Connect with us

Movies

[Review] Wes Craven’s ‘My Soul to Take 3D’

“With a seemingly simple plot, Craven’s slasher is actually one of the most complicated films I have ever seen… The problem with My Soul to Take isn’t in its concept, it’s in the execution. It’s overly complex and nearly impossible to explain with images, which is why the slasher turns into a visual table read in the final act.”

Published

on

My head is swimming right now. It’s 2:30AM and I just returned from the midnight 3-D (f*cking $17) showing of My Soul to Take, Wes Craven’s whodunit that wasn’t screened for critics. It isn’t hard to see why…

With a seemingly simple plot, Craven’s slasher is actually one of the most overly complicated films I have ever seen. The movie opens with a schizophrenic with multiple personalities calling his doctor in the middle of the night. Apparently, a local killer is coming to slay his wife and unborn child. It turns out that they’re already dead… and that he’s the killer. The police arrive and a shootout occurs leaving multiple people dead.

Flash forward 16 years as the audience is introduced to the Riverton 7, a group of kids who were born the night the Riverton slasher died. Only now they begin to die one by one. The mystery begins: who is the killer? Is it one of the 7, or did the psychopath survive all those years ago?

What transpires is the basic structure of Scream. Meet the teens, see how they’re all so different and unique from one another, watch them do “cool” kid stuff (like drink, smoke in the bathroom, and beg for a blowjob), all the while the audience is left wondering which one of them is the killer.

My Soul to Take broke my brain. I wasn’t sure if I’d even be able to write a review. And if it weren’t for one of my friends, I’m not quite sure I would have even figured the twist out at all. You see, there are no rules, no back story, and definitely no exposition friendly cues to help you understand the finale that can only be described as Inception meets Scooby-Doo. Here’s the problem: Craven is attempting to make the audience figure out who the killer is, while he should be trying to get the audience guessing who the demon/evil spirit is. No, I didn’t ruin the movie for you, and even worse is I probably didn’t help you either. My Soul to Take is so goddamn confusing and heavy-handed that the final 15 minutes is jam-packed with hefty exposition that literally explains the over-complicated twist. In one scene a character literally walks us through the prior scene explaining what actually occurred, all the while Craven flicks images of the evil genius’ plot (insert evil laughter here) across the screen. Minutes later, the killer reveals him/herself, and then explains the plot in a vomit of dialogue that would make the Micro Machine guy jealous.

The way it plays out is shocking, transforming into a parody of itself – like something you’d see on “Saturday Night Live”. The information is spewed so quickly that my ears and nose started to bleed, and my brain nearly exploded. I would have literally needed subtitles and a pause button to process all of the information that was thrown at me. Thankfully, one of the five of us actually gathered just enough information for us to piece together what actually happened – and as surprising as it sounds, it was pretty f*cking cool.

The problem with My Soul to Take isn’t in its concept, it’s in the execution. It’s overly complex and nearly impossible to explain with images, which is why the slasher turns into a visual table read in the final act. And even though Craven still finds a way to make his films visually relevant, his 60+ years of age shows in his hideous teen dialogue that ranged from “Wake up and smell the Starbucks” to “Turn down the prayer conditioning.” LOLOL, right?

But that’s the beauty of My Soul to Take, it’s like an Elephant Man of a film. It’s so sick, twisted and deformed that it’s impossible to take your eyes off the screen. You can’t possibly guess what happens next, nor will you ever be able to figure out the finale… don’ even try. Yet, it’s hard to sit here and tell you not to see this film, strangely because it’s either the most brilliant thing ever made or the most retarded. If you want to see what a half-train wreck looks like, and be thoroughly entertained, Wes Craven’s got your back 25/8.

Horror movie fanatic who co-founded Bloody Disgusting in 2001. Producer on Southbound, V/H/S/2/3/94, SiREN, Under the Bed, and A Horrible Way to Die. Chicago-based. Horror, pizza and basketball connoisseur. Taco Bell daily. Franchise favs: Hellraiser, Child's Play, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Scream and Friday the 13th. Horror 365 days a year.

