My Soul to Take
How to begin this? It’s been five years since Wes Craven, one of the modern masters of horror with “A Nightmare on Elm Street,” “Wes Craven’s New Nightmare,” and the “Scream” trilogy, has released a feature film (that would be 2005’s underappreciated “Red Eye”). Next year, he returns to self-conscious horror with “Scream 4.” My guess is “My Soul to Take”-his first original screenplay since “New Nightmare”-was supposed to raise the curtain on a new era of Craven supremacy in a genre he helped redefine all the way back in the ’70s with “The Last House on the Left” and “The Hills Have Eyes.” Sadly, Craven the writer sabotages Craven the director (still capable of skillful set pieces and suspense) at every turn. The more one thinks about this film in retrospect, the more one is sad about what might have been.
In the sleepy town of Riverton, a killer is on the loose. The press call him the Riverton Ripper. He uses a knife with the word “vengeance” on the blade. One night, a father is working on a rocking horse for his unborn baby… and he sees the knife. He is startled to say the least, but he goes to bed nonetheless, only to find his wife bleeding. Has he caused this? When the police come knocking on his door with his psychiatrist, things get violent… and a little weird. He claims that he will come back to avenge his death.
Sixteen years later, seven children who were born prematurely on that night come back to the place the Ripper was last seen, now a memorial. But when these teens begin being picked off one at a time, fear permeates. Is the Ripper back, or has his soul taken possession of one of the kids?
For much of the film’s running time, we are unsure, partially because Craven seems unsure. This isn’t the first time he’s hit on such ideas of the supernatural-his “Nightmare on Elm Street” and “Shocker” hit on many of the same elements. But it is the first time where Craven appears to have lost control of the storytelling, or just looks bored telling it (at least his failed teen werewolf thriller “Cursed” was simply, well, cursed). By the end, he seems to be going through all of the motions he’s done before (“Scream” especially comes to mind), only with less interesting characters (not poorly acted by the unknown cast; just poorly written), uncertain motivations, and storytelling that just feels confused. He wants to elevate this material into something more dangerous and more original than just another teen slasher (like he did with his two superb “Nightmare” entries), and we really want him to succeed, but it feels like he’s lost that touch he once had. And don’t even get me started on the film being in 3D-if you can see it in 2D, do so. To say it’s not worth the surcharge is a gross understatement.
I’m not ashamed to admit that I was really hoping for the best (and the film starts off really well). Wes Craven isn’t high on my list of favorite filmmakers, but he is one I’ll always wish the best for. The films of his over the years I’ve enjoyed the most have always had a deft touch at blending horror and dark humor; strong work out of actors (rare for horror films); and his filmmaking abilities are among the best in the genre (that opening scene of “Scream” still packs a punch). But this one, which he evidently finished up *last* year, feels like one where his vision got away from him.
