horror flick... people who love the genre. If I'm not jumping in my seat a little when I'm watching a horror movie then there is something wrong there.

All in all this movie is not worth your time, just hope that Wes does better next time because this is easily his lowest low

Everyone is a Critic

[KimbleLinda · 8/10 · 11 March 2014]

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(:-}

My Soul to Take

[jamesehlefilm · 7/10 · 17 November 2011]

Wes Craven is one of my favorite directors of all time. He directed "The Last House On the Left", "Scream", and "A Nightmare on Elm Street". In 2010 he developed this movie called "My Soul to Take". From the very moment I saw the trailer in theaters I knew I had to see it. People say this movie is "too confusing" or it "doesn't make sense"... It makes complete sense. If people nowadays actually took some time to think about the story line, and paid attention to things other than gore and sex, they would realize that this movie is great. The movie is shot in 3D so the blood is really fake on some parts, but other than a two or three scenes, the special effects are fine. My Soul to Take has a very good story line and character development, unlike most movies nowadays. This film will keep you on the edge of your seat, waiting in anticipation to find out what is really happening. You'll have to see it to know if you like it for sure, but it is truly a great movie if you really pay attention to it.

annoying kids and scattered story telling

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 10 October 2015]

Abel Plenkov (Raul Esparza) suffers from mental illness and he turns into the serial killer Riverton Ripper who kills with his blade engraved with vengeance. He attacks his family and causes the ambulance to crash. He's assumed to be dead. Exactly 16 years later, the local teens have gathered. Local legend dictates that the Ripper could rise on the anniversary and one of the seven kids born on that day have to drive Ripper back into the river. The seven are blind Jerome (Denzel Whitaker), smart-mouthed Alex Dunkelman (John Magaro), Jay (Jeremy Chu), timid Bug (Max Thieriot), religious Penelope (Zena Grey) who predicts the coming evil, Brittany (Paulina Olszynski) whom Bug has a crush on, and brute jock Brandon (Nick Lashaway). Some believe that the Ripper is still alive and then the killings start. Fang (Emily Meade) is mean girls queen bee and turns out to be something more for Bug.

The story telling is too scattered especially in the first half. Bug is the lead and he needs to be in 90% of the movie. All the kids are annoying in some way. The horror story is lifeless. The villain isn't fearsome. The kills aren't gruesome enough. Nothing really stands out. The Fang reveal is pretty good but I never got invested in the characters. Their survival and even their deaths aren't compelling to me.

The Bottom of the Career of a Former Master of Horror

[claudio_carvalho · 2/10 · 13 March 2011]

In Riverton, the mentally ill serial killer Abel Plenkov (Raúl Esparza) aka The Riverton Ripper has multiple personalities kills his pregnant wife Sarah (Alexandra Wilson). He calls his doctor and when Dr. Blake (Harris Yulin) arrives, Abel kills him and a police officer in front of their little daughter Leah. While going to the hospital, there is an accident and his body is never found. In the same night, there are seven births in one hour and people believe his soul will reincarnate in one of the seven children that are known as The Riverton Seven.

Sixteen years later, the ghost of the Riverton Ripper seems to have returned seeking revenge and the teenager Adam "Bug" Hellerman (Max Thieriot) has dreadful nightmares with the killer. The teenager Jay Chan (Jeremy Chu ) is murdered on the old railroad bridge. Then the students of the Riverton High School Penelope (Zena Grey); the bully Brandon (Nick Lashaway); and Brittany Cunningham (Paulina Olszynski) are murdered by the killer. When Bug and his sister Fang (Emily Meade) are attacked by the killer, Bug asks his friend Alex (John Magaro) if he is the killer or whether Abel Plenkov is alive and has returned to revenge.

The lame "My Soul to Take" is an awful horror movie by Wes Craven. This film is certainly the bottom of the career of the former master of horror, with a ridiculous story full of clichés and badly developed characters. The lines and the premise are so stupid that does not worth a long review in respect to the past of this writer and director. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "A Sétima Alma" ("The Seventh Soul")

My Time to Take

[joshuatkinson73 · 21 July 2011]

I was very surprised to see a Wes Craven film on the New Release section of my local Rental Store. I had never heard of this movie, but i had noticed it was written and directed by one of my favorite director's ever, being Wes Craven. I instantly hired the movie and watched it straight away, thinking this movie will be so F***ing good.... little did i know.

This movie contains a poor cast, a poor storyline and a poor grasp on the Horror/Thriller genre. It was not scary, it was not entertaining, but i was happy to see Wes Craven use a "Sceam" like ending for it, that was a positive in a negative, negative movie.

I loved Nightmare on Elmstreet, House on the Left and of course the Scream movies, but seriously, what the f*** was Wes Craven doing? Worst horror movie by him in my opinion and i urge Wes Craven fans not to fall for the same trap i did. Im sorry Wes, that was S*** Save your Money People

Death to the 22-year-old 16 year-olds!

