User Reviews

Winona had just had a big hit with "Girl Interrupted," and Ben Chaplin was impressive doing Montgomery Cliff's "The Heiress" part in "Washington Square." So what possessed them to do a cheesy "Exorcist" meets "the Omen" and "Rosemary's Baby" formula movie? In any case, the movie has a good opening twenty minutes and promises real scary stuff to come. You don't know anything about the characters or what's going on and that makes it a little frustrating, but you can forgive the movie for that. Unfortunately, the movie becomes less scary the more the silly plot and characters gets revealed. Probably the silliest moment comes when Winona tells Ben that he fits the profile for the "antichrist" because he's never been baptized. It is hard to see how Winona Horowitz could say such a thing with a straight face.

Apparently the first time director is a great cinematographer. That is usually not such a good thing. Yes, Stanley Kubrick did make the transition, but most cinematographers are too concerned with the lighting and have no idea how to direct actors. That turns out to be the case here, where everybody is just doing monotone line readings.

I confess my love for Winona, but even her presence only makes the film barely watchable and not quite enjoyable or fun.

In this horror effort, Winona Ryder (my has her career fallen) plays a young woman who once went through an exorcism (?) and now finds herself as the one person who can prevent Satan himself from occupying the body of a normally decent enough New Yorker (do decent New Yorkers exist??) Ryder does her best with the supernatural material and Ben Chaplin as the perplexed chosen one is decent. The story and direction (by first time director and award winning cinematographer Janusz Kaminski) rachet up the thrills and suspense and arent afraid to offer a downbeat ending. Sometimes gets obsessed with style over substance however. GRADE: B-

Was this made for TV? Probably went striaght to rental. It's ok for a time filler, nothing much more. Couple of scenes may make you jump, or at least curl your lip. Not tooo slow going, just managed to keep my interest long enough until the anti-climatical ending. It's like reading a book only to find that the last page is missing, but then reaslise that it makes no difference...

The majority of the reviewers of this film were looking for a movie that isn't there at the expenses of seeing the movie that is. Lost Souls is a tightly wound question balanced on the edge of a knife: Is Maya a psycho killer or the savior of mankind? Given the fact that most psycho killers believe they are saviors of mankind, I opt for the psycho killer interpretation. The movie, which is a continuous balancing of the question, never letting up on clues that raise the question further, opts to let us decide. It allows Maya to walk away from the car after murdering the person she had convinced was the devil. At the fade out, one wonders how she had managed to get away with murdering her parents and how many more she will murder before she is finally stopped.

Ryder, whose eyes have always been a vehicle for her acting, uses them chillingly in the scene in which she murders Father Lareaux. Studying Ryder's evolving facial expressions as Maya finds out that the Father won't support her delusions, takes action, and then gloats at the outcome will convince anyone she's crazy.

An incredible performance. Or the way she handles the scene in which Kelson, her intended victim, casts back to his past to test if he really could be the devil. Kaminski bolsters it with the imagery of a deer caught in the headlights of an oncoming car unknowingly escaping, for the moment.

Adding up the body count just bolsters the psycho killer interpretation. By her own hand, she kills: the murderer George Viznik, brain dead; Kelson's girlfriend, Claire Van Owen; Father Lareaux and Kelson himself. Murders at her instigation: the investigator, John Townsend; Kelson's uncle/father; and Kelson's brother.

Take a second look. Watch Maya's eyes. Ask yourself at every turn, is this about the devil, or is this about the here and now, a psycho killer walking invisibly among us.

Throughout the movie I was rather entertained. Granted, there were cheap thrills and a few startling moments, it was a humorous movie. I think that about all horror movies so nothing is special about this one yet. Truthfully, I don't have much to say about this movie. The ending sucks, it is the biggest let down of any movie I have ever seen. The whole audience had no choice but to boo this movie as the credits began to roll. I would not recommend you see this movie, ever. It's not worth the money, go buy a can of paint, I guarantee you'll enjoy watching it dry more than this movie.

There is nothing to say about this movie. IT SUCKED. I love Winona Ryder, and that's the only reason it even gets a 1 out of 10. All the action you see is in the preview, so just watch that. Do not go see this piece of c**p. Go see Digimon instead. It's bound to have more action and mature themes than this 'G' movie.

I can make absolutely no sense of each and every one star review which calls this film horrible as well as the 4.7 rating. It is unfathomable to me. The cinematography alone should warrant a rating of at least 5.

