User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 54 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 22 out of 54
  2. Negative: 24 out of 54

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 10, 2014
    I honestly enjoyed this film a lot. There was a bad use of cgi, but overall it was really entertaining. It's a good movie to watch late a night at a sleepover with your girls.
  2. Nov 27, 2013
    I think the dialogues between the main character and his best friend are the only thing that make this movie bearable. It is full of clichés, unnecessarily long and make you feel bad for the horror master created this movie, Wes Craven.
  3. Nov 15, 2013
    I can write the biggest and best critic of all time, but even so, will not be possible express how bad this film is, and it becomes even more disturbing by the director be 'Wes Craven'.
  4. Aug 28, 2013
    My soul to take is awesome one of the most scarests horror movies i've seen it gave me the creeps if you haven't seen it download it or watch it on netflix it's awesome
  5. Jul 8, 2013
    Despite receiving a lot of criticism I still thoroughly enjoyed this creepy little Thriller from Wes Craven, and its now the second time I've seen it. Perfect film to get you thinking also as it's a mysterious Thriller where you need to guess who the killer might be, similar to 'Scream' films. A great group of young actors and characters, as well as having some jumpy moments. The best thing was it held your interest the whole way through, and if you have the DVD check out the alternate endings! Expand
  6. Jul 7, 2013
    If their intention is to make a slasher without any story and good thing inside it. Well then, I think they've made a really-really-really great job. (y)
  7. Jul 1, 2013
    Holy cow was this movie bad. It uses the stupidest clichés in the stupidest ways possible. There's no tension, not a single scary moment, and it's painful to sit through. Wes Craven made this? I don't get how you can be the man who supposedly tore clichés apart with Scream, I haven't seen it yet), and still make crap like this. Every single moment which is supposed to be scary is hilarious, and you can tell it wasn't purposefully done that way either. The two leads could have been good in a well written movie, but no one can emerge from this unscathed. I can go on forever about how bad this film is, but that would be a waste of time. Just don't see it. Expand
  8. Apr 5, 2013
    this was one of the most confusing movies i've ever seen. it hardly made any sense at all. i was really disappointed with this movie because i thought it was gonna be good but it was terrible. wes craven you really disappointed me with this movie
  9. Aug 19, 2012
    Simply brilliant, the story holds us from start to finish. I do not know why so much criticism has rejected the film. The acting is good and the atmosphere is great mystery. Even my father who is not a fan of these films teen terror ended up enjoying the movie.
  10. Feb 6, 2012
    i will not waste my time to write my critic about this movie, because this movie is one of the worst of 2010..No doubt,,not worth watching in DVD AND ESPECIALLY IN THE CINEMA..
  11. 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 fun entertaining film to see. I'd say recommend it.
  12. Nov 9, 2011
    MY SOUL TO TAKE, by far, is Wes Craven's worst film. The acting; horrible. The story; bad, The film; terrible. Some parts were even funny coz they were terrible! Wes Craven...disappointed. It could have been way better.
  13. Aug 18, 2011
    My god. This film was terrible. Really, really, really terrible. Have i ever told you that this Wes Craven movie is a complete **** No story, no acting, no scary moments. Honestly this is not a movie, maybe something useful for the tv.
  14. May 29, 2011
    With a very interesting theme, developed till a part of the film correctly, but almost vanished at the end. Bug is an extremely cute guy, whose gives you the idea of the most innocent person in the world and that further ahead if it makes us rethink is so innocent. The main idea is quite different, multiple souls instead of multiple personalities with a touch of mystical and supernatural to spice up the story had everything to be perfect, but with the progress the plot began to seem too predictable and almost half of the film, as gives notice to the entire plot of intrigue, which makes them lose all the suspense and grace of figure that out in the end. In short, it's a good movie, could have been better if directed it better, really disappointed with Wes Craven. Expand
  15. May 7, 2011
    This is out a doubt Wes Craven's worst movie, it wasn't scary or entertaining. I wouldn't even consider this so-bad-it's-good! He should've just made a return with SCREAM 4 which was absolutely fantastic. Seriously, why was this film in 3D? It had nothing 3D to it! The gore effects were awful, it looked like red **** Seriously! I definitely wouldn't want to see this again.
  16. Mar 12, 2011
    Lousily written, with poor actors and laughable dialog, My Soul to Take is disappointing for Wes Craven and horror film fans worldwide, possibly encouraging him to take another hiatus.
  17. Dec 3, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand 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.
