A forensic psychiatrist discovers that all but one of her patient's multiple personalities are murder victims. She will have to find out what's happening before her time is finished.A forensic psychiatrist discovers that all but one of her patient's multiple personalities are murder victims. She will have to find out what's happening before her time is finished.A forensic psychiatrist discovers that all but one of her patient's multiple personalities are murder victims. She will have to find out what's happening before her time is finished.
- Directors
- Writer
- Stars
Brian Anthony Wilson
- Virgil
- (as Brian A. Wilson)
Charles David Richards
- Holiday Inn Bar Keep
- (as Charles D. Richards)
Trenton Rupecht
- Young Monty
- (as Trenton Ruprecht)
- Directors
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I caught this film on Netflix the other night in the "recommended for me" section. It certainly looked promising: a taut psychological thriller with Julianne Moore as Dr. Cara Harding, a forensic psychologist trying to disprove a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder in mental patient David/Adam/Wesley (Jonathan Rhys Meyers).
But it quickly morphs from the cooly clinical and scientific to hillbilly voodoo and fundie religious hokum replete with a hot, steaming, incomprehensible -- some of it kind of fun in its incoherence -- compost heap of plot elements: the 1918 flu epidemic; skin rashes; chronic coughs yielding -- ughh -- dirt; slip-and-falls; spinal injuries; atheism; Catholicism; faith healers; vaccines; curses; snake venom potions; apparitions on video; and a suddenly discovered -- and quite laughable -- silent film, replete with +90 year old narrator. There's even a test for red-green color blindness.
And, like the antagonist, this film suffers from an identity crisis. Is it a psychological thriller? A slasher / stalker film? A medical mystery? A serial killer whodunnit? A witchcraft / occult movie? I enjoyed just trying to figure out what the producers had in mind. This is like a film made my committee (or someone with multiple personality disorder).
Saving grace: A good faith try at making the crazy script work by Moore. And an enthusiastically evil performance Meyers, though he needs to take an intensive "American accents" workshop. That southern twangy thing was the worst, and so not right for upper Apalachia.
But all-in-all, I actually like really bad, messy movies, especially those that try so hard. Maybe Netflix knows me afterall? Hence the six -- how appropriate -- stars rating.
But it quickly morphs from the cooly clinical and scientific to hillbilly voodoo and fundie religious hokum replete with a hot, steaming, incomprehensible -- some of it kind of fun in its incoherence -- compost heap of plot elements: the 1918 flu epidemic; skin rashes; chronic coughs yielding -- ughh -- dirt; slip-and-falls; spinal injuries; atheism; Catholicism; faith healers; vaccines; curses; snake venom potions; apparitions on video; and a suddenly discovered -- and quite laughable -- silent film, replete with +90 year old narrator. There's even a test for red-green color blindness.
And, like the antagonist, this film suffers from an identity crisis. Is it a psychological thriller? A slasher / stalker film? A medical mystery? A serial killer whodunnit? A witchcraft / occult movie? I enjoyed just trying to figure out what the producers had in mind. This is like a film made my committee (or someone with multiple personality disorder).
Saving grace: A good faith try at making the crazy script work by Moore. And an enthusiastically evil performance Meyers, though he needs to take an intensive "American accents" workshop. That southern twangy thing was the worst, and so not right for upper Apalachia.
But all-in-all, I actually like really bad, messy movies, especially those that try so hard. Maybe Netflix knows me afterall? Hence the six -- how appropriate -- stars rating.
6 SOULS has a compelling and unique storyline that nicely intermixes spiritual and psychological elements: There are some very original ideas here. It's well-produced and cinematized with realistic acting by all. It has the necessary focus but still leaves room for individual interpretation, the sort of film that you can watch multiple times, picking up new details and subtleties with each view. At times it seems pro-Christian, at times anti-Christian, or at least critical of the superstitious-fundamentalist brand of Christianity. Again, the religious elements are clear enough yet also vague enough.
The plot does drag and meander a good bit. There are also some of the usual tired old demon-tropes (people throwing up black goop, etc). Still,this film has a fairly solid mythos behind it and relies more on surprise and suspense than it does raw schlock. While nothing truly special, 6 SOULS is probably worth seeing if you like psychological/supernatural horror and have been disappointed by most other recent films in this genre.
The ending leaves room for an interesting sequel. . .7 SOULS?
The plot does drag and meander a good bit. There are also some of the usual tired old demon-tropes (people throwing up black goop, etc). Still,this film has a fairly solid mythos behind it and relies more on surprise and suspense than it does raw schlock. While nothing truly special, 6 SOULS is probably worth seeing if you like psychological/supernatural horror and have been disappointed by most other recent films in this genre.
The ending leaves room for an interesting sequel. . .7 SOULS?
I can't easily recall a movie that started better and ended worse.