[Coventry · 3/10 · 31 December 2011]

Grotesque, dull, pretentious and derivative horror flick about a schizophrenic serial killer that may or not has reincarnated as one of the seven children who were born on the day he vanished after a violent struggle with the police. The basic idea of "My Soul To Take" still holds some potential, but the elaboration is weak, routine and full of rookie mistakes. In fact, if the film didn't have Wes Craven's name attached to it, it surely would have disappeared immediately to the lowest shelves of obscure video stores and into oblivion. But it is written and directed by Wes Craven and he will forever be considered as a master of horror, even though he made four times as many stupid movies than good ones. Especially because Wes Craven has more than 30 years of experience in the horror movie business, he ought to know better than to stuff his screenplay like a Thanksgiving turkey with dreadful clichés and stereotypes! He himself parodied all these overused trademarks in the "Scream" films, but now he makes the same damn rookie mistakes, like off-screen killings, dialogs that appear to be written by failed film students and a stupidly masked psychopath that fires off lame one- liners. After the intro, which is undeniably the most exciting part of the film, "My Soul To Take" jumps forward to the night when the "Riverton Seven" (the seven babies born the night when the ripper vanished) celebrate their sixteenth birthday. In good old Hollywood horror movie tradition, the 16-year-old protagonists are all depicted by 22-year-old actors, except for the supposedly older sister who's depicted by a younger actress. Makes sense, right? In spite of sharing their birthdays, they are a textbook bunch of high school teenagers that hate each other. We have the bully, the beauty queen, the disposable guys with other ethnics, the religious nut and the offbeat loners. Their birthdays has only just started when they are killed off one by one. The murders are uninspired and Wes Craven too obviously tries to make the violence resemble to his mega-successful franchise "Scream". The killer's outfit and knife, for example, are apparent "Scream" imitations. There's no suspense or uncanny atmosphere whatsoever, not even during the stalk 'n slash sequences in the woods or during the (massively overlong) climax. Personally, I didn't watch the film in 3D but I truly don't see how it could have benefited from this effect. "My Soul To Take" is a shockingly mundane and forgettable film from a director who has always been slightly overrated.

Wes has lost something over the years..

[connor_sniper · 1/10 · 10 October 2010]

I went into My Soul to Take with an open mind and I don't know if the rest of my theater did, but I can safely say most of them cleared out before the credits rolled.

This abomination is an insult to Wes Craven's name and anyone associated with the film. The original idea for the plot is a very good start for a movie and one that also seems fairly flexible, apparently not. This teen slasher is is one of the most generic horror films to date and shares many attributes with "straight to DVD" horror movies.

The corny and unbelievable actors try their hardest, but still lack the talent to really pull off anything spectacular. However I doubt the greatest actors in Hollywood could make this script look much better for a final cut. The scenes are so scatter-brained and the script is so bad it was destined to fail.

At some times I was really confused if I was supposed to be watching a horror movie or a comedy.

When the movie ended I stood up and asked who was left in the theater, "Worst horror movie of the year, anybody with me?" I was applauded. Avoid this atrocity.

Not bad, Could be better

[shakeshaftsam · 6/10 · 3 May 2014]

I have seen a lot of horror films in my time. And to be honest? This film doesn't stray far most others in this particular genre. It has very generic characters, There is the jock, the beautiful girl and the loser. It also keeps up the slasher tradition of a bunch of teenagers getting picked off one by one. Was this film any different from other slashers? Not really.

The acting was okay, Max Thieriot as Bug was quite good. The other seven were adequate. However, Emily Meade as Fang put in a rather poor performance. She showed next to no emotion in scenes that were meant to be quite deep.

A big issue for me was the murderer himself, The "Riverton Ripper". We never properly see his mask up close, so we never get a true sense of terror that comes purely from what the killer looked like ( Ghostface in Wes Cravens scream series was a great example of a murderer that delivers scares purely based on appearance ).

The one thing that saves this film from being a mere 3/4 out of 10 is the idea behind the plot. Okay, sure it could have been edited a little better but the idea of the souls of a serial killers victims travelling into the children born on the night he died was good. Then there was the murders, if you enjoy gore then you probably won't find much of it here. Out of all the murders, the second murder of Penelope was the only gory one as we can see the blood pouring out of her throat.

You may as well go rent this movie, it's definitely not going to be the best film you've ever seen but I guarantee that it won't be a film to throw away after 10 minutes of watching .

Overall rating : 6/10

O my o my Craven what have you done?

[Klovemovies · 1/10 · 8 October 2010]

Really now the 3D gimmick was a waste this movie had nothing special in 3D except for when Lea or whatever her name is was breaking down the model house in her room one of the pieces looks like its coming at you. The acting well garbage especially Denzel Whitaker and the kid who played Brandon, but everyone in this movie was crap. The kills were plain nothing new and innovative you could see all of them coming from a mile away. I'm sick of these horror flicks with the stupid head games and bonehead characters who can't realize whats going on for the life of them (literally). I honestly expected more out of this flick especially with Craven in charge I guess everyone lays a bad egg now and then. It's really sad though a guy as great as Craven is making a movie that you'd usually see premier on sci fi channel or limited release then straight to fearnet, I mean the theater was laughing when moments were supposed to be serious and scary. And the killer Alex? Really come on, I don't care possessed or not still to little to kill all those people

Attention: This Is A Wes Craven Movie!

