My Soul to Take review

Every once in a great while a film comes along that changes you in such a profound way that it could warrant a case study. A film that is as important as a great masterwork, but is in fact an enormous pile of shit that you want to remember forever to A: never watch again and if you're like me B: never make ANYTHING nearly this terrible. "My Soul to Take" by writer, director and "master of horror" Wes Craven should be further proof that he has completely lost his touch. Hey it happens. George A. Romero lost it, John Carpenter lost it, Dario Argento and Clive Barker lost it. Why should he be any different?At least those guys pretty much never get to make movies anymore and none of them have made something quite this terrible.

The wonder that is Craven's mind has crafted a story that might have worked as an episode of "Are You Afraid of the Dark?"back in the early 90's. Which is to say that it's a concept that might be interesting purely for thirty minutes or less. Basically you have a serial killer with multiple personalities or as we later learn souls; that dies. However his seven souls go into the seven children that were born the night of his death. Fast forward sixteen years and the murders begin again and one of the seven kids is the culprit. The ONE thing the film seems to get right is the casting, but only to a point. They put together people that LOOK the age they're portraying, unfortunately most of them, including lead Max Thieriot who plays Bug cannot act. Oh and why is his nickname Bug you ask? I dunno. It's never told to us. Also why does the "ripper" have a knife with the word 'vengeance' carved on the side? I dunno; that too is never explained. Why does the killer make a phone call to one of his next victims, yet otherwise doesn't speak or make his presence known until his moment to strike? Dunno. Why does he strangely sound like a bad Robert Englund impersonator at one point and like Duke Nukem at another? I... don't... know.

In addition let us discuss the fact that the film is both rated-R and in 3D and yet both seem completely unnecessary. This is mainly a language R and the only violence is less than something you might catch on "CSI". As for the 3D... well... it's none existent. It's pure conversion 3D that was added to pad a ticket price. That's it. How about we dig a little deeper into these character too while we're at it?! Bug is apparently crazy and snaps in and out of different personalities, but only sometimes and only sort of. Basically he'll start talking like a girl and shake his head a lot if a female character died for example. In their high school there is also a hierarchy which involves a girl they call "Fang" (I shit you not on this) who controls the school system like a mob boss. The film spends an ungodly amount of time dealing with this uninteresting and idiotic storyline to the point where walking out of the theater and into traffic seems like a sweet dream by comparison. Bug's two friends who also share the same birthday as him are just as shallow and uninteresting as he is. There's the token out going and know it all friend that nobody in the school likes. And of course there's the black kid who doubles as the school's one disabled person because he also happens to be blind. But don't feel too bad for him. Being blind doesn't stop him from running through the woods after dark or climbing into a second story window. He's like a teenage Daredevil!

You know I didn't really believe I'd be more unhappy with any other film this year after seeing "Resident Evil: Afterlife". Then again I thought the same thing after seeing "Grown Ups". And before that when I saw "Sex and the City 2". However this time I might have found the one. I've found a film that might not only be the worst film of the year, but one of the worst films I've ever seen. By the way this isn't the first Wes Craven movie to land in that circle. I would also place "Vampire in Brooklyn", "Cursed", "Shocker" and both versions of "The Hills Have Eyes 2" along side this. Less we forget all his produced films which in the couple of decades he's branched out to that has yet to deliver one even mildly impressive product. So why is he still held up with such high esteem? Like most of the other things in this film I don't know.

Recently I discussed the whole Shyamalan slamming thing with a few people. My biggest question was exactly why has only he has been singled out for making bad films? Even Uwe Boll doesn't have quite the hatred that M. Night has gotten. Craven has made SEVERAL films ranging from bad to terrible and no one says shit about it. I've defended both directors before and think both have made great pieces of work. At the same time I'm more than willing to admit that both have had big missteps. Most people I talk to about this claim it's because the public have more of a nostalgia factor with Craven and remember the days of "The Last House on the Left", "The Hills Have Eyes", "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Scream". Sure that's all great; it's also over a fucking decade ago! I'm not telling people to re-fall in love with M. Night. In fact I think it's good that people were outspoken to him about their distaste for "The Last Airbender"; but I want Craven to receive similar treatment for his cinematic crimes. And with "My Soul to Take" I would like to HOPE that people out there might finally raise a stink about all of his terrible work so that he can finally STOP being called a master of horror.