Horror novelist Richard Wayborn (Tristan Rogers, straying from the soaps) is an immortal who kills young women so that the soul of his 600- year-old mate can inhabit them for a day or so before they start to go stiff. Kinky. Anyway, trouble arrives when young college student Sara (Arabella Holzbog) doesn't die when Wayborn tries to poison her and he has to try again so she doesn't blow his cover. Making matters worse is her ex Scott (Tyrone Power Jr.) is a cop handling the case. I'm obviously not picky when it comes to my viewing if I picked this up, so sometimes the slightest hint of a good idea can win me over. I like the idea and, while the film is too low budget to effectively pull it off, it makes for something like a high end Concorde production with nice locations and decent acting. Deliciously named director Thunder Levin also makes sure every body the ghost inhabits get nude beforehand (including Melissa Moore) and offers a "I've never seen that before" bit where a girl clad only in a g-string jumps off a roof. Paul Bartel has two scenes as a "boring professor." Also watch for the guy introducing Wayborn at a book signing. He is in front of a big banner for the novel that reads Blood Love (the film's UK title as well) and he calls it Blood Luck. D'oh! No second takes for you, pal. Of course, I still can't decide if the title is EVIL LIVES (as in lives that are evil) or EVIL LIVES (as in evil that lives).
8 Reviews
Evil Lives through Soulmates... or something.
Vomitron_G4 September 2010
Boy, oh, boy... What was this? I have great difficulties categorizing this flick. For one thing, it says in the video-box: "If you're a fan of: The Sixth Sense, The House On Haunted Hill, Stir Of Echoes, you'll love Evil Lives". Now if you look at which year this movie was made in, you know right away what that means, right? It's one of the biggest lies I've ever read and a perfect example of shameless advertising with the sole purpose of ripping off the unsuspecting viewer. It also says: "A Horrifying Supernatural Thriller". No it's not! It has hints at comedy. A bit of drama. Lots of naked boobies and some sex-scenes. It tries to be a thriller. Yes, there's some dark supernatural powers at play. But it's anything but a successful "horrifying supernatural thriller", I can tell you that much. The so-called surprise-twist this movie has, actually happens, more or less, in the opening-scene of the movie! It has some extremely silly dialogues that are actually pretty funny to hear. And in the final conclusion it has make-up effects vaguely reminiscent of Brian Yuzna's "Society" (or perhaps even better: Lamberto Bava's "Per Sempre aka Until Death" comes to mind), so you can count that as a bonus. Anyway, yes, it's a pretty damn bad movie. But strangely, all this nonsense to me was still rather amusing. Didn't even mind the ending, haha! However, even though I had no problems finishing this dubious movie, this, ladies and gentlemen, is another perfect example why the 90's very much sucked when it comes to horror.
movie about a serial killer,with a bit of a twist
disdressed123 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
"Evil Lives aka "Soulmates" is weird to say the least.it's a Gothic horror/comedy/romance. the movie is very humorous at times,and many people might think it is unintentional.however,i believe it actually intends to be humorous and doesn't take itself seriously at all.it borrows from many other movies,so it's not original by any means.there are lapses in logic and what seems like bad acting.but like i said,it's all done tongue in cheek.if you listen carefully to the dialogue,you will notice this.i did not see anything resembling horror in it,but there is some suspense.there is a romance of sorts,but it's very twisted.it also moves quite slowly and is boring at times.basically it's about a serial killer of sorts,but no ordinary serial killer.there is an added element which makes the movie a bit more interesting than it would otherwise be,and it's amusing at times.the acting is deliberately over the top.this is no masterpiece,but it's not awful either.i give it 5/10
A brilliant expression of pointlessness
bdobson7 June 2001
Now I am all for cheese and in fact I rented this film full well knowing that I was not going to be seeing anything of high art. However there is a dramatic difference between a film that is so awful it is good and a film that is just plain awful. If perhaps the film itself had not taken itself seriously it may have worked better as black comedy. Instead the events on screen seem to be done with no humor while the music (some of which sounding carnival in nature) is anything but serious. So if they were indeed attempting humor they did manage it but not in the way they may have been intending.
Acting wise the film is a wash as well but for nudity buffs this is one of the first films in a while not to shy away that aspect of the genre.
So if you have a hankering for self abuse you may in the end enjoy it enough for a few minor kicks.
Acting wise the film is a wash as well but for nudity buffs this is one of the first films in a while not to shy away that aspect of the genre.
So if you have a hankering for self abuse you may in the end enjoy it enough for a few minor kicks.
