We’re all not going to have the same opinion on a movie, especially in a genre of film that deals with less than savory subject matter and one that tackles plots that other films wouldn’t dream of touching. It’s easy to slander a movie, to call it horrible and criticize it just because it wasn’t your speed or it was too Hollywood. I see this happen a lot, especially on sites that offer user based reviews and ratings, and in some cases I don’t necessarily agree with the hate. My Soul to Take is one of those movies. I don’t see a lot of people championing it as much as I see people being passive or flat out bashing its existence. I’m wondering why this is.
It’s true – My Soul to Take wasn’t remotely successful at the box office. Produced on a budget of $25,000,000 and a baseline of $3,000,000 for promotion, the film opened in theaters in October 2010 and ended up earning $14,744,000 in ticket sales after its run. Internationally the film grossed $6,232,000 and also brought in $6,060,000 in Blu-ray/DVD sales in The States. Doing a little bit of math, My Soul to Take just about broke even or missed the mark by $1,000,000. Again, obviously it wasn’t a success, but it’s safe to say it wasn’t as big a bomb as freelance reviewers make it out to be. Sometimes I think people bash movies that don’t earn 2x their budget because they feel like they have to do that to seem knowledgeable. Since when does a movie not being financially lucrative translate to it being void of positive content or thrills?
And less face the truth, filmmaking as a whole has changed and progressed leaps and bounds in the last two decades. Advances in technology have made it easier to create a product that is breathtaking and styles have evolved, too. Was found footage the leader of the pack that it is today before Paranormal Activity? No. As the technology changes, so must the director. The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, Swamp Thing, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The People Under the Stairs and Scream… They’re all fantastic movies, most of them iconic, too, but they were created between 1972 and 1996. Before My Soul to Take in 2010, Wes Craven’s last big directorial job was Red Eye in 2005. Honestly, there’s been a big jump in technology in five years and even more-so if you go back nine years to Scream. Can it stand to reason that Wes Craven did My Soul to Take as a typical PG-13 Hollywood feature to try and make it as commercially inviting as possible? When he came back with Scream 4 in 2011, it followed the same feel of the previous entries. As far as My Soul to Take goes, I think Mr. Craven was trying his best to adapt to changes in technology, popular style and to make something more appetizing to the new generation of horror fans. He is and will always be one of the founding fathers of horror. I highly doubt he’s lost “it” yet.
Really, what’s not to like? Great acting, great special effects and great cinematography. My Soul to Take introduced an original urban legend and original villain – something that should certainly be welcomed with arms wide open. It was decent as far as horror standards go and it kept the mystery and suspense sky high when it came to the identity of the killer during the third act. What more do you want? Every director is bound to have a dud once and a while. So what if My Soul to Take is Craven’s one miss? Just because it’s not going to appear on any “Best of” lists and just because it isn’t hailed as a cult classic doesn’t mean that it’s garbage. Accept it for what it is, enjoy the show and move on.
Rotten Tomatoes has its rating at 2.9 out of 10. Amazon has its rating at 3.2 out of 5. IMDB has its rating at 4.8 out of 10. Me, though? I’d give it a 6.5. It’s not nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