This is a subtle religious horror flick that I have to assume people rejected because of the lack of scares and gore. However, the performances, direction and cinematography are all top notch. Though Lost Souls was marketed to look like a demonic scare-fest, I would compare this film to the likes of The Exorcism of Emily Rose. In fact, I would not be surprised if the makers of that film borrowed quite heavily from this one, both in style and effects.

The premise is relatively simple: A small religious sect believe the coming of the anti-Christ to be near, sitting dormant in a human body.

The biggest praise that I can bestow upon this film is that over 12 years later, this film still looks like it could have been made yesterday. In fact, it looks uncannily more modern than a large majority of recent horror efforts. Lost Souls simply does not age.

Another popular factor in why this movie is so poorly rated and received is the fact that audiences just did not like the ending. I feel sorry for those that do not. The ending is original, and though it did not satisfy blood thirsty Hollywood horror fans, it is very much appropriate for this film. To put it simply without spoiling anything: faith is the central core to Lost Souls, those with it and those without. That is what this ending plays off of, and I think it's perfect. Please do not let any of these negative reviews divert you from seeing this film.

This is not End of Days or Stigmata. Lost Souls is not camp in the slightest. It is a dark, beautifully shot and well acted film that is significantly ahead of it's time.

7/10

Someone thought the constant washed-out, uneven colors and slightly fuzzy image quality were good ideas. Someone also thought sluggish pacing and disjointed storytelling were a good idea as the script starts lackadaisically tossing out kernels of whatever sort of mystery the tale wishes to build. Whether one wishes to point to director Janusz Kaminski as the responsible party or cinematographer Mauro Fiore, someone also had an obsession with close-up shots emphasizing This and That, sometimes from odd angles, but the inclusions feel empty. Some other small inclusions along the way are meant to be creepy, or contribute to the storytelling, but are so abrupt, outlandish, or ill-fitting as they present as to sometimes altogether inspire laughter. What isn't adrift or scattered in 'Lost souls' - admittedly, the very descriptor seems appropriate for the name - is tiresomely heavy-handed and gawky. I don't think this is very good.

There are some very recognizable names and faces appearing here, above all Winona Ryder as one of our chief characters. We know what the actors are capable of, and they've proven themselves before and since, many times over. The acting here feels unfocused and directionless. It's odd, really; Kaminski has enjoyed a long career in the industry as photographer, working with some major directors. In this, the man's own debut as a director, his efforts in that capacity feel lacking, weak, and dull. Then again, maybe it's not his fault - at least not entirely - because the writing of Pierce Gardner and Betsy Stahl is less than impressive. It bears repeating some key words because what applies to one facet ends up applying to the whole, and in turn to all other facets, and these adjectives include: washed-out, fuzzy, sluggish, disjointed, lackadaisical, whatever, odd, empty, outlandish, ill-fitting, adrift, scattered, heavy-handed, and gawky. Whether one wants to chalk it up to a lack of skills, poor decisions, a bad day or a string of bad days, or something else, this picture is astoundingly flimsy, unconvincing, and oafish. So far as I can tell, everyone involved has illustrated their capabilities elsewhere. What happened in this instance?

Nothing comes off well. I don't understand the choices that were made in regards to the work of those behind the scenes, the acting, the direction, or the writing. Just for the fact of the caliber of talent involved one must surely have certain expectations for the feature - why, on top of everything else, Meg Ryan served as producer! I suppose I'm glad for those who get more out of 'Lost souls' than I do, and I must offer my earnest congratulations for such viewers, for I genuinely don't know what they see in it. I watch these 100 minutes and find a title bereft of meaningful rhyme or reason, let alone any strength or vibrancy. From start to finish the proceedings hopelessly flail and flounder, and there's not even a baseline level of entertainment to be taken away from them; I'm not even sure if there was much potential in the first place. By myself I can't stop anyone from watching, but all I can say is that I rather regret spending time with 'Lost souls,' and I strongly recommend just passing this by.

This was a fairly good "Devil" story and certainly worth renting.

GOOD - Decent suspense and cinematography and kudos for pointing out there IS a Satan and converting a non-believer to that fact. Winona Ryder looks very pretty, too, as good as I've seen her. This was before her real-life problems put her in the news and her career took a nosedive. Also the profanity is pretty low in here.

