Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 13
  2. Negative: 8 out of 13
Watch On
  1. 25
    I watched at least a quarter of My Soul to Take, the worst horror movie Wes Craven's made perhaps ever, with the glasses off. It was shot - and is available - in a standard format, and, like many conversions, the 3-D gimmick is like watching a movie through an ashtray.
  2. 25
    This waking nightmare from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" creator is a puzzle with no solutions, a tale with a twist that isn't a twist at all.
  3. 0
    This utterly mediocre forget-me-now could've been crafted by any faceless serial director at all. The shame of it is that the man behind the camera is Wes Craven when, by all rights, it should have been Alan Smithee.
  4. Wes Craven's first new movie in five years is a brainless, joyless, and yes, you might even say, soulless teen slasher.
  5. 30
    All might be good for a flask-to-the-theater laugh, if not for the unconscionable price gouging.
  6. Sadly, there's not an ounce of tension or a single decent scare to be found amid any of this convoluted mayhem.
  7. Reviewed by: Dennis Harvey
    This dumb, derivative teen slasher movie would be uninspiring coming from any writer-director, let alone one with several genre classics under his belt.
  8. 33
    As for the 3-D, much ballyhooed in the film's advertisements, it's another muddy conversion that does little but make the film's unconvincing blood effects look a little darker. It's good, theoretically at least, to have Craven back. But why come back for this?
User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 101 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 10 out of 27
  2. Negative: 14 out of 27
  1. Oct 24, 2010
    Ok, i'm seriously disillusioned by the bad hype given by critics for this film. I watched this film minus any expectations, except that itOk, i'm seriously disillusioned by the bad hype given by critics for this film. I watched this film minus any expectations, except that it would have a Craven touch to it. I walked from the theater smiling, while slightly jaded by the totally unnecessary use of "3-D" in the film (jackass 3d used it more effectively, ha), i was impressed and deeply entertained by the self-referential and retro feel of this silly sleazy slick horror film. It's a given that every cliche in slasher-film history is at dispense, but Craven has damn fun with this. I immediately felt like I was watching an 80s slasher with a modern production aesthetic and a smirky, nearly slapstick attitude. The unknown cast confidently portrayed a delicious slew of campy horror cliche characters in a manner that felt fresh and well timed. I laughed more in the theater (as did the thin audience) than feeling any true sense of dread or nervousness, but that seemed to not be the focus of this 'scary' movie. If you appreciate 'B' horror films (mainly from the 80s slasher variety) Craven's direction will tease and delight you with its silliness, but tantalize you with its freshly cut violent scenes. Seriously though! I was shocked to see how negatively this film has been discussed. Come on people, open up to the true fun of camp. And not camp by way of poor piss acting, uneven pacing, asinine storytelling, and just bad production values... this is creamy classy camp love project from Wes Craven... it's silly cast is quite quotable to boot! It seems like most reviewers/critics of this film have missed the point, and disregarded the slick, fun production Craven crafted for this popcorn experience. 3D was added after filming and was totally unnecessary though, but the movie was worth my $12.50, maybe another. Full Review »
  2. Dec 3, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. I was pretty shocked after watching this. I can't believe that Wes Craven wrote and directed this poorly written, poorly cast and poorly executed mess. The basic idea was a solid, if pretty familiar feeling, concept for a slasher pic. A dead killer may or may not be alive and killing kids on the anniversary of his death. It may actually be the malevolent spirit that inhabited his body coming back in the form of someone else to kill. Okay, a little muddled but okay. We set up the premise that the group of potential victims are seven kids born on the night of his death sixteen years ago. Okay, getting a bit more convoluted than I like and not completely understandable but I'm on board. All of these are acceptable because I know that Wes Craven is enough of a skilled hand at this genre that he will make them clear and work within the confines of the picture. Right? Guess again.

    This flick is a totally botched job from the get-go. Often times during the picture, we know that Craven is trying to do the Kevin Williamson thing and keep us guessing about stuff but instead I found myself just confused as to what was going on. This is especially jarring because I knew how the story ended very early on and I was still confused.

    At least the picture had some good jumps, false scares and suspenseful sequences, yeah? I mean this is a Wes Frickin' craven film, after all... Nope. When this film wasn't leaving me befuddled, it was just boring and depressing. There was no life to this picture. The characters all either seemed worthy of death or so morose and haunted that death would be sweet release for them. It felt like a bad Emo singer had decided to write and direct a ripoff of 90's horror films. All I can say is that I pray Craven is feeling a bit more himself during the filming of the new "Scream" picture or it's going to be a very sad end to a highly enjoyable franchise.
    Full Review »
  3. Nov 15, 2011
    I found My Soul to Take as a entertaining movie written & directed by Wes Craven. Not the best movie of the year (2010), but a funI found My Soul to Take as a entertaining movie written & directed by Wes Craven. Not the best movie of the year (2010), but a fun entertaining film to see. I'd say recommend it. Full Review »