Lost Souls (2000)

Lost Souls is certainly one of the most gorgeous-looking movies to come out in 2000. The cinematography has a striking, visual texture reminiscent of old photographs, all the color bleeding out into rich and evocative shades of grey and black. The movie doesn't quite live up to its look, though it's not without its pleasures. The broader outlines of its story--about a true-crime writer (Ben Chaplin) who discovers, through the efforts of a former victim of possession (Winona Ryder), that he's about to become the Antichrist--lack any surprises or ingenuity. But individual scenes are largely well-written, spookily directed, and acted with commitment and intensity. Chaplin is particularly good, Ryder does her best, and a crew of superb character actors (including John Hurt, Elias Koteas, and Philip Baker Hall) flesh out the skeletally scripted supporting characters with skill and intelligence. Some of the special effects go a little overboard, but the movie is surprisingly free of the cheesy, demonic posturing and portentous speeches that afflict too many religious thrillers. Fans of The Exorcist or The Omen may find Lost Souls to be a modest but flavorful variation on the "devil-is-coming-to-get-you" genre. --Bret Fetzer Amazon.com

Beautiful Horror Film?

Maya Larkin formerly possessed and now saved, embarks on a journey to save the world from its ultimate end: the physical manifestation of the devil and the end of the world. She finds who will be the perversion of Christianity: Peter Kelson. Born of incest, he will become incarnation of the devil on his 33rd birthday (see the inversion of Christian tradition?). Or will he? Is Maya a religious nut, going too far? Is Peter really who they say he is? Can the world be saved from this ultimate perversion?

I must say, I am not surprised by the rather poor ratings this movie has gotten. It is not your typical horror film. Imagine someone telling you that you will become the devil incarnate and produce a reign of terror on earth that will end it all for the human race? Pretty heavy stuff, but I find this discourse fascinating.

In an unfair comparison to The Exorcist, I will try to explain how Lost Souls may not be understood. The Exorcist is riveting and frightening. It asks you questions of faith, but in a covert manner that can actually be ignored. Lost Souls is a little more in your face about what and why people believe what they do. Maya Larkin asks a priest how he can be so certain in his faith in God, but he can not put any thought or belief into the existence of His adversary, the devil. Maybe that's too blatant for regular audiences.

And yes, this is a beautiful film. It is visually and phonetically engaging. The evil "tricks" are subtle, and organic (nothing seems impossible or over the top). It frightens.

If the ordinary horror films do not scare or engage you enough, give this film a try. But if you like something a little more mainstream, definitely pick up The Omen or The Exorcist instead.
October 29, 2008

Makes the Ant-Christ Less Worry-some...;)

So, I got this as a VHS at a yard sale for my husband about 2 years ago, being as we collect Horror/Suspense/All that Spooky or Funny Crap movies, and he has worn out the sound tracking. I'm not going to tell you it's some sort of genious film, but it's quite amusing and entertaining. Winnona does her usual spooky gal thing, and Ben Chaplin (son of the spectacular Charlie) is believable and personable...what more could you ask from the guy who plays the Anti-Christ? Really? Anyway, I just got it again on DVD for my guy, so that ought to tell you something. May 25, 2008

Dumbing Satan Down

A very good film speculating upon the advent of the
Antichrist.

The plot was interesting, but had some
very large omissions that made the film
less interesting than it could have been.
[spoiler] For example, how did our heroes
know to be waiting for the clue as to
who the Antichrist would be?

Artistically, it is excellent.
I particularly liked the way the three
exorcisms were presented.

The acting is very good.
The two main characters played by Winona Ryder (Maya)
Ben Chaplin (Peter) were convincing and had some depth
(which cannot be taken for granted in films today).

[spoiler] The two scenes where Maya experiences a
waking dream/vision, or not, make no sense
whatsoever and add nothing to the story.
Appears to be an excuse to trot out some
special effects. Why?

[spoiler] The Antichrist, whom will rule over the world
for a time is not clever enough or powerful enough
to avoid being destroyed by a woman with a gun?
In addition, Christian revelation holds that the
Antichrist will rule, not that it can be avoided somehow.

[spoiler]How do you know when Satan is in the house?
When it is 6:66 o'clock (laugh out loud). March 8, 2008

Not that bad...

Its sad but, whenever Winona Ryder goes into a video store she hides copies of 2000's "Lost Souls" ..she is embarrassed I guess. I guess she has never seen Renee Zellweger in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: Next Generation"? The cinematography is easily the highlight of the film but, I found it to be atmospheric as well as dark, which is obviously a good look for any horror movie. The acting is good also. The films weakness' are parts of the script and the ending.. a few small changes like the whole "my birthday's tomorrow" plot point should have never made it past the cutting room floor. Plus a more solid ending was much needed. Some minor changes and "Lost Souls" may have been a real winner! October 13, 2006

Saw this in the theater: wanted my money back

My boyfriend (now husband) and I went to see this movie in the theater, thinking it would be a great horror flick about battling the devil and an impending apocalypse. It was so dull and slow-moving that he fell asleep through most of it. The ending, when NOTHING happens, was the most aggravating part of all. Don't waste your time or money on this cinematic flop. April 7, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...