IMDb > Soulkeeper (2001) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Soulkeeper More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]
Index 55 reviews in total 

15 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

sometimes you luck out

Author: sdufton from ny
20 April 2004

I rented this movie cause I heard it wasn't bad and I gotta tell ya, it wasn't bad... it was surprisingly good! Alright, so it is kinda low budget (although the special effects looked on par with most studio flicks) but the acting, direction, suspense, monsters were convincing and intriguing enough to keep me more entertained than most stuff in theaters. It's a silly movie, but if you like throwback flicks that combine horror and comedy (like Fright Night and Evil Dead) this is right up your alley.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Well, well, maybe not all is lost after all...

Author: fusejmp from (e.g. London, England)
21 February 2003

I have to say, I bumped into Soulkeeper one night and I really thought I was watching an '80s horror movie. Cool music, a PLOT, babes, the works. But imagine my surprise when I come to imdb to find that it's actually a post-90's! Is there a mistake here? Did something good actually come out from the ashes after the dreaded '90s? My first thoughts are that maybe the guys behind this flick somehow got frozen in time and have recently found their way through to make a nice experience of a movie for us among all of the crap that's running around.

Now don't take me wrong, this is not a classic (doesn't seem to be), may not even be a cult-film, but it sure is a relief and NOT a waste of time. Well worth watching.

Way to go.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

This is Hilarious!

Author: blzoe from United States
28 September 2006

This film is full of sly humor, and the two leads are extremely likable. The story is silly, and the special effects are a little primitive sometimes...but I didn't care! I was very entertained.

Terrence and Corey are thieves commissioned to steal a rock that allows the owner to corrupt souls. Or something like that; it really doesn't matter. The fun is in watching them doggedly forge ahead through supernatural obstacles to complete the job. There are great throwaway lines, so you really need to pay attention. And there are also some fun visuals; I don't want to spoil anything, but the scene involving the Civil War almost made me split a seam.

The relationship between the two leads was actually kind of touching...whatever sins these two may commit, they are unflaggingly loyal to each other.

My only complaint is that I found it nearly impossible to understand Brad Dourif. He was using a French accent I could barely penetrate. But it's always fun to see him in a movie.

If you are looking for lots of scares, gore, or a story that makes complete sense, this may not be the flick for you. But if you'd like to have a little supernaturally-tinged fun, you should check this one out.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Delightful supernatural adventure.

Author: pantagruella ( from London, UK
15 December 2003

This is a very entertaining film which I only discovered through the now essenjtial combination of eBay and the IMDB.

The two leads, who remind me of a young John Ritter and a young Patrick Swayze, are likeable. They master that difficult trick of showing spiritual development whilst being funny. Their confessions are delightful: "I once owned a copy of Judas Priest's Unleashed in the East".

There'a great cast of support players including Brad Dourif, Robert Davi and Karen Black.

The direction is very smart, with plenty of good tricks. I liked the snaring of the heroes in their first assault on Simon Magus's mansion.

Simon Magus! That's a nice piece of Christian lore to firm up the story's background.

The plotting is neat with some of the less understandable interludes made clear at the film's resolution which had a surprisingly wistful quality.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Good Old-fashioned Fun

Author: jic-1 from Camberley, England
2 November 2003

Despite being released in 2001, this is a mid-'80s Comedy-Horror movie, like *Fright Night* and *Night of the Creeps*. I don't mean that it is a tribute to mid-1980s Comedy-Horror movies, or a pastiche of mid-'80s Comedy-Horror movies, I mean it *is* a mid-'80s Comedy-Horror movie! It has the same kind of humour, the same kind of plot and dialogue, and the same kind of cast as those movies. Its also so low-budget that it's not even filmed in Canada, another thing that has been rare since the mid-1980s. If you loved the aforementioned movies, you will love this movie. At the same time, despite what I've just written, it doesn't *feel* like an exercise in '80s nostalgia. This is a very enjoyable movie, and, if it wasn't for some gratuitous nudity and strong language, an ideal family movie. Still, I did like the gratuitous nudity...

