Wes Craven is one of the great filmmakers of our time. Last House on the Left. A Nightmare on Elm Street. Scream. These are classic movies. So, My Soul to Take effectively puts forth the question: Does this acknowledged master of horror still have a few new tricks up his sleeve? The answer to that question is "No. No, he does not. And, in point of fact, he seems to have almost completely forgotten all his old tricks. Along with all skill at making an actual movie."
Almost nothing about the movie makes any sense. Here's an example. The main character's nickname is "Bug." It's a nickname and we get to hear his actual name once or twice, but he's pretty well known to all and sundry as "Bug." That said, there is no exposition (as "When he was a little kid, "Steve" would catch roaches and ants and try to eat 'em.") nor any obvious reason why this boy is known as Bug. He shows no interest in insects. He doesn't in any way resemble an insect or have any kind of insectile habits. He also has no interest in rabbits or cartoons, in case you thought that might be a reference to Bugs Bunny. But there's nothing, and the movie is filled with situations like this that defy human and narrative logic. Almost without exception, every character in the movie makes the worst or least sensible decision at any given moment.
Which is only understandable given that the writer-director of this turkey did exactly the same thing.
Almost nothing about the movie makes any sense. Here's an example. The main character's nickname is "Bug." It's a nickname and we get to hear his actual name once or twice, but he's pretty well known to all and sundry as "Bug." That said, there is no exposition (as "When he was a little kid, "Steve" would catch roaches and ants and try to eat 'em.") nor any obvious reason why this boy is known as Bug. He shows no interest in insects. He doesn't in any way resemble an insect or have any kind of insectile habits. He also has no interest in rabbits or cartoons, in case you thought that might be a reference to Bugs Bunny. But there's nothing, and the movie is filled with situations like this that defy human and narrative logic. Almost without exception, every character in the movie makes the worst or least sensible decision at any given moment.
Which is only understandable given that the writer-director of this turkey did exactly the same thing.
This post was last modified: 10-12-2010, 12:25 PM by johntfs.
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself. Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable." - H. L. Mencken
This movie put me in mind of Darkness Falls. Made for a good-looking preview but that's about it.
They passed an old woman who was just opening the door of a brown Cadillac. An old man was already sitting in the passenger seat. The car had a personalized plate with the letters “J-U-S-P-R-A-Y”.
“That stuff work?” Israel said to her.
“‘Scuse me?” the little old woman said, clutching her keys.
“The spray. Does it keep them away?”
“Keep who away?” She looked confused.
“I gotcha.” Israel gave her a conspiratorial wink.
www.feelmyghost.webs.com
I can't think of a single Wes Craven film that I've actually liked. So, I'm not surprised that this one is unimpressive.
I really liked New Nightmare. It had an interesting, original concept (some nameless horror from beyond our reality attempts to move in to our world using the fictional Freddy as a vehicle) and the execution of that concept was well done.
Darkness Falls was Oscar material compared to My Soul to Take. It had at the very least a certain internal logic to it.
Darkness Falls was Oscar material compared to My Soul to Take. It had at the very least a certain internal logic to it.
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself. Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable." - H. L. Mencken
While I didn't mind the original Nightmare on Elm Street and the original The Hills Have Eyes had a certain creepy feeling to it I am mostly with T4 on Wes Craven. The guy is a total hack who just keeps regurgitating the same poorly written junk over and over, I would put him about half a step above Ewe..err Uwe Boll.
"No other success can compensate for failure in the home." D.O. McKay
"Never raise your hand to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected."
~ Red Buttons
Too literal? I'm sorry you feel I have a Literal Agenda!
johntfs Wrote:I really liked New Nightmare. It had an interesting, original concept (some nameless horror from beyond our reality attempts to move in to our world using the fictional Freddy as a vehicle) and the execution of that concept was well done.
I never thought of it that way. I'm going to have to rewatch.