BAD - A somewhat-disappointing finish; some skewed theology (but not as bad as most movies); same cliché scenes where a person should have been shot but the shooter hesitates way too long and is stopped; priests winding up as villains.

OVERALL - it's not a bad film and could have been really good with a tighter script and a little more suspense at the end.

(2000) Lost Souls HORROR

Artificially made in which the premise could've been suspenseful but it's really an unengaging shallow experience. Winona Ryder as Maya and John Hurt as Father Lareaux after coming out of a jail cell after a failed 'exorcism' bit of a local inmate before he goes into a coma. Maya then grabs some papers from his jail cell which is full of written numbers/ codes dabbled by him. Maya later finds out after decoding the numbers that the devil has planned a so-called 'transformation' through another person and he happens to be an author and devil skeptic Peter Kelson (Ben Chaplin) and won't happen until his upcoming birthday. Oblivious and dense that he was a son an incest child and that the church that made claims that he was baptized is really a front for some devil worshippers or cult. A rather plot less film without generating any suspense stating the situations instead.

The fact that so many people hated this film comes as no surprise to me, but not, I believe, because it was a bad film. On the contrary this was a superb film that has, for those willing to look beneath the surface, a much deeper story to be told.

Simply put, the film is not 'feel-good'. The subject matter is disturbing, and challenges one's view of religion and belief in the existence of God and Satan.

As we are taken through the film, the director immerses us in the world Maya Larkin (played very well by Winona Ryder), a person who has previously been demonically possessed. She discovers that a semi-famous author, Peter Kelson (played by Ben Chaplin) is about to become the antichrist incarnate, and obviously sets out to prevent this event.

The plot develops slowly, but inevitably. Excellent use of sound and lighting create a chilling atmosphere, in which it becomes difficult to separate reality from the horrors which the victims have to face. As we approach the climax of the film, things start happening faster and faster, and the plot becomes intentionally a bit confusing. As an audience we are made to empathize with the lead characters as they realise time is running out and their course of action remains unclear, and that all they can do is ride along and try to figure out what is happening before it is too late.

The themes drawn upon in this film are very similar to those in "End of Days" but with far more emphasis placed on the psychological drama - more like "Stigmata" - than on the action and special effects of "End of Days", making Lost Souls in my opinion a far better film.

Be prepared for a major plot twist at the end. The director does not state the obvious, yet we are given clues throughout the film, many of which make little or no sense at the time they are portrayed, but which snap into place if you get the ending. The sudden conclusion and lack of any final explanation communicate the intent clearly enough and left me feeling a bit blown away - although in my opinion left most of the audience feeling confused and let down, expecting more and wondering what happened.

If you can appreciate a well crafted, and subtle film, and prefer a movie that makes you think, and does not necessarily have happy messages, then you should enjoy this film. It forces you into thinking about it, and by no means classifies as light entertainment. If you go to movies to be entertained by action and easy to follow plots, then stay clear - this film was never intended to appeal to most people.

Personally I have seen far too many of those films in recent months and found Lost Souls to be remarkably refreshing.

****SPOILERS**** The movie "Lost souls" starts off with an exorcism of a former mathematics professor Henry Birdson, John Diehl, who's in an asylum after he went mad and murdered his entire family. The exorcism goes terribly wrong with the priest preforming it Father Lareaux, John Hurt, ending up hospitalized with an emotional breakdown.

At the exorcism is Maya Larkin, Winona Ryder, who was herself exorcised when she was thirteen and with all the confusion in Birdson's hospital room Maya grabbed a number of papers that Birdson was writing numbers on that seemed to have been coded only for Birdson to understand. Myra at home trying to decipher Birdson's number code sees on TV Peter Kelson, Ben Chaplin, a writer being interviewed and is oddly attracted to him.

After being exorcised as a little girl Myra, after having her mind and body restored, developed an ability to sense the Devil whenever he was near and had that same kind of felling when she saw Peter on TV. Maya follows her instincts by going to Peter's apartment to see if their, her instincts, right or wrong about him. She also sees that the number code of Birdson has Peter's name spelled out as the the Greek letters X-E-S thats sex backward; which is the numerical equivalent of the Greek number 666. Also when Peter meets Maya he feels a strong attraction to her as if he knows her or knew her sometime in his past and slowly develops a strange friendship with her.