During the first few minutes, I kept thinking, "Man! what are all the negative reviews about?" The camera-work was not only good, but stylish and captivating. The framing, the acting, the dialogue, the plot — everything was firing on all cylinders. It had interesting characters with real relationships who said things that made sense, whose lines were delivered by actors who could act...
And then the darned thing just went off the rails. The more Julianne Moore's character went off on her own investigations, the more meandering and "Huh?" the story became. Then by the last half-hour or so, you're just waiting for the whole thing to be over. You've lost hope that it will make sense. Which is good. Because it doesn't.
Pity. It had all the elements for a really first-rate movie; but instead of coming together to form a coherent whole, they all scattered and left the viewer gasping for sense.
During the first few minutes, I kept thinking, "Man! what are all the negative reviews about?" The camera-work was not only good, but stylish and captivating. The framing, the acting, the dialogue, the plot — everything was firing on all cylinders. It had interesting characters with real relationships who said things that made sense, whose lines were delivered by actors who could act...
And then the darned thing just went off the rails. The more Julianne Moore's character went off on her own investigations, the more meandering and "Huh?" the story became. Then by the last half-hour or so, you're just waiting for the whole thing to be over. You've lost hope that it will make sense. Which is good. Because it doesn't.
Pity. It had all the elements for a really first-rate movie; but instead of coming together to form a coherent whole, they all scattered and left the viewer gasping for sense.
It's really rare for an American film to open in Japan before America, so I rushed to see it. Well, I might not have rushed had it not been for Juliana Moore who does deliver despite huge gaping plot holes littered throughout the film.
I won't give anything away about the story. There is a lot of development in the first half of the movie which might make the film seem s l o w for some viewers. When the mystery is revealed it is surprising but even given the careful buildup you might still have to make an effort to suspend your disbelief if only because of the plot holes (which I can not mention with out enumerating spoilers).
There are quite a few logical disconnects, too. In a age of cell phones when you're a busy psychiatrist why would you drive across town to do something which would take ten seconds by phone? Because it's a plot device.
Still, I enjoyed the film. I can not recommend it to my Japanese friends as there is a lot of talk about God and Faith which is lost on a truly secular country; but I can recommend it to people who like films like The Ring or The Exorcist. There are some interesting characters and a lot of good acting especially by the male lead who, well, you'll see.
I won't give anything away about the story. There is a lot of development in the first half of the movie which might make the film seem s l o w for some viewers. When the mystery is revealed it is surprising but even given the careful buildup you might still have to make an effort to suspend your disbelief if only because of the plot holes (which I can not mention with out enumerating spoilers).
There are quite a few logical disconnects, too. In a age of cell phones when you're a busy psychiatrist why would you drive across town to do something which would take ten seconds by phone? Because it's a plot device.
Still, I enjoyed the film. I can not recommend it to my Japanese friends as there is a lot of talk about God and Faith which is lost on a truly secular country; but I can recommend it to people who like films like The Ring or The Exorcist. There are some interesting characters and a lot of good acting especially by the male lead who, well, you'll see.
Based on a previous review here suggesting that fans of The Ring would like this I went to see Shelter and I think the previous advice needs more clarification. If you liked The Ring then yes, you'll probably like this. If however you thought The Ring had pointless cut aways and sudden close-ups just to try to build tension or make you jump, then you will be as equally frustrated with this film. Still in the latter group, I would assume that you loved Ringu and therefore you will appreciate the story this film is trying to tell despite the occasional ham-fisted way it goes about presenting it.
Jonathan (male lead) is really quite good, although Julianne comes across far too much as if she has been cast as Dana Scully. In truth this whole film would have been more believable if this had of been the story line for the X Files 2 movie. Knowing that going in will probably help get past the weird opening 30 minutes where it swings from place to place until we settle on the story it is wanting to tell. Despite the plot holes and some questionable decisions by the characters, I did leave the film feeling pleased and positive about the whole experience.
Jonathan (male lead) is really quite good, although Julianne comes across far too much as if she has been cast as Dana Scully. In truth this whole film would have been more believable if this had of been the story line for the X Files 2 movie. Knowing that going in will probably help get past the weird opening 30 minutes where it swings from place to place until we settle on the story it is wanting to tell. Despite the plot holes and some questionable decisions by the characters, I did leave the film feeling pleased and positive about the whole experience.
Did you know
- TriviaMovie also goes by the title "Shelter". The "6 Souls" is the title for US release.
- GoofsDavid says in his childhood home there are 10 windows; 11 if you count the star in the front door. When Dr. Harding drives to his childhood home, 12 windows are visible, and that is not counting however many there are on the unseen side of the house.
- Quotes
Cara Harding: Just because you're older, doesn't mean you're right. It could just mean that you've been wrong for longer.
- Crazy creditsGod is the first credited on "the producers wish to thank" part of closing credits.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Projector: Shelter (2013)
- How long is 6 Souls?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $22,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $3,205,167
- Runtime
- 1h 52m(112 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content