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Better than one might expect

Author: memattohyeah from San Francisco, California
30 October 2003

For a low brow, low budget horror film this one is actually better than usual. Some of the jokes are actually amusing, the performers are lively and the special effects are actually quite good. Not all the bits are successful - but how can you go wrong with Karen Black as a fortune teller/psychic/manicurist who projectile vomits all over co-star Rowland while levitating during a 'seance'. The cast is rounded out by Robert Davi, Brad Dourif, Tiny Lister and Deborah Gibson appearing ever-so-briefly as herself!

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Good 80's style fun

Author: avideodrome from Kent, United kingdom
24 October 2003

This movie is an amusing homage to the 80's action-horror. It has a risible plot, poor special effects (The monsters are bad actors in ridiculous masks)and some decidely bad scripting..However it was a really fun experience, It made me feel like a kid again. It was an eighties film with better clothes! The two main characters worked well together, and had a good buddy-chemistry thing, some truly funny scenes (There's a scene where a demon turns into his mother during a sex act that's particulary good) Overall I'd say that if you want a good wry chuckle and a burst of nostaglia for those truly cheesy movies of the eighties watch it!

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Better than most direct to video horror films

Author: jklein8787 from Jamwelkowski, IL
15 October 2001

Ok, this isn't that bad. What saves this film is the fact that the comedic scenes are sometimes actually funny. Most horror comedies strive to be scary and funny but lack both. this doesn't try to be scary, it isn't. It is funny at times and worth a look for when you are in the mood for a cheesy horror/comedy that has lots of nudity and cheesy monster effects plus cameos by Robert Davi, Michael Ironside, Karen Black, and Brad Dourif.

The plot is about two losers who steal objects for rich people and get paid for doing so. They get hired by Dourif who wants them to steal this medallion that can capture your soul. From there, it gets crazy and all sorts of mayhem comes about.

This is more or less a party movie to watch with friends who can't seem to pay attention to most horror movies. It's fun but you could do a lot better.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

Great movie if you know what you're getting into!

Author: nefylym from United States
26 November 2005

OK, first of all, this movie is a wacky horror comedy flick, pure and simple. It's like From Dusk till Dawn's lesser known brother. Don't go in expecting poetry, or deep plot... but the dialog and the writing in general, are phenomenal, on the level of Joss Whedon's wit and sarcasm, easily. "Tiny" puts in a marvelous, though very stereotypical, performance as your mean tough guy. Brad Dourif is likewise a fantastic actor, too bad he doesn't get more recognition.

The set up is, two guys (who aren't exactly on the right side of the law) are tasked to what amounts to in the end as taking down a Christian necromancer... now if that ain't an oxymoron i don't know what is. Basically this ancient dead guy is manipulating souls to forge an army and these two goof balls are all we have to rely on. Classic.

The movie is meant for a good time, and cheap fun, as such, it succeeds phenomenally. It even manages to get slightly existential, and deals with the power of the human soul in a world of fading faith.

But the occasional monster special effects still suck. This is what happens when a good script gets a cheap production.

I heartily recommend it!

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The box cover sucks, but the movie rocks

Author: scocerer from Long Island, New York
20 April 2004

It's sad because, if this movie was marketed differently, it could've been a hit! When you look at the cover, which has a mean-looking monster with long fangs and dripping saliva, you think you'll be renting a typical direct-to-video horror flick with bad effects, horrible acting, no imagination and cheese everywhere. Soulkeeper is better than any direct-to-video horror film I've seen, but you'd never know it by looking at the box. First of all, it's not a horror film. It's a funny as hell comedy with some scares thrown in to wink at the audience. Second of all, that monster on the cover??? He's not even in the movie!! The monster in the movie is better. Why wasn't it on the cover??? Thirdly, the film just rocks. Funny one liners, hot chicks, believable creature FX, awesome CG FX, and just an overall fun ride. It ain't a classic, but it sure would've got me to rent it sooner if it was just marketed as what it is: a fun adventure film. They should really consider repackaging it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 6:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Ratings External reviews Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history