  18. 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 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. Collapse
  19. Oct 16, 2010
    "Tho not Cravens Best , this film is sleazy , predictable & typical. But its also , Fun, Edge of your seat bloody goodness , that will have you guessing till the end. Soul To Take is a great and fun SLASHER movie that will keep you begging for more" .. A+
  20. Oct 14, 2010
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Say you're Bug's guardian; say you're May(Jessica Hecht), and you know that Abel Plenkov(Raul Esparza), the infamous "Riverton Ripper", is Bug's father. Even though sixteen years have passed, you can see for yourself that this small, close-knit community won't give up the ghost, as is the annual tradition, the town recognizes the "Riverton Seven", those inauspicious boys and girls, who by unmitigated happenstance, own birthdays befallen of the same diurnal course as Abel from yesteryear when the schizophrenic mass-murderer died in a fiery ambulance. The accident had set his soul free. Or did it? That's the tried and true, tried and tired, and truly underwhelming mystery behind "My Soul to Take". Are the disposable teenagers getting murdered by a man or a manifestation? So you're May, you should've packed up and left Riverton the moment Bug(Max Thieriot) was born, but you stayed: you, the boy, and the girl, Fang(Emily Meade), the boy's sister(who wallops her younger brother so soundly, she seems to be avenging Michael Myers' older sis from John Carpenter's "Halloween"), even though everybody would have benefited by moving, away from all that familial haunting and corresponding retribution, especially Bug, because if word ever got out about your stepson's legacy, he'd be squashed, like a (pun deleted), pun intended. "My Soul to Take" is hard to take; it expects the moviegoer to believe that the secret surrounding Bug's identity could be maintained in a small town like Riverton, where typically, everybody knows everybody else's business. So you're May, you can't protect Bug from the truth about his past anymore: What do you do now? You should kill Bug, that's what, but "My Soul to Take", for some godforsaken reason, doesn't choose Abel's son as the conduit for the Riverton Ripper's extracurricular murdering, not that a killer in a Condor outfit had any chance to be an icon like Freddy Krueger, but at least it would make the protagonist more pro-active and less of a dweeb. Expand
  21. Oct 13, 2010
    Remember any of the Freddy Kruger movies, or Wes Craven's New Nightmare? Well, here is Craven's newest movie, one that focuses on a psychotic serial killer named, "The Ripper," who stalks this town killing tons of people. The movie opens up in a blur of blood and a ton of graphic violence as The Ripper is almost apprehended, and then it skips sixteen years to a group of friends who are initiating a new member, Bug, into their group. From there on, the movie turns into a gorefest lounging by a pool of blood, as people are gutted, slashed, and smashed in brutally graphic scenes. And yet, the movie still maintains some horror, though it could do a lot better if it just chose a genre already (Slasher flick? Horror movie? Make up your damn mind!). And the ending, god the ending just sucks. Instead of ending it in a dreary, dark tone (Which would've made the movie much better.) Craven decided he wanted it to be a happy, great ending scene. It'll have you shaking your head and walking out feeling disappointed. Also, there are a ton of loose ends that never get tied up. For one, what was up with this demonic crap anyways? At times in the movie people start talking all creepy and deep, like any other horror flick possessed person, yet that is never mentioned. You'd think they'd at least try to give it a crappy explanation. Honestly, I can't recommend this movie, just go watch Nightmare on Elm Street. Expand
  22. Oct 10, 2010
    What the hell crawled up everyone's bum? This movie wasn't that bad at all. The acting is pretty good and the story line was kind of cool. Is it because it's not scary or too terribly bloody? Go see it. Don't think about the movie too much and you might actually enjoy it.
  23. Oct 9, 2010
    A mish-mash celluloid mess! Not the least bit scary or frightening! ANOTHER HUGE MIS-USE OF 3D! COME ON, FILMMAKERS! NOT EVERY MOVIE HAS TO BE IN 3D! CAN'T EVEN TELL THIS ONE IS 3D!
  24. Oct 9, 2010
    Please do not let the words 'Wes Craven' convince you to go to this movie. It's easily the worst horror film i've ever seen, and I'm a fan of horror movies, having seen all the cheesy ones like 2001 Maniacs and Return of the Living Dead up through all the classic ones like Halloween and Friday the 13th. The dialogue in this film, particularly towards the end, just starts to crumble with lines like 'fly away Condor' or eagle or whatever it was that the pathetic imagery was supposed to evoke. The film really unravels after The Stepfather-esque opening and just gets worse from there. There are no 3D effects to speak of in this movie, so if you wasted your $13 or so on the 3D version, please accept my humble condolence. I remember a few years back there was this horror movie called One Missed Call, which was a remake of an earlier film, where there was this housekeeper named Rosa. That movie, too, was a real stinkfest, but at least at one point in the film when Rosa gets the knife, an audience member said loudly 'Poor Rosa' and we all laughed because we knew we'd been suckered into a slick marketing campaign for a terrible film. In My Soul to Take, there's no such luck. There are no laughable audience-inspired dialogue moments. The whole movie is just a complete tank. Go see something else instead and wait with baited breath for the critical trashing of this movie to commence. It's well-deserved. I give this movie a 0 simply to honor the $13.50 I lost at the box office on it. At least the popcorn was good, though! Expand
  25. Oct 8, 2010
    Meh, it was OK i guess. Weak story line and its not really a "Horror Movie" since it fails to scare throughout the entire presentation. Wouldn't recommend wasting your money on.

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 13 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 13
  2. Negative: 8 out of 13
  1. There are plenty of formulaic boo! moments, yet Craven intelligently treats Bug's otherworldly issues like hormonal growing pains that must be tamed.
  2. Sadly, there's not an ounce of tension or a single decent scare to be found amid any of this convoluted mayhem.
  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.