Strange things also begin to happen to Peter after he encountered Maya where his next door and nosy neighbor Mrs. Levotsky, Anna Berger, is later found hanged. Later he's almost killed at a party by John (Elias Koteas), a deacon who knows Maya, when he put a gun to Peter's face only to fail to pull the trigger.

The attempt on Peter's life by someone that Maya knew alerted Peter to Mayra's intentions for him. Later he went to the school where she teaches to confront her only to find out from Maya that he was chosen by the Devil to have his body and soul taken over by him and thus become the Antichrist of Revelaions! This was supposed to happen when Peter reached his 33rd birthday.

Even though this type of story has been done many times before in the movies and TV "Lost Souls" does rise above the level of exploitation that is so common in exorcism movies and the acting by both Chaplin & Ryder is far above of what you'd expect from a film like this.

I especially liked Ben Chaplin who was totally unaware of what the Devil had in store for him until almost the very end of the movie and at first tried to convince himself that all this was just a bad dream. But sadly the truth was far too powerful for him to suppress and in the end it was the Devil who won the battle to take over both Peter's body and soul.

The only thing, for me at least, that dragged down the film "Lost Souls" was it's very unconvincing and contrived ending. That could have been made more effective by the writer of the movie if Peter not Maya was made to put an end to the Devil's, Satan's, evil plan on Earth that he cooked up for Peter. That would have made Peter far more sympathetic to the audience as well as Maya as he already was in the movie up to that point.

Look, I'm a sucker for a good eschatological/apocalyptic thriller. Something totally fascinates me about that stuff. After the sheer stupidity of the illogical 'Stigmata' and especially the lame-brained 'End Of Days', I had a lot of hope for 'Lost Souls'. Sadly, it fails to deliver. Hollywood disappoints yet again!

Winona Ryder plays a troubled young woman who believes that Satan is planning on being reborn in human form, and kicking some Christian ass. Ben Chaplin plays a crime writer who Winona thinks is the Devil in waiting. Instead of just shooting him and doing the world a favour, she forms an uneasy relationship with him. What exactly she plans on doing is hard to say. That's the whole problem with this movie. The 'Se7en'-esque visuals are more important than a decent script. The characters motivations don't really make sense, and as soon as the plot looks like it's going to go is some kind of interesting direction, it doesn't. After a certain point you give up even caring what happens, surely a bad sign in a movie where the whole fate of mankind is at stake?!

Ryder used to be effective as alienated teens back in the late 80s in favourites like 'Beetlejuice' and 'Heathers', but lets face facts, movies like this and 'Girl, Interrupted' show how limited her range really is. She hasn't grown as an actress and is basically just not believable.

Ben Chaplin showed some flair for light comedy in 'The Truth About Cats And Dogs', and had a few outstanding moments in Terrence Malik's wildly uneven and overrated 'The Thin Red Line', but he fails to interest here. Ryder and Chaplin don't show any on screen chemistry or rapport, and this sinks the movie even further into terminal boredom.

The talented character actors in the supporting cast - John Hurt, Kevin Baker Hall, Elias Koteas, John Diehl - are all wasted by the dull and cliched script. Add to that one of the most anti-climactic endings in recent memory, and you've got yourself one lame "thriller" that is a real lost opportunity.

If movies about Satanism, demonic possession, Occult conspiracies and/or The-End-Of-The-World-As-We-Know-It are your scene, avoid this snoozefest and go straight to 'Rosemary's Baby' and 'The Exorcist', both stylish AND genuinely scary classics. After that try the hugely overlooked 80s supernatural Demi Moore flick 'The Seventh Sign', and the more recent Christopher Walken vehicle 'The Prophecy', or the fantastic Spanish comedy/horror 'The Day Of The Beast', both from the mid-90s. These movies all feature more intelligence, originality and suspense than 'Lost Souls' could ever dream of having.

I like seeing movies on their opening night, and it being Friday the 13th my buddies and I decided to see "lost souls." There were some interesting scenes that were morbidly funny in my opinion -- but not worth the cost of a ticket. Do yourself a favor -- wait for the video!

*Mild plot *Bad acting *'Different' cinematography

-Jon (MassMan)

After some consideration, my theory on what is wrong with this film is this:

if you do a good job of building tension and suspense in a movie, you should have something really impressive to show for it at the end. There are many films that somehow missed this logical progression, and this is one of them. I have considered seeing the film again, in the hope that maybe I missed some important bit of information that would have made the climax much more...well, anything, but it's like being dumped. You just can't go through that same thing if you think you're going to end up disappointed again.