Editorials

‘Malevolence’: The Overlooked Mid-2000s Love Letter to John Carpenter’s ‘Halloween’

Published

on

Written and Directed by Stevan Mena on a budget of around $200,000, Malevolence was only released in ten theaters after it was purchased by Anchor Bay and released direct-to-DVD like so many other indie horrors. This one has many of the same pratfalls as its bargain bin brethren, which have probably helped to keep it hidden all these years. But it also has some unforgettable moments that will make horror fans (especially fans of the original Halloween) smile and point at the TV like Leonardo DiCaprio in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Malevolence is the story of a silent and masked killer told through the lens of a group of bank robbers hiding out after a score. The bank robbery is only experienced audibly from the outside of the bank, but whether the film has the budgetary means to handle this portion well or not, the idea of mixing a bank robbery tale into a masked slasher movie is a strong one.

Of course, the bank robbery goes wrong and the crew is split up. Once the table is fully set, we have three bank robbers, an innocent mom and her young daughter as hostages, and a masked man lurking in the shadows who looks like a mix between baghead Jason from Friday the 13th Part 2 and the killer from The Town That Dreaded Sundown. Let the slashing begin.

Many films have tried to recreate the aesthetic notes of John Carpenter’s 1978 classic Halloween, and at its best Malevolence is the equivalent of a shockingly good cover song.

Though the acting and script are at times lacking, the direction, score, and cinematography come together for little moments of old-school slasher goodness that will send tingles up your spine. It’s no Halloween, to be clear, but it does Halloween reasonably proud. The nighttime shots come lit with the same blue lighting and the musical notes of the score pop off at such specific moments, fans might find themselves laughing out loud at the absurdity of how hard the homages hit. When the killer jumps into frame, accompanied by the aforementioned musical notes, he does so sharply and with the same slow intensity as Michael Myers. Other films in the subgenre (and even a few in the Halloween franchise) will tell you this isn’t an easy thing to duplicate.

The production and costume designs of Malevolence hint at love letters to other classic horror films as well. The country location not only provides for an opening Halloween IV fans will appreciate but the abandoned meat plant and the furnishings inside make for some great callbacks to 1974’s The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. All of this is buoyed and accentuated by cinematography that you rarely see in today’s low-budget films. The film is shot on 35mm film by A&E documentary filmmaker Tsuyoshi Kimono, who gives Malevolence an old-school, grainy, 1970s aesthetic that feels completely natural and not like a cheap gimmick.

Malevolence is a movie that no doubt has some glaring imperfections but it is also a movie that is peppered with moments of potential. There’s a reason they made a follow-up prequel titled Malevolence 2: Bereavement years later (and another after that) that starred both Michael Biehn and Alexandra Daddario! That film tells the origin story of our baghead, Martin Bristol. Something the first film touches on a little bit, at least enough to give you the gist of what happened here. Long story short, a six-year-old boy was kidnapped by a serial killer and for years forced to watch him hunt, torture, and kill his victims. Which brings me to another fascinating aspect of Malevolence. The ending. SPOILER WARNING.

After the mother and child are saved from the killer, our slasher is gone, his bloody mask left on the floor. The camera pans around different areas of the town, showing all the places he may be lurking. If you’re down with the fact that it’s pretty obvious this is all an intentional love letter and not a bad rip-off, it’s pretty fun. Where Malevolence makes its own mark is in the true crime moments to follow. Law enforcement officers pull up to the plant and uncover a multitude of horrors. They find the notebooks of the original killer, which explain that he kidnapped the boy, taught him how to hunt, and was now being hunted by him. This also happened to be his final entry. We discover a hauntingly long line of bodies covered in white sheets: the bodies of the many missing persons the town had for years been searching for. And there are a whole lot of them. This moment really adds a cool layer of serial killer creepiness to the film.

Ultimately, Malevolence is a low-budget movie with some obvious deficiencies on full display. Enough of them that I can imagine many viewers giving up on the film before they get to what makes it so special, which probably explains how it has gone so far under the radar all these years. But the film is a wonderful ode to slashers that have come before it and still finds a way to bring an originality of its own by tying a bank robbery story into a slasher affair. Give Malevolence a chance the next time you’re in the mood for a nice little old school slasher movie.

Malevolence is now streaming on Tubi and Peacock.

Continue Reading