My Soul to Take
Tags: paranormal, revenge, murder, flashback

Plot synopsis:
Family man Abel Plenkov (Raul Esparza), a sufferer of schizophrenia, accidentally discovers that he is the Riverton Ripper, a local, masked serial killer. After killing his pregnant wife, Sarah (Alexandra Wilson), and then his psychiatrist, he is shot down and carted away in an ambulance, leaving his young daughter Leah and premature son orphaned. On the way to the hospital, a paramedic (Danai Gurira) suggests that Plenkov himself is innocent but that he houses multiple souls, with the Ripper's being one of them. Near death, Plenkov unexpectedly revives, slashing the paramedic in the throat, causing the ambulance car to crash and burn and seemingly escapes.
Sixteen years later, the Riverton Seven—blind Jerome (Denzel Whitaker), loser Alex (John Magaro), imaginative Jay (Jeremy Chu), timid Bug (Max Thieriot), religious Penelope (Zena Grey), beautiful Brittany (Paulina Olszynski), and jock Brandon (Nick Lashaway)—gather for the annual ritual of "killing" a Ripper puppet to superstitiously prevent his return. Bug is elected but fails. Not long after, Jay is murdered by the reappeared Ripper. At home, Bug begins to redo a class project, exhibiting Jay's creativity.
At school, Brandon torments Bug and Alex on orders of Fang (Emily Meade), a tyrannical bully. Bug and Alex decide to spy on Fang to see if Brittany has a crush on him. During their surveillance, Fang cruelly alleges that Bug had previously been in institutions for killing people. Bug begins unwittingly imitating the rest of the Riverton Seven, including Fang. Penelope, having predicted the Ripper’s return as well as their deaths, is the next one killed. Brandon and Brittany discover her body in the woods and are both stabbed to death also.
That night, Fang who revealed to be Bug’s sister and by the name of Leah gives her brother a birthday present: a rocking horse created by Abel Plenkov. Angrily, she unveils the truth that had long been hidden: that they are his children and she is the daughter he had failed to kill; Bug had survived in his dead mother's womb albeit born prematurely. Everyone saw him as a miracle, which caused Fang to harbor lifelong resentment towards him; she had been traumatized by the event but he remained innocent of its memory. The two reconcile, but are informed of the murders.
Alex visits a distressed Bug and theorizes that the Ripper’s evil soul jumped into one of the Riverton Seven, forcing them to kill off the others. Downstairs, Bug and Fang encounter the Ripper. Just as Bug is about to be killed, the Ripper hears a noise upstairs. Bug goes back to his room, discovering Jerome, mortally wounded, in his closet. After Jerome dies, Alex reappears and suggests that Bug inherited schizophrenia from his father, and had unknowingly killed everyone. Bug rejects this idea. The souls of the dead Seven are now part of him, and together they help him deduce that Alex is, in fact, the one with the Ripper’s soul. "Alex" admits guilt and confesses his revenge. He proposes that they kill Fang and pin the murders on Jerome to appear as heroes. Bug refuses, stabbing Alex in the stomach. Freed from the Ripper’s soul, Alex dies as himself in a touching moment between best friends.
Although Bug expects to be arrested, Fang tells the police everything, clearing his name. The town proclaims him a hero. Despite not feeling like one, he narrates that he would "fake it good" in order to honor Alex’s memory.

Review: It keeps you wondering, guessing and a little annoyed you didn't see it coming.Admittedly, I do scroll through the reviews to get an idea of how people viewed the movie and how they rated it.I have my own 5 Star system which got this film a 4.5.If you are new to IMDb.....never, ever take the scoring system to heart.
Naturally then, the fact that "My Soul to Take" is Wes Craven's first film in five years (since 2005's "Red Eye") and first that the horror- meister has written and directed in fifteen years comes with certain expectations.
Indeed, all the usual elements of a classic Wes Craven horror are present- a small town with hidden secrets from the past; a legend that is the stuff of campfire stories; and hipper-than-thou teen- speak- but unfortunately this is far from any classic.
Unfolding entirely over the course of one day, Craven spends the first half of the film setting up his seven characters- the hot jock (Nick Lashaway), the sweet hottie (Paulina Olszynski), the religious chick (Zena Grey), the token Asian (Jeremy Chu), the African American blind boy (Denzel Whitaker), and Max's best friend Alex (John Magaro)- before the start of the blodletting.