Perhaps there is a director's cut hidden somewhere, where they will show us how the film was GOING to end and explain why they didn't use it. We can only hope.

When this movie was released theatrically, I thought I'd wait until its video release because of the awful reviews it initially got. Well, I finally got around to renting this out on DVD and boy was I glad I DIDN'T see this at the movies.

The movie itself runs for approximately 97 minutes, but it will feel like it has run for 5 hours once the closing credits run across the screen. I really like Winona Ryder, but her movie roles she has been choosing as of late have been rather questionable. This one pretty much takes the gold medal for 'worst career choice'.

This movie doesn't really know what it wants to be. "Stigmata 2", "The Exorcist Returns", "The Omen: The New Beginning", "End Of Days II", etc. It takes bits and pieces from about 10 other films that deal with exorcism, devil possession, apocalypse derived from religious texts, etc., that it actually feels like you're watching something you've already seen before.

Ryder is a young school teacher who was once 'possessed' by the devil. She assists Father Lareaux (played by John Hurt), the man who presides over the convent where she resides and teaches, in performing exorcisms. We even get to see one at the beginning of the movie that takes place in an asylum. Unfortunately, this particular exorcism backfires and renders Hurt into a catatonic state of mind. The unfortunate subject of the exorcism itself was not 'cleansed' of his demonic possession and therefore extends his character to be used at a later time in the movie.

Meanwhile, Ryder studies the notes that were scribbled by the exorcism subject and discovers that Satan will take possession of a human (Ben Chaplin) on his 33rd birthday. The movie doesn't really delve into Ben Chaplin's character. All we discover is that he is an author of a novel that focuses on the trial of a serial killer. He seems to be an all-around nice guy, but the dialogue doesn't allow the viewer to discover anything more about him. Ryder's character comes off as being rather dull. A series of shocked facial expressions, bad hair and running around in the rain is all we really get to know about her.

So basically this movie has introduced us to two characters that we don't really care about. One must save the other from being possessed by the devil. And that's what the next 80 minutes or so of the film tries to accomplish without putting the viewer to sleep.

I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that when this movie was being filmed, several re-writes actually took place during shooting of the film, and the ending was re-shot after test audiences gave it a 'thumbs down'. If it was any worse than the ending that WASN'T left on the cutting room floor, then I can't possibly see how bad it could have been. Basically, Ryder's character comes to a resolution that includes a loaded gun and the penultimate moment when Chaplin's character is possessed by Satan.

Several times during the viewing of this movie, I checked my watch. I looked at the back of the DVD case to see how long it ran for. I even spent some time trimming my toe nails. The photography in this movie was bleak. Everything came off as either being 'grainy' or dark. I felt like I was sitting in a cold latrine whilst watching the movie. There wasn't anything about the script that really kept me interested. The acting was below par and none of the actors could inject any character into their characters.

This movie was really a waste of time. Never have I been so disappointed in the outcome of such a dreary film. I really thought something could have been made out of the 'ending' had someone really sat down and thought about it. Give this one a miss folks.

2/10

Janusz Kaminski is better known as Steven Spielberg's cinematographer in films like Schindler's List. In this film which aired late last night, this story is about Ben Chaplin, a psychologist Peter Kelson, and Winona Ryder, a French Catholic School teacher named Mia Larkin. Mia arrives and asks him about true evil. Slowly, the film does unravel to explain why she meets with him in the first place. I don't want to ruin the story but Peter Kelson's life is about to take a turn for the worse. Unexplainable things begin to happen to him and slowly a truth about his parentage comes up. There are lot of questions that are left unanswered. Maybe it's because it was edited for television. I would have liked to have seen more in the final scene in the church before the end of the film. I think the lack of explanation doesn't help the movie and the ending is rushed to finish the story.

I rented this film allong with the matrix and this film was the worst . Wynona Ryder's talent is wasted in this horror flick about a man who is goning to become the antichrist on his 33'rd birthday. The plot sounds good but it is wasted with the shots of exorcisims and flashbacks of young Wynona Ryder being exorcized and the shouting of a young girl in a diner chanting " Jesus is dead." . If you want waste your money see this one but if you want to be scared rent the new exorcist and watch that in the dark

The reasons why Lost Souls was badly regarded become pretty obvious when you see the film. There are two that come to mind. It is stupid, and not exiting. On the other hand, it's not exactly unwatchable either. If nothing else, at least Janusz Kaminski's antique looking photography makes a nice picture, but in fact Lost Souls did a bit more for me, only a bit though.

