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.
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.