My Soul to Take
October 10, 2010
Not your typical 3-D bloodfest.
Wes Craven made his career debut with the classic "Nightmare on Elm Street" in 1984 and he helped the slasher genre off it's feet with "Scream" in 1996.After that, his films started to go a little downhill with the critics and fans with movies like "Scream 3" and "Cursed".Luckily for him and his fans, his film about a man terrorizing a woman on a plane, "Red Eye", brought him back.Even I thought it was a great movie.Is "My Soul to Take" the true return of horror? Is it the definete return of the horror master? Know that it isn't a great movie.I wanted to like it just a little more, but that doesn't mean it's bad.The film is entertaining, never boring, and does have an interesting story to it.What's not interesting about an infamous killer who was killed and returns 16 years later to wreck havoc and kill off 7 teenagers who were born on the very same night the Riverton Ripper was put to rest? You have to admit that Wes Craven knows how to give a good story.It's not as non-campy or serious as "Red Eye" but the somewhat maturity of the characters is what makes "My Soul to Take" more than your typical slasher movie that revolves around brutal killings and sex to make appeal.There is violence but no sex.You can also look forward to plenty of harsh language, pretty much mostly of it being used by teenagers, which is typical.So you know that the movie is violent, it has no sexual content other than talk of a teenage girl being knocked up, and that the f-bomb is very constant.Look forward to those things when going to see this movie.If you also want to see it in 3-D, go ahead and splurge extra money from your wallets.It's not that the 3-D is bad in this film, it's just there's always a 3-D movie being released almost every week and it gets really old and stale after a while.At least the movie isn't killed by the 3-dimensional images popping out of the screen.In fact, you don't really get a lot of that here, and that's a good thing.I want a 3-D movie that delivers what it promises as long as it doesn't go too in-your-face with the 3-D like "Avatar didn't.Thank God for directors who know what they're doing.
The movie is already being bombed on by people, with a 5.7 rating on IMDB that was a 7.5 yesterday.I can't say that I blame them for not liking it.The movie has it's flaws and sometimes noticeable goofs, but it's easy to just ignore them and simply watch it and like it for what it is.The movie is not scary and doesn't have a lot of suspense or tension.Some of the dialogue is a bit whack.Let's not forget the fast pacing with certain things that happen too fast and should've been put off to later, much like the last 20-30 minutes.With the cons aside, I can say that "My Soul to Take" does manage to make for a solid 2 hours.Let's just hope that "Scream 4" gives us what we want and not what we don't want.At least it won't be in 3-D.
Grade: B
Wes Craven made his career debut with the classic "Nightmare on Elm Street" in 1984 and he helped the slasher genre off it's feet with "Scream" in 1996.After that, his films started to go a little downhill with the critics and fans with movies like "Scream 3" and "Cursed".Luckily for him and his fans, his film about a man terrorizing a woman on a plane, "Red Eye", brought him back.Even I thought it was a great movie.Is "My Soul to Take" the true return of horror? Is it the definete return of the horror master? Know that it isn't a great movie.I wanted to like it just a little more, but that doesn't mean it's bad.The film is entertaining, never boring, and does have an interesting story to it.What's not interesting about an infamous killer who was killed and returns 16 years later to wreck havoc and kill off 7 teenagers who were born on the very same night the Riverton Ripper was put to rest? You have to admit that Wes Craven knows how to give a good story.It's not as non-campy or serious as "Red Eye" but the somewhat maturity of the characters is what makes "My Soul to Take" more than your typical slasher movie that revolves around brutal killings and sex to make appeal.There is violence but no sex.You can also look forward to plenty of harsh language, pretty much mostly of it being used by teenagers, which is typical.So you know that the movie is violent, it has no sexual content other than talk of a teenage girl being knocked up, and that the f-bomb is very constant.Look forward to those things when going to see this movie.If you also want to see it in 3-D, go ahead and splurge extra money from your wallets.It's not that the 3-D is bad in this film, it's just there's always a 3-D movie being released almost every week and it gets really old and stale after a while.At least the movie isn't killed by the 3-dimensional images popping out of the screen.In fact, you don't really get a lot of that here, and that's a good thing.I want a 3-D movie that delivers what it promises as long as it doesn't go too in-your-face with the 3-D like "Avatar didn't.Thank God for directors who know what they're doing.
The movie is already being bombed on by people, with a 5.7 rating on IMDB that was a 7.5 yesterday.I can't say that I blame them for not liking it.The movie has it's flaws and sometimes noticeable goofs, but it's easy to just ignore them and simply watch it and like it for what it is.The movie is not scary and doesn't have a lot of suspense or tension.Some of the dialogue is a bit whack.Let's not forget the fast pacing with certain things that happen too fast and should've been put off to later, much like the last 20-30 minutes.With the cons aside, I can say that "My Soul to Take" does manage to make for a solid 2 hours.Let's just hope that "Scream 4" gives us what we want and not what we don't want.At least it won't be in 3-D.
Grade: B
Posted by Tyler Kirk.