I went into My Soul to Take with an open mind and I don't know if the rest of my theater did, but I can safely say most of them cleared out before the credits rolled.This abomination is an insult to Wes Craven's name and anyone associated with the film.
The scenes are so scatter-brained and the script is so bad it was destined to fail.At some times I was really confused if I was supposed to be watching a horror movie or a comedy.When the movie ended I stood up and asked who was left in the theater, "Worst horror movie of the year, anybody with me?" I was applauded.
In the same night, there are seven births in one hour and people believe his soul will reincarnate in one of the seven children that are known as The Riverton Seven.Sixteen years later, the ghost of the Riverton Ripper seems to have returned seeking revenge and the teenager Adam "Bug" Hellerman (Max Thieriot) has dreadful nightmares with the killer.
When Bug and his sister Fang (Emily Meade) are attacked by the killer, Bug asks his friend Alex (John Magaro) if he is the killer or whether Abel Plenkov is alive and has returned to revenge.The lame "My Soul to Take" is an awful horror movie by Wes Craven.
My Soul to Take (2010) ** (out of 4)Wes Craven's return to the horror genre hits with a major thud and turns out to be his most disappointing film since VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN.
The first sequence on the bridge actually contains some of that Craven magic where your pulse goes from zero to sixty in a matter of seconds and this expands to an earlier scene where you just know the killer is going to come back to life and although you're expecting it when it does finally happen it makes for a good jump.
This scene really doesn't make too much sense and in many ways what starts it seems out of place but not a single frame of this long sequence has any suspense to it, which is shocking since we're talking about a Wes Craven film.
This isn't a horrible movie but at the same time you expect a lot more when Wes Craven is involved.You pretty much have to give this a second review in terms of the 3-D.
But it is written and directed by Wes Craven and he will forever be considered as a master of horror, even though he made four times as many stupid movies than good ones.
Especially because Wes Craven has more than 30 years of experience in the horror movie business, he ought to know better than to stuff his screenplay like a Thanksgiving turkey with dreadful clichés and stereotypes!
After an overheated opening, the film devolved into a confused jumbled mess loaded down with heavy handed symbolism and half-baked (the condor) and ill-realized concepts (soul collecting.) Unfortunately, it seems that Wes Craven is such an icon in the horror movie genre that no one on the production side had the guts to tell him that he needed work a little more on the script.
The movie opens one way and we are surprised at how it takes a completely different turn than we thought it would and already has a plot twist that kind of confuses us but as the film progresses we are able to produce enough theories to keep our head spinning until we learn the truth.
I like Wes Craven but have found some of his films to be a little lame, also the trailer didn't really catch me with this one so I didn't really know what to expect.Not only did this movie surprise me but it really just shocked me at how original it was.
People cry over how all horror films are the same yet when they gets something which is extremely cool and different like this they complain.Not for everyone I guess but still one of my favorite Wes Craven films of all time.
Of biblical proportions awful...I love horror movies & yes, I should've known better than to waste my time, but I tried to rationalize renting MSTT...it's Wes Craven.
And we all know that Wes Craven horror movies are not without their sense of humor too (e.g. Scream).
'Scream' meets 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' (the original, not the Micheal Bay produced abortion), would give one a good idea of what the film is like.Small town haunted by an urban legend about 'The Ripper.' The film takes place over the period of one day, as it is said 'The Ripper' will return and on this day, he does.
The story is told through the eyes of 'Bug' who is mentally unstable, therefore allowing Craven to play tricks like he could in 'Nightmare' with bluring the line between dreams and reality, here, blurng the line between what is in a mentally unstable characters mind and what is real.It's twisted, original, great dialogue, excellent acting but today's audiences look past this all - they do not appreciate horror-fantasy's unless it is pushed to the point of comedy.
Like 'Drag Me To Hell' did for Sam Raimi fans and critics last year, I'll agree Craven's 'My Soul To Take' wasn't as fun but both films are a throw-back to those director's films out of the 80's and early 90's.So if you are not a fan of 'Scream' or 'A Nightmare on Elm Street' or anything Wes Craven has done, then don't bother, you won't like this.
'MY SOUL TO TAKE': Three Stars (Out of Five) Horror master Wes Craven returns to the teen slasher film, both writing and directing for the first time since 1994's 'NEW NIGHTMARE'.