Good for nothing but unintended cheap laughs
dil33730 October 2005
Now, I've seen a lot of films, but this just blew me away. With how bad it was, of course. My dad picked it up at a value bin because on the back, it said "If you enjoyed The Sixth Sense, House on Haunted Hill, and a Stir of Echoes, you'll love Evil Lives". Now, I look back at that an really do laugh. The film contains no suspenseful or scary moments. The acting is awful, and the plot is ridiculous. The spirit of a loved one coming into recently dead bodies to make love, then die again? Even that concept isn't taken too far because most of the film strays away from what it is supposed to be doing: entertaining. The special effects are also pretty bad. The makeup is horrid. It'd be a black comedy (and a poor one at that) if the film was taken lightheartedly. But that's not the case; these people actually TRIED. The fact that this film was made seriously is rather pathetic. Did I mention the music was ripped straight from the circus? This is one of the worst films you'll ever see, so don't't even give it a chance.
"So, we've got a naked dead girl with her bashed in jumping off a roof."Awful awful, awful.
poolandrews21 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Soulmate sis set in the American town of Hillsdale where famous horror book author Richard Wayborn (Tristan Rogers) is approached by a student named Laura (Melissa Moore) who asks's him for his autograph having just seen him conduct at lecture at her college. Richard becomes very friendly & ask's Laura if she would like a bite to eat with him, Laura jumps at the chance & in no time at all they arrive at the local fast food restaurant drive-thru. Richard spikes Laura's coke with a deadly poison & before long Laura is deader than a dodo & her body has been possessed by Richard's dead wife's soul, they head off to a seedy motel & have sex. Unfortunately Richard needs freshly deceased bodies on a regular basis as the effect doesn't last long & next on his list of potential victims is sexy student Sara Foster (Arabella Holzbog), Richard turns on the charm & invites Sara to his home where he intends to kill her but things don't go according to plan, Sara escapes & contacts the police & her boyfriend Scott (Tyrone Power Jr.) who just happens to be a detective. Richard & his wife Rachel decide that Sara must be silenced to protect their dark secret...
Directed by Thunder Levin Soulmates is, in my opinion, complete crap. The script by Matt Devlen, James Hankins & Adam Winston is painfully slow & dull, it has no proper explanation for anything that's happening & why on Earth did it take three people to write it? For a start we, the viewer that is, have virtually no idea how Rachel can jump from body to body, all we get is some vague dialogue, which amounts to two lines, about a witch doctor. What happens to her soul when she isn't in a body? Why can't she just stay in the same body? Why can't she search morgues for the recently deceased? Surely that would be a bit safer than having to kill dozens of young girls? The whole film is very linear with a few girls being killed & Sara's discovery of what's going on at which point she becomes a target. The character's are unlikable & as dull as dishwater.Soulmates takes itself far too seriously & as a dramatic piece of film-making it falls flat on it's face, there is very little horror in Soulmates & I thought it played more like a thriller. You will probably spot the so-called twist ending coming a mile off.
Director Levin does nothing to distinguish Soulmates from any other piece of low budget crap, it has no style or any noteworthy attributes. Forget about any tension or excitement either & you can forget about any gore or violence as there is a brief stabbing, a broken finger, a drowning, some gunshot wounds & that's it. There is some sex & nudity though.
Technically Soulmates is bland & forgettable. It reminds of a made-for-TV film which is in no way a compliment. The acting is of a pretty poor standard while porn star Julie Strain makes an appearance as does cult film director/actor Paul Bartel in the films most bizarre scene.
Soulmates is pretty poor stuff from beginning to end & thankfully quite hard to get hold of, but if you do have the misfortune to get hold of a copy then all I can say is I feel sympathy for you. Definitely one to avoid.
Directed by Thunder Levin Soulmates is, in my opinion, complete crap. The script by Matt Devlen, James Hankins & Adam Winston is painfully slow & dull, it has no proper explanation for anything that's happening & why on Earth did it take three people to write it? For a start we, the viewer that is, have virtually no idea how Rachel can jump from body to body, all we get is some vague dialogue, which amounts to two lines, about a witch doctor. What happens to her soul when she isn't in a body? Why can't she just stay in the same body? Why can't she search morgues for the recently deceased? Surely that would be a bit safer than having to kill dozens of young girls? The whole film is very linear with a few girls being killed & Sara's discovery of what's going on at which point she becomes a target. The character's are unlikable & as dull as dishwater.Soulmates takes itself far too seriously & as a dramatic piece of film-making it falls flat on it's face, there is very little horror in Soulmates & I thought it played more like a thriller. You will probably spot the so-called twist ending coming a mile off.
Director Levin does nothing to distinguish Soulmates from any other piece of low budget crap, it has no style or any noteworthy attributes. Forget about any tension or excitement either & you can forget about any gore or violence as there is a brief stabbing, a broken finger, a drowning, some gunshot wounds & that's it. There is some sex & nudity though.
