BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

a_d_delpiero10 I will admit that I have only seen the MST3k version of Soultaker, which is a great episode by the way, probably in my top 3. After viewing I was interested to see how the film was rated on IMDb. I was somewhat surprised to see it had an overall rating of 2 (at time of writing).I have read a few reviews including the rare and insightful comments from the Director and feel it has been unfairly represented on IMDb. Ultimately I don't think it warrants its position in the notorious Bottom 100.Although the episode was good, this is not typical MST3k garbage. Trying watching Space Mutiny, Werewolf or Future War, which have similar IMDb ratings, to illustrate my point. All of these examples would be very hard to swallow without the quips from Mike and the team.In defence of Soultaker: The concept at the time was probably quite original, the sound and editing is reasonably good and at times generates genuine suspense (not typical of the Bottom 100 films I have seen) and the acting is not hopeless (Vivian Schilling's performance probably most notable).I will not deny that there are some issues with execution though and plot inconsistencies. Taking into account all this, the budget and the fact that the MST3k version I have seen was probably edited to suit I think this is worthy of 6 out of 10.

foundationrecords I have read quite a few comments about "Soultaker" and how bad the movie is or isn't. As a filmmaker myself I can tell you that given the same set of parameters most of the heavy critics on here would have a completely different opinion of Soultaker or most movies done on a low budget if they worked in the business. I had the honor of distributing this film for A.I.P. Studios when it came out. It will go down as one of the most successful selling movies I carried during my time as a distributor. The video stores ate it up, and it rented very well. There was an entire industry devoted to making low budget or "B" movies especially back then. A.I.P. Studios, PM Entertainment, Raedon Home Video, these companies put out product every month that was well received by video stores, the makers of these films had to be clever in giving the audience production value and compared to today were high definition CGI is the norm, that was simply not the case back then and to make a comparison is ridiculous. Can you imagine what these talented filmmakers could do with a big studio budget. I can tell you making low budget movies can be challenging and I believe that is why a lot of us do it, to see how good we could do with such limitations. There are plenty of films that really don't deliver what you think they should with an all star cast and a $50 million dollar budget. The playing field is different and that's part of the magic. I directed a picture called "Meltdown" with Joe Estevez and Robert Zdar in it strangely enough and I can tell you that both of them are not only great people to work with but are excellent actors to boot. That is how "B" movies are done, they have either an actor like Joe who comes from a famous acting family or they are older "A" actors that are no longer at the top of the heap, for example: Christopher Plummer, Martin Landau, David Carridine(RIP), Tony Curtis and list goes on. All of these people are fantastic actors and well recognized by the public and a great value to a low budget film. I am glad to see after all this time Soultaker is now a cult classic and has it's place in movie history a time that I wish would come back. Business was incredible back then and Soultaker certainly delivered, so Vivian if you read this my hat is off to you for your efforts and I wish you the best. I know you write books now but it would be great if you would do more movies the business could use your talent.

Tyler Van Putten Soultaker is not as bad a film as some would make it out to be, but it is still not good. The directing is well-done, and I think one of the better areas of the film. Joe gives a good performance; all the other actors are decent, save for David Shark, who is sub-par.The technical aspects of the film aren't bad. The dialogue is hackneyed at spots, but I think the biggest weakness of the film is its pacing. It starts out well; introducing the characters and setting up the premise, but hits its biggest snag halfway through. The film suddenly stagnates as the characters sit around a house. It appears to be trying to build tension, but instead it's boring and drawn-out. It then picks up the pace again but quickly loses it during the incredibly long hospital sequence at the end. By that time the audience has already figured out where the plot is going and it's all just stretched out to be exhaustingly long.All in all, despite its clearly small budget, it's the underlying screenplay, not the technical aspects, that hurt this movie the most.

zerocool5856 I find it funny that the director would actually come on IMDb and post his feelings on MST3k's take on his movie, and yet completely overlook the fact that his movie might've just been bad. Not the worst that I've ever seen (I'm afraid Carnosaur has that distinction), but let's face it; it wasn't that great either. I will admit that the cinematography was actually pretty decent, and that the locations were actually pretty nice. As for the actual story, script, dialogue, casting, actors, acting, and that sort of thing, the movie falls flat. Why don't I pick it apart? The story isn't good. The writer obviously wrote the story as a self-congratulatory piece, one in which she is apparently the beautiful center of the universe. There's nothing exactly original about it, it's been done before, and, without giving anything away, it's been done BETTER before.The script is just awful. Dialogue is stilted, motivations are never very clear, and it's clear that this was a first or second attempt by the writers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or at least surprise me by proving me otherwise. This is like a student film written by freshmen that should never have been marketed.Casting was also pretty bad. There's some sort of class conflict between the lovelorn pair, but it's barely believable. One is the mayor's daughter and the other didn't go to college in a Southern town. Oh, the scandal! It's just like Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story except the characters are so shallow and one-dimensional that you don't really care whether they get together or not. On top of that, the two principal actors are not cast very well, at least insofar as she's upper class and he's working class.The acting's pretty flat. Robert Z'Dar is, of course, deep-throated and mythical, and I like him in a campy, not good movie sort of way. He generally shines in whatever narrow confines he's given. The same is with the other Estevez, who appears to be a decent actor who never really got a fair shake. The rest, well, I fear that they were either summer stock or newbies to the acting scene, because their acting was either very affected, over-the-top campy, or missing. Watching some scenes was more like watching a live performance of Das Boot by Miss Newsome's 8th grade class; actors would obviously forget lines, botch them, or improv them unconvincingly. If they actually stuck to the script, BOY would I be surprised.Skip this one. Please, save yourself two hours to crochet a beer cozy or solve a kitten puzzle or kick dogs, but don't abuse yourself with a movie like this. Even with Robert Z'Dar.