Maya Larkin is a teacher at a seminary school. She and her Catholic colleagues are convinced that Satan is about to enter human form, more specifically, the body of author Peter Kelson. His name was mentioned by a patient in a mental ward who was subject to an exorcism that went wrong and left Maya's tutor Father Lareaux on death's doorstep. Now Maya is going after Peter, hoping to find him before Satan does.

One of the reasons I like Lost Souls is sort of a matter of personal taste. I've always loved Winona Rider, she has a great screen presence and her body of work shows a wide variety of faces. One could argue however that this is her most superficial role, but even so, she is not a lazy actress. Too bad the script didn't give her quite enough of a character.

There are three things that Lost Soul could use; a brain, an energy boost, and perhaps another ten to fifteen minutes in running length. The ending is rushed and is about as anti-climactic as cinema can get. When I see this kind of thing happen, sometimes I want to think that maybe there was a longer ending planned, but something went wrong in the editing room.

None of us can ever know. What we do know is that Lost Souls is dumb, and while it is probably destined for obsurity, it's not unwatchable.

Maya Larkin is the assistant of an exorcist priest. One day, she deciphers what she thinks might be a code in the revelations of one of the possessed victim she interacts with. A code that may lead to unveiling the identity of the man about to become the anti-Christ.

I remember seeing this movie at the time it came out and being terribly disappointed and frustrated because there were flashes of brilliance beneath all the crap. The perspective of seeing the first movie directed by one of the greatest cinematographer of our time, Janusz Kaminski, was enticing for any film buff. Furthermore, it was around the turn of the new millennium and so a lot of horror and occult movie fans were waiting to see a great film tackling those genres. It just seemed... topical. Unfortunately, we were treated to several attempt who all flopped and Lost Souls was one of the worst tries.

At the heart of every movie is a story and here, the writers have done an awful job. A bunch of amateurs wouldn't screw up this bad. Who opens up a movie with a fictional quote from the bible? What kind of awful writer can't come up with genuine material from such a huge book? But here, the writer have come up with an awful story that goes like this. Satan is going to possess a man (born of incest) on his 33rd birthday. Wow.

The central character in the story is Maya Larkin, played by Winona Ryder. I was never a big fan of Ryder but recognize her appeal as a generation X icon. But this role probably was the final nail to her declining A-list status. Larkin is a poorly written character that doesn't make any sense. She doesn't act like a real person nor does her presence around people of the church feels remotely believable. I think Ryder could have done better here but certainly, she started at a disadvantage due to writing.

Opposite Larkin is Peter Kelson, a writer who specializes in demystifying the mind of serial killers. This secondary character is less sketchy and comes alive thanks to actor Ben Chaplin. At the time the movie was shot, Chaplin was an unknown actor. This was on the heels of his role in the acclaimed Thin Red Line. I must say that Chaplin's performance is one of the few redeeming qualities of this movie. He is always believable and his acting in the final scene is what makes Lost Souls still memorable to this day.

Surrounding these two characters are a bunch of nonsensical characters who act pretty like pawns. Most are played by crappy actors although we get two amazing veterans as well in key roles. Philip Baker Hall and John Hurt are wonderful actors but here, they had nothing to work with. Their characters are sketchy, incongruity abounds and it looks like they mailed their performances.

Aside from Chaplin's performance, the other saving grace of this film is the cinematography but here, we have a mixed bag. Many scenes of exteriors and interiors have a jaw-dropping beauty and ethereal quality to them. This movie, it must be said, has aged very well in this respect. There's a timeless quality to the cinematography that is certainly due to director Janusz Kaminski. One of the main person responsible for the look of several Spielberg movies, among others. Many scenes are delightful and atmospheric.

However, this is a mixed bag. Every scene where tension should be present pretty much flops. For instance, all the exorcism scenes are awful. And seem to come straight from a FOX occult show like the X-Files, using black and white image and devoid of absolutely any impact. You never feel scared. Worse, it doesn't even feel tensed. As a viewer, you just sit there and remotely watch was is happening. Kaminski is also totally unable to film kinetic scenes. Any scene where a car bumps into something, or people draw knives or guns is sketchy, unfinished, amateurish and devoid of any life.