If I were to plot a line graph based on Wes Craven's directorial career, the result would have more peaks and troughs than the Himalayas, with it being nearly all trough since the start of the millennium; My Soul To Take would make the line drop off the bottom of the page.With a convoluted plot that introduces far too many ideas for its own good (none of them very original), and a cast of characters guaranteed to annoy the hell out of anyone over the age of 20, this film represents a new low for the director, whose desperate struggle to remain hip with the young horror crowd is truly embarrassing.The ridiculous dialogue spouted by the obnoxious teens in this film is possibly the most grating aspect and halfway through I had to pause the film it to see who had written this garbage—turns out it was Wes himself.
It's been twenty years since the last good film written by Craven (The People Under The Stairs)—it would seem that the well of ideas has run dry (and after the mess that was Scream 4, I wouldn't bother calling Kevin Williamson for help)..
Chalk this one up as a miss for horror master Wes Craven; while it's not without some good moments and assets, there's a decided lack of suspense, a poor script (surprising, coming from Craven), mostly inane characters, failed attempts at humour, and a lame killer.Too bad, because the set-up had some potential: a psychopath (Raul Esparza) with multiple personalities is caught by the cops, but in a ridiculous series of events, ends up vanishing, never to be seen again.
Attempting to rekindle the atmosphere of horror serial killers Wes Craven breaks into a script with absolutely no redeeming qualities, additionally inhibited by senselessly laughable dialogue and character formation, which fails to go anywhere.
A film with a ridiculous idea that wasn't even developed, with very bad acting, poor dialogues & horrible characters, where i thought "wow, Wes Craven, are you serious?
I just wanted to let everyone know - literally, this movie is so terrible I feel compelled to forewarn others.You would think a movie written and directed by Wes Craven would be pretty good, considering he's one of the biggest names in horror film - WRONG!
The characters were not entirely unique but they did have enough life in them to make them seem believable, unlike scream or any nightmare on elm street flick.This is a really good popcorn film that you should watch.
Which is a good thing not that I haven't enjoyed Wes Craven films but the feel of originality has escaped them in a sense.
RELEASED IN 2010 and directed/written by Wes Craven, "My Soul to Take" is a slasher movie about the high schoolers of Riverton, Connecticut, and the legend that a schizophrenic serial killer will return to murder the teens born the day he died 16 years earlier.
It wasn't the best movie but it surely was entertaining and you never really know what is happening or who the killer is until the end.I liked the twists and turns and the acting and dialogue was well executed.
It is a new concept of a story and Wes Craven does what he does best, horror.I gave this movie a 6/10 and think people should give it a go..
My Soul To Take The best thing about having multiple personalities is that you can take real advantage of Groupon offers.Unfortunately, the identity disorder sufferer in this horror movie is not scoring reasonably priced hot air balloon rides, but instead killing teenagers.In 1994, Abel (Raul Esparza) is made aware of the fact that one of his personalities is the homicidal Riverton Ripper.Although he tries to resist the pushy persona, Abel is ultimately shot by police.
While his physical form dies, Abel's personalities live on in the souls of seven Riverton area children, including his own son Bug (Max Thieriot).Sixteen years later, the soulless Abel returns to reclaim his property from the septet.Though it has hints of ingenuity, its low-rent actors and weak-ass kills makes this Wes Craven concocted cutup a complete bore.Besides, the real threat against the souls of teenagers is women over the age of 40.
Wes Craven's My Soul to Take - the last original film he made before he died of brain cancer in 2015 - opens with Abel Plenkov (Raul Esparza), a schizophrenic man who discovers he is also the notorious serial killer known as the "Riverton Ripper" his sleepy town has been trying to catch for some time now.
In the midst of this, we largely focus on Bug, who works with his close friends in order to try and prevent what seems like an inevitable and brutal death.My Soul to Take is as boring as it is almost entirely artless; Craven trades mystery, uncertainty, and imaginative setups for an atmosphere drenched in teal cinematography and bleak visuals that lack everything that should make a horror film engaging and fun.
Other things I liked about the movie: -It had a cool setting, although I wish there were more scenes that take place on the bridge they feature during one of the first kills.-It spent some time actually developing some of the characters, which is something you don't see in every horror film.
Its not like every Wes Craven movie is Nightmare on Elm Street.
