William Samuel The deservedly overlooked Soultaker tells the story of four teenagers who crash their car into a telephone pole a high speeds, but don't die- at least not right away. Although their bodies enter a coma, their souls remain conscious, although totally unaware of what's happened to them. Before long they're attacked by the titular Soultaker (Joel Estevez), one of many angels of death, who has come to… wait for it… take their souls. Will the teens elude fate? Can they make it to the hospital before their parents pull the plug on them? Did they hire any writers, or just mash together clichés from other horror films?So yeah, Soultaker is basically another dead teenager movie, but without all the blood and gore. As such, it won't cause utter revulsion in most reasonable audiences, like the Hellraiser and Friday the 13th sequels did, but doesn't offer much of an attraction for goremiesters, or anyone else for that matter. The problem is that while there's nothing particularly horrible or inept about it, there's nothing very good about it either. It looks rather cheesy, none of the characters are especially interesting, and the whole thing proceeds rather slowly.It's also not all that scary. Sure, there's a bad guy trying to kill them (although since they're already disembodied spirits re-kill might be a better term) but he moves rather slowly, like he doesn't really want to catch them. Which is odd, because if he doesn't, he'll have to give up his soul as a penalty. Maybe he's having a hard time because Natalie (Vivian Schilling) reminds him of his girlfriend from back when he was human, and he's beginning to fall in love with her. Between the kill or be killed aspect of his job, and the creepy affection he seems to feel for Natalie, it's possible that the Soultaker isn't really evil, but is himself just a victim of fate. Unfortunately the movie keeps going back and forth on this question, so we never get a straight answer.The movie also fails to answer important question about the state the teenagers find themselves in. For starters, what exactly are they? I get that they're disembodied spirits, but what is their relation to the material plane? They're not ghosts; they can interact with their physical environment in ways like opening doors and firing shotguns, and they also appear bound by the laws of gravity. But they can't be seen or heard by other people, and I'm pretty sure there was a brief shot which suggested they don't appear in mirrors, which is all the more confusing because usually things without a reflection don't have souls. I also would like to know more about the rings that the Soultaker uses to take souls, but no luck there either. I was unable to find much online about the production or marketing of this film, except that co-star Vivian Schilling also co-wrote it and co-produced it in hopes of starting a successful acting career. That didn't happen, but apparently she did become a fairly successful writer of supernatural fiction, so at least some good came out of this project. All in all, Soultaker isn't a terrible movie, or unwatchable, but it lacks any compelling reason for you to watch it. There's a lot worse out there, but there's also a lot better.

Anders Twetman 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?

Seth Nelson But at least this movie got what it deserved - to be sent to the Satellite of Love to be ridiculed on by Mike, Tom Servo, and Crow T. Robot from Pearl Forrester on "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" "Soultaker" is one of those long lost, forgotten movies that are so bad you'll be guaranteed to have nightmares or depression later on in life. Even though the movie is not that old, it's still a very forgotten type of movie. If it had never been for the intelligent minds at "Mystery Science Theater 3000," the movie would not only seem like it was never made, but the movie wouldn't be very enjoyable by us moviegoers.In real life: this movie is really bad. In the Satellite of Love: this movie is excellent!

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.