Much has been said of "plot twists" within the film. You can read about those in the Lost Souls forum on IMDb but really, none of the theories hold of to any scrutiny. What we have here is not ambiguous writing with possible twists but just plain bad writing. The final scene impacted me as a viewer but can't save a movie that has a nonsensical plot that isn't even remotely based on genuine religious history. It's just made up stuff by awful writers, turned into a movie y a first time director who was way over his head.

It's still heartbreaking because there are things Janusz Kaminski obviously excels at but the overall direction of a film was too much at this point. Maybe a more solid script would have helped him. Since then, Kaminski has been back to his cinematographer gig alongside Spielberg. He never directed a movie again but here we are, ten years later and it appears his next directorial effort is in production. Hopefully he learned from the previous experience!

Avoid Lost Souls at all costs, or skip to the final scene.

A group of Catholics go to a mental institution to perform exorcism in the murderer George Viznik (Brad Greenquist). Father Lareaux (John Hurt), Deacon John Townsend (Elias Koteas), Father Frank Page (Brian Reddy) and the teacher Maya Larkin (Winona Ryder), who was possessed and exorcised in the past, unsuccessfully try to exorcise the man and Father Lareaux is deeply affected and falls into a coma. Maya brings the Viznik's coded writings and after deciphering it, she concludes that the writer Peter Kelson (Ben Chaplin) might be the Antichrist to be incarnated by Satan. She seeks him out but the atheist Peter, who has been raised by his uncle Father James (Philip Baker Hall), does not believe in her. But when strange things happen to him, Peter meets Maya and they investigate together the chance to save his soul.

The stylish "Lost Souls" is one of the most underrated horror films ever. The cinematography is top-notch; the excellent camera work explores unusual angle; the cast is magnificent; and the film has not aged after sixteen years. The story keeps the escalating tension in the psychological style of the classic "Rosemary's Baby", without the need of violence and gore. Unfortunately, Catholic values, such as the cross and holy water against vampires or the priest winning the evil in exorcisms, have been forgotten by an industry where this religion does not prevail. Why shall the evil always win in movies? My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Dominação" ("Domination")

It would appear many horror flick fans had an expectation that this movie would be like The Excorcist, The Omen, Rosemary's Baby. Having watched the film, it's clear it was never intending to be like those films. So, that means horror fans will hate this film and say things like "dull" and "cure for insomnia" over and over again.

Lost Souls is more like one of the more low key supernatural-themed X-Files episodes. Characters are introduced, there's a mystery presented, and motivations of almost all characters only become clear near the end. What this movie does well is let the mystery brew and keep the suspense going almost to the end. I think this is what totally irritated the horror film fans: they never get spinning heads or vomit, and that's really all they wanted to see anyway. No spoilers here but many folks complain about the end. Sure, the end is "abrupt" but it makes perfect sense if you were attentively watching. Its a reasonably good film if you like slow-paced moody flicks.

This film is for the over 13, those under may not understand all the nuances. The film starts off slow but builds quickly to capture your attention. At the end, one still does not know if good triumphed over evil or not. This film is OK for teenage get-togethers or college groupie sessions. It is a decent Anti-Christ film. It leaves room for a sequel, Lost Souls 2. Winona Ryder and Ben Chaplin are the two main characters. It is difficult to imagine Winona Ryder as a champion of Christ to save the world from the new Devil. There is no room for chit chat for movie watchers. However, this film is less memorable than the Omen and quickly forgotten after 20 minutes of watching it. OK for horror, not gruesome. This horror deals with the supernatural, not gore. Three thumbs up.

'Lost Souls' is an interesting misfire despite the fact that it is a good thriller. It starts as a really ambitious film dealing with the coming of the Antichrist, or at least the strong belief of Maya Larkin (the character played by Winona Ryder) that this coming is actually going to happen very soon.

The problem I have, however, is that we do not really get to know Maya Larkin very well throughout the movie. We watch her in her quest but we do not understand her well and we doubt her motivations. She is not believable as a person of faith with the necessary experience and background dealing with the 'evil' at hand.

The film starts well creating a dark foreboding atmosphere but stays at a level of a suspenseful thriller without any theological or philosophical implications. One would think that if so much is at stake then something more should be needed in order for us to root for her the way we did for Fathers Merrin and Karras in the 'Exorcist'.