They passed an old woman who was just opening the door of a brown Cadillac. An old man was already sitting in the passenger seat. The car had a personalized plate with the letters “J-U-S-P-R-A-Y”.
“That stuff work?” Israel said to her.
“‘Scuse me?” the little old woman said, clutching her keys.
“The spray. Does it keep them away?”
“Keep who away?” She looked confused.
“I gotcha.” Israel gave her a conspiratorial wink.
www.feelmyghost.webs.com
The Mad American Wrote:While I didn't mind the original Nightmare on Elm Street and the original The Hills Have Eyes had a certain creepy feeling to it I am mostly with T4 on Wes Craven. The guy is a total hack who just keeps regurgitating the same poorly written junk over and over, I would put him about half a step above Ewe..err Uwe Boll.
His villians are often weak. The people they terrorize tend to be so pathetic, and stupid that I find myself more annoyed than anything. I keep thinking, "Be a man, quit running, hiding, crying, and screaming."
I liked the look of Freddy. I didn't like the films, nor the concept of people getting killed in dreams. I'd rather see a real live Freddy brutally slaying his victims in their homes, in the woods, and on the highways, instead of in their dreams.
I prefer John Carpenter's older films. His horror was far better, and his films were, overall, far better. I will admit he hasn't done anything I've really liked in a while. His films were more character driven.
This post was last modified: 10-13-2010, 11:19 AM by t4terrific.
I liked the concept of something killing people in their dreams, but the execution was lacking. A dream-killer isn't just going to stalk you and stab you with his spooky knife-glove. He's going to appear as your absolute worst fear on the grandest scale. A guy frightened by bugs might get stung to death by a billion insect-Freddies. A person into fantasy RPGs might die via fire-breathing dragon-Freddie (or unexpectedly be slain by the princess-Freddie he just rescued from the dragon-Freddie). One of the things that most disappointed me about the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street was that it was essentially such a point by point remake. I mean, if there was any excuse to go hog-ass insane with CGI, it's in a movie about a demon that kills people in their dreams.
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself. Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable." - H. L. Mencken
johntfs Wrote:I liked the concept of something killing people in their dreams, but the execution was lacking. A dream-killer isn't just going to stalk you and stab you with his spooky knife-glove. He's going to appear as your absolute worst fear on the grandest scale. A guy frightened by bugs might get stung to death by a billion insect-Freddies. A person into fantasy RPGs might die via fire-breathing dragon-Freddie (or unexpectedly be slain by the princess-Freddie he just rescued from the dragon-Freddie). One of the things that most disappointed me about the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street was that it was essentially such a point by point remake. I mean, if there was any excuse to go hog-ass insane with CGI, it's in a movie about a demon that kills people in their dreams.
Agreed (although a copy of Nightmare on Elm Street is waiting for me at the library).
They passed an old woman who was just opening the door of a brown Cadillac. An old man was already sitting in the passenger seat. The car had a personalized plate with the letters “J-U-S-P-R-A-Y”.
“That stuff work?” Israel said to her.
“‘Scuse me?” the little old woman said, clutching her keys.
“The spray. Does it keep them away?”
“Keep who away?” She looked confused.
“I gotcha.” Israel gave her a conspiratorial wink.
www.feelmyghost.webs.com
johntfs Wrote:I liked the concept of something killing people in their dreams, but the execution was lacking. A dream-killer isn't just going to stalk you and stab you with his spooky knife-glove. He's going to appear as your absolute worst fear on the grandest scale. A guy frightened by bugs might get stung to death by a billion insect-Freddies. A person into fantasy RPGs might die via fire-breathing dragon-Freddie (or unexpectedly be slain by the princess-Freddie he just rescued from the dragon-Freddie). One of the things that most disappointed me about the remake of Nightmare on Elm Street was that it was essentially such a point by point remake. I mean, if there was any excuse to go hog-ass insane with CGI, it's in a movie about a demon that kills people in their dreams.Sounds good to me!