[themissingpatient · 7/10 · 17 October 2010]

I've seen almost every new 3D movie and 'My Soul to Take' is not any worse than any other 3D live action films to date (with the exception of Alice in Wonderland & Dances with Smurfs). I believe the technology works well in 3D animated films but as far as live action films go, 3D will soon be going out.

3D aside, let's get to the movie.

Wes Craven has always written fantasy-horror. Some of it worked for him, others didn't but he is an excellent director. 'My Soul To Take' is somewhere in between all of his horror movies of the past. 'Scream' meets 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' (the original, not the Micheal Bay produced abortion), would give one a good idea of what the film is like.

Small town haunted by an urban legend about 'The Ripper.' The film takes place over the period of one day, as it is said 'The Ripper' will return and on this day, he does. The story is told through the eyes of 'Bug' who is mentally unstable, therefore allowing Craven to play tricks like he could in 'Nightmare' with bluring the line between dreams and reality, here, blurng the line between what is in a mentally unstable characters mind and what is real.

It's twisted, original, great dialogue, excellent acting but today's audiences look past this all - they do not appreciate horror-fantasy's unless it is pushed to the point of comedy. Like 'Drag Me To Hell' did for Sam Raimi fans and critics last year, I'll agree Craven's 'My Soul To Take' wasn't as fun but both films are a throw-back to those director's films out of the 80's and early 90's.

So if you are not a fan of 'Scream' or 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' or anything Wes Craven has done, then don't bother, you won't like this. If however you're an old school Craven fan like me, get ready for a classic Wes Craven experience, enjoy the ride!

My Soul to Take - Worst Movie of the Year

[bahe55 · 5/10 · 8 October 2010]

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.

Surprisingly Entertaining

[ismackhobos · 8/10 · 30 September 2010]

This movie was very entertaining. Knowing Wes Craven was directing it, I was super excited. Luckily, the 3-D didn't ruin it. If you think the 3-D will ruin it it doesn't.

The movie starts out freaky, and then it gets very suspenseful. It will keep you till the edge of your seat till the end. Its a good movie and I recommend everyone to watch it. It's not one of those PG-13 scares, this is bloody. And, this movie is also a great Halloween treat, and I respect that it's going against Saw 3D and Paranormal activity 2. This movie isn't mainstream, but it definitely deserves to be. If you want some good scares and a thrill ride, definitely watch the movie! Don't wait until DVD because its worth it in 3-D and loud surround sound!

If you're expecting a VERY scary movie, don't come. Its a decent thriller with a couple of scares here and there. Its still a very fun movie

Total review count: 8/10

An interesting film - though very unexpected.

[seraphino · 7/10 · 15 October 2010]

I just got back from seeing "My Soul to Take" in 3D, and I have to say that while the film was interesting, it was extremely unexpected. I will explain through various different sections.

A) The 3D is pointless -- This was one of my biggest gripes. The 3D in this film did NOTHING for the experience. It didn't add any scares, the movie made no use of it, and all it seemed that it was for was the $11.00 movie ticket price. Ripoff.

B) The movie is more funny than scary -- Wes Craven has a knack for horror storytelling, and is one of the best. And we all know that Wes Craven horror movies are not without their sense of humor too (e.g. Scream). However what this film lacked was a focus on the fundamental aspect on horror. I found myself laughing at most parts - the dialog is cheesy, the ripper is a comical character with a few good one-liners, and the scares are often times a joke. Overall though, it did send shivers down my spine a few times, but no jumps.

C) Hard to follow -- This is my biggest gripe. I almost have to see the movie a second time (when it is released on DVD) to understand exactly what I was watching. The plot isn't mystical or thought-provoking by any means, but half the time I asked myself, "What the hell is going on here?" or "Why did that just happen?"

D) What the film lacks is made up for in entertainment -- Despite the negatives of this film, it was still pretty entertaining. I would recommend any Wes Craven fan to go watch this film (NOT IN 3D) and enjoy it for what it is.

what was Wes thinking

[zcas602 · 5/10 · 4 April 2011]

This movie will definitely not help out Wes's career. Decent storyline, but not great. The acting to me was just average and blah I didn't really like any of the characters. At least in the Scream movies you go really into their lives and that just wasn't the case for this. Not to give anything away but the title didn't really fit the movie. Nightmare on elm street and scream, perfect titles. Not this though. This just like most of his other movies are not for kids, more for the men than women.I hoped the ending was better but that didn't happen. For Wes Craven and horror fans I say wait and rent honestly. For everyone else I say skip it, or if your curious wait until its on Showtime or HBO and watch it then. Not amazing or even good, just OK. Set your expectations low.