Technically Soulmates is bland & forgettable. It reminds of a made-for-TV film which is in no way a compliment. The acting is of a pretty poor standard while porn star Julie Strain makes an appearance as does cult film director/actor Paul Bartel in the films most bizarre scene.
Soulmates is pretty poor stuff from beginning to end & thankfully quite hard to get hold of, but if you do have the misfortune to get hold of a copy then all I can say is I feel sympathy for you. Definitely one to avoid.
Audience Members are the Real Cursed People!
Zantara Xenophobe13 August 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This review has very minor SPOILERS, so do not read it if you don't want minor details given away.
I rented `Evil Lives' recently because it looked like a neat little horror movie. Heck, it even featured Paul Bartel and Dawn Wells. It couldn't be that bad. But then the first person in the movie was Julie Strain, and I knew I had made a big mistake. My thoughts were confirmed fairly quickly. You see, this movie was made in 1992 under the name of `Soulmates.' Thanks to the recent horror movie craze, it was retitled and released as `Evil Lives' in 2000. The movie box tries to compare it to three great movies---`Stir of Echoes,' `The Sixth Sense,' and `The House on Haunted Hill'---three movies that bear zero resemblance to this.
The plot is foolish. A man and a woman centuries ago had a strange curse placed on them. The curse is never fully explained, but basically the man murders women so that the spirit of his dead wife can inhibit them for a few hours before the body decomposes and dies completely. After centuries of this, the man currently has the identity of a writer. He lures women into his clutches, kills them, and his wife takes charge for a short while. The writer's next pick is a college girl played by Arabella Holzbog, who you may or may not remember from `Stone Cold.' He botches the murder, and spends the rest of the movie stalking her, killing other people you don't care much about.
What is so bad about this is not the acting, but the script. It handles the curse in such stupid ways that you want to scream. Many times, it violates its own rules, especially in the hackneyed end. Holzbog is okay as the star, but those around her simply don't stand out. Except for Wells and Bartel, who only show up in amusing and all-too-short cameos. The director, who does poorly throughout what with sloppy production values and few special effects, made a real mistake in taking these two performances for granted. What he has left is a bad movie that nobody is going to see, no matter how many false comparisons are on the movie box. Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.
I rented `Evil Lives' recently because it looked like a neat little horror movie. Heck, it even featured Paul Bartel and Dawn Wells. It couldn't be that bad. But then the first person in the movie was Julie Strain, and I knew I had made a big mistake. My thoughts were confirmed fairly quickly. You see, this movie was made in 1992 under the name of `Soulmates.' Thanks to the recent horror movie craze, it was retitled and released as `Evil Lives' in 2000. The movie box tries to compare it to three great movies---`Stir of Echoes,' `The Sixth Sense,' and `The House on Haunted Hill'---three movies that bear zero resemblance to this.
The plot is foolish. A man and a woman centuries ago had a strange curse placed on them. The curse is never fully explained, but basically the man murders women so that the spirit of his dead wife can inhibit them for a few hours before the body decomposes and dies completely. After centuries of this, the man currently has the identity of a writer. He lures women into his clutches, kills them, and his wife takes charge for a short while. The writer's next pick is a college girl played by Arabella Holzbog, who you may or may not remember from `Stone Cold.' He botches the murder, and spends the rest of the movie stalking her, killing other people you don't care much about.
What is so bad about this is not the acting, but the script. It handles the curse in such stupid ways that you want to scream. Many times, it violates its own rules, especially in the hackneyed end. Holzbog is okay as the star, but those around her simply don't stand out. Except for Wells and Bartel, who only show up in amusing and all-too-short cameos. The director, who does poorly throughout what with sloppy production values and few special effects, made a real mistake in taking these two performances for granted. What he has left is a bad movie that nobody is going to see, no matter how many false comparisons are on the movie box. Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.
Blood love.English video title
bigwig_thalyi9 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Why did i buy this piece of trash.I bought it at my video store for £1 because it looked interesting from the cover.Now I understand why they say don't judge a video by it's cover. The film was about a 600 year old mortal who kills a string of young women in search of a perfect body in which to resurrect his dead wife, however the perfect girl eludes him and he spends the film stalking her. This film doesn't know whether to be a erotic supernatural thriller or a slasher movie and ends up being neither. i'll start with the good points as there aren't many.If you are into films with female nudity then this film is for you as there are plenty of scenes involving naked women but if you are looking for a film with a good plot and strong characters then this film is best left on the shelf. Now the bad points:The film is supposed to be scary and isn't,the villain has about as much menace as a bag of jellybeans,you feel no sympathy for the heroine,the acting is atrocious and because of poor editing it is a bit disjointed. If you see this film walk past it and do not waste your money as the film,in my opinion has no redeeming features. if I could i'd give this film 0 out of 10 I would but as I can't I will give it 1 out of 10
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