I'm sick of slasher movies, but I was compelled to see My Soul to Take because of director Wes Craven, who revitalized American horror in the '70s with independent films like Last House on the Left and again in the '80s and '90s with A Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream.Wes directed the very first film I ever worked, and the one I had the most fun on, never mind that it was the worst film he ever made, through no fault of his own (most of the damage was inflicted in post-production).
His horror-movie reputation notwithstanding, he's a courteous gentleman profoundly concerned with what he does and who reflects deeply on its impact, which makes writing this somewhat painful.Not only is My Soul To Take a retread of themes Wes has dealt with before in better films, but some of it approaches being incomprehensible, and not in a good way.
I didn't find anything scary or creepy in this movie, , I wasn't fan of the ending at all As I expected to be a really bad movie, that may have help me not being to let down by it, I didn't think was as bad some reviews made out to beIt was one of weakest movie from Wes Craven you brought to Elm street and Scream movies.
The movie is set an in small town where there is a murderer who was (supposedly) on the loose once a year for 16years to take revenge on life of 7 kids who were born on the day the ripper supposedly died.Bug (Max Thieriot)does a very commendable job as disturbed teenage.The scenery at night in the woods was very well shot it added a scary element to it that made me jump a few times and it being in 3d made those scenes a little scarier.
I thought Wes craven did a very good job in another crave classic .He blended all the aspects of a good horror movie story line, scenery, good old fashion slasher, and some good acting by the lead character Max Thieriot who played the supposed disturbed teen very well.
I am a big fan of Wes Craven's movies, he really made a good mark on the horror genre with movies like "A Nightmare On Elm Street" (The 1984 original) and "Scream" along with the original versions of "The Hills Have Eyes" and "The Last House On The Left".
Plot is basically the same as Elm Street 2, and that's interesting - Wes Craven borrowing heavily from a sequel to one of his movies, but MSTT suffers from trying to hard to be too smart and complex, instead of being a simple straight-forward slasher film.
i love horror movies that start fast,i hate horror movies were the first 45min is all talk,,not this.i thought the story was good and the tension is fairly high throughout.for a teeny slasher i think this is better than most being made these days,which isn't hard, but not done enough.i hope to see more movies by craven after his long break after a new nightmare in 1994,,,in this day and age its criminal that a writer and director with that much talent takes a 16 year break while the rest of us have to watch really bad horror films like,sorority row,paranormal activity,pandorum,13 ghosts,drag me to hell,don't even get me started on rob zombie,that man is a talentless buffoon,not a horror director,,,anyway enough ranting,my soul to take is a nice little gem..
It wasn't until someone lent me this movie was when I finally got round to watching it and my outcome was that it's not that bad.Directed by Wes Craven, his first written movie since 1994's New Nightmare, he has directed some gems in his time such as (Nightmare On Elm Street, The Hills Have Eyes, Scream Trilogy, The People Under The Stairs and Red Eye) but he has also made some dregs such as (Deadly Friend, The Hills Have Eyes 2, Wishmaster and Cursed) But this one I have to say falls somewhere in the middle not great but not terrible either.When it comes down to it, My Soul to Take is a muddled mess of a film that has bright spots which give you glimpses into what could have been something special.
A rather strange slasher movie but not exactly nearly as bad as people have been saying and me personally I've seen way worse than this film, its also not a complete cliché driven mess, its a little different because even though its a teen slasher, the characters aren't the type of teens that just want to smoke dope, drink and have sex and are completely stupid.The characters are actually an odd bunch but some of them are quite likable, the dialog ranges from cheesy lines to a few lines that actually made me smile at times, the concept of the film is pretty good but there is hardly any suspense, the kills are too straight forward as in they just happen, its a question of "bah" you're dead, there's no creepy build up, no sense of dread and no atmosphere.Overall, MY SOUL TO TAKE is not that bad, it is entertaining enough to pass the time but its not really suspenseful, the one thing I agree on is this is not Wes Craven's best work, compared to his classics that need no introductions, this is one of Craven's weaker films..
Needless to say that My Soul to Take ended up being atrocious, and particularly disappointing for those of us who expected the triumphal comeback from legendary director Wes Craven to the horror genre.The screenplay from this film is very badly written, mainly because I found its pseudo-juvenile drama so boring that I was glad when the killer started to finish the antipathetic characters.