Overrated and overhyped

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

First! OK, when you have to find everyone who worked on the film to come in giving this bad movie 9-10 stars... Wow, that's sad. MST3K called attention to this movie where it would have gotten *none*, I'm pretty sure you should be thanking them instead of whining and trying to mess with IMDb's score. No. This movie was not good. That's fine! It wasn't horrible, but it was perfect for riffing. And the "attacks on Vivian!"? She really does look like Tonya Harding which was a big thing going on during that time. Just...stop!MOVIE: The story wasn't bad, I won't lie. When I first watched the movie I was 15 and an aspiring writer myself, I looked past all the laughs I got from the MST3K version (so many laughs) and somehow I got to watch the full movie (I think SciFi played it?) and I was a little more impressed. This was probably the first movie that made me think "maybe I can be a writer!" ... Until I aged a bit. Having a decent but very THIN plot doesn't make for a good movie. It moves at a snails pace half the time to stretch out the run time (it's been "almost midnight" for an hour!). Creeping mother bath scene, Joe walking around in attempts to catch... someone with no legs? There were just too many scenes that make you think it should have been half the time and know it wouldn't have lost any plot. The camera work was terrible, though. It was shaky-cam when it needed not be and unnatural/bad angles. Not flattering at all. I have a great deal of respect for Ms. Vivian for writing and staring in her own story and she's made an adorable movie I just watched recently! If this had been a book she wrote, I probably wouldn't have put it down. As a movie it did not work at all. Cast and crew gave the vibe of not really caring ...or just trying too hard? Not sure which, but that's what ruined the movie for me personally.

I just have a few things to say:First, a man in a black coat, with lots of eye shadow, is not scary no matter how much ominous music you play. Neither is a rather pudgy looking fellow who sounds like he is speaking into a fan.Secondly, I seriously doubt that any TV channel would interrupt their broadcast for a single car accident. And if they did, what kind of news network would give you such info as who died in a car accident, and exactly what time thy will pull the plug on the survivors?Thirdly, if you spent almost a whole movie making a black coated man seem ominous, scary even, why would you then have him go all soft an mopey, and really not scary at all, in the end?Lastly, if you are trying to make an exciting horror movie, why would you have long periods of nothing going on, with a it of dramatic music thrown in for no reason?

where the only positive reviews are given by film crew and their family members?I really didn't mind Soultaker (and yes, I've seen both original version on VHS and MST3k version), but after reading some reviews over here, which are ironically given by director, producer, actors and their family members, I just couldn't resist to do a review here. On it's own, Soultaker, isn't original story as some other reviewers claim (it's a clear Carnival of Souls rip off, which is, ironically, Twilight Zone episode rip off) but the concept of Grim Ripper going after group of lost souls isn't exactly the theme that happens often in horror industry. Screenplay has some OK moments, but it clearly needed more work and help from more expired writers. but what crack me up was "review" of director Michael Rissi where he just keep telling how good his movie was and how he manage to find every single excuse why his movie sucks. It's MST3K fault, right? Get serious. I understand that "Soultaker" had very limited budget, but again, budget doesn't have to play all that much. If you don't believe me, here are few examples: Robert Rodriguez with his first movie, and for "true underground", Turkish director Can Evrenol, who made some of the best short horror movies ever for budget no bigger then $2000 combined. You can't blame everyone else for lack of directing skills. Direction wasn't a complete disaster, but none of the camera movement really stood out. It has some OK moments, but nothing special. I am in industry myself (as a screenwriter, in my native language, currently preparing for first directorial debut) and some young directors that worked on my script were brilliant. On top of that, they worked with far less budget then "Soultaker" but manage to film a lot better movie. But to be honest, Soultaker does have some descent moments that were nicely directed. It's clear that budget (or lack of it) was important factor for this movie. As other guys said, with higher budget, better director and crew and more professional actors, "Soultaker" might have been a bit better and would not end up just as another MST3K fodder.I might sound a bit harsh, but I was really provoked by level of arrogance from "Soultaker" crew giving those reviews. Isn't that forbidden, btw? As far as I know, directors and producers aren't allowed to write reviews about their own movies. Anyway, Michael Rissi did gain some skills on his next few movies (all of them which are lot better then ST) and hopefully "Soultaker" would become "Alien 3" of David Fincher.final verdict: "Soultaker" while not something that I would gladly recommend, isn't that bad as IMDb bottom 100 suggest. There are far worse movies out there (try watching MANOS. If you survive, you know you'll survive ANY movie). Sadly, "Soultaker" ended up being a descent concept which had horrible execution.

Vivian Schilling's story is the only redeeming quality to this flawed film. From the posts listed on this site, I see that those Mystery Science Theatre 3000 goofballs used this as one of their targets. To be honest, it is an easy target. The "bull's eye" comes from poor production values and terrible casting. Although Vivian Schilling is no Meryl Streep and Gregg Thomsen is far from George Clooney, they do an adequate job. The miscast came with the Angels of Death.VIOLENCE: $$ (Not too much violence, unless you call soul-sucking a violent undertaking. Estevez does get thrown out the window - which also signifies the trajectory of his career - but there aren't any Rambo machine gun scenes or Michael Myers stabbings).NUDITY: $ (Vivian teases us while she undresses to take a bath, while her mother watches! I can only imagine what the Mystery Science guys have to say during that scene).STORY: $$$ (Although not strong, Schilling's strong storytelling abilities are degraded by the poor production values. She gives us an interesting plot but Michael Rissi's carefree direction ruin a decent script).ACTING: $ (Joe Estevez and Robert Z'Dar might just be the two absolute worst actors ever to grace cinema. Cardboard cutouts would have made for an upgrade over those two guys. Their work as the two Angels of Death, dig the six foot hole for Soultaker to rest in).