Scanners (1981)

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

At least within my base of movie viewing experience, I found this to have an original and creative story.As others have commented, the special effects are incredible considering the technology of the time.

I've watched 'Scanners' a few times now and it's definitely a classic. However, it's also one of those films that I reckon even die-hard fans may find it hard to watch that often. I find myself sitting down to it every five or so years, each time realising that I've managed to forget most of the entire story and then having to see it all over again, so to speak.I guess that, back in 1981, 'telepaths' were a suitably original subject for a movie. A 'scanner' is basically that - someone who can scan others' minds (and, of course, occasionally plant the odd suggestion). The government doesn't entirely trust them and likes to keep them locked up in secure facilities where they can - hopefully - be weaponised. With all the superheroes flying around the big screen today, these scanners' powers seem quite underwhelming. So, staying with the whole 'Scanners vs Avengers' type theme, don't expect there to be much of a budget for this film. I think it's fair to say that every penny of its budget went on a particularly gruesome scene which has become famous in terms of just what can be achieved via practical effects. Don't expect and armies of scanners facing off in a battle for New York! The film's stand-out actor is Michael Ironside, who actually plays the antagonist. The film's heroes don't really seem to leave much of a memorable impression on anyone (which goes to show why they never went on to star in much else afterwards). However, one of the film's main strengths is its director - David Cronenberg. His creepy style or dark story-telling is probably the main thing that elevates 'Scanners' out of being a forgettable B-movie and gives it its deserved 'cult status.'Plus 'Scanners' other strength is due to when it was released. Compared to today's offerings it gives you little that you (now) haven't seen a hundred times before. There is a plot point which comes late in the final act and I always remember kind of guessing what that was, but the ending is certainly different enough to be memorable. But that doesn't mean it's not worth a watch. Don't expect fast-paced action, or even special effects (bar that one scene!). But if you're in the mood for possibly the best ever film about the dangers of telepathy/telekinesis then you really have to watch this one - it should be on every horror buff's watchlist.

Scanners (1983) ** (out of 4)Cameron (Stephen Lack) wakes up tied to a bed where he is being held by Dr. Rose (Patrick McGoohan). The doctor explains to Cameron that he is a "scanner" and that's a type of telepathic nature and the doctor wants to know whether there are others out there. Cameron is sent on a mission to try and track down other scanners and soon he is introduced to Darryl (Michael Ironside).David Cronenberg was working on a somewhat higher budget than what he was used to when he unleashed SCANNERS on the public and it turned out that the film became a hit and featured a head explosion that would make it somewhat notorious or legendary in the horror genre. While I will admit that there are a lot of good things in the film I still can't help but feel that it's incredibly overrated by some. In fact, there are many who will call this one of the best horror films ever made so I've obviously missed something.If I could copy and paste every line of Roger Ebert's review then I'd probably do so because I thought he perfectly nailed this film. Basically what Ebert said is that there's a lot of good stuff here but in the end none of it matters because you just don't care about the characters, the story or anything that is going on in the picture. I'll take it a step further and say the film was deadly boring and it ran on way too long. Obviously if you can get caught up in the story then you probably won't feel that it goes too long but for me there just wasn't enough here to keep me entertained.For the life of me I couldn't care about anything that I was watching. I didn't care about the scanners, the doctor or the corporation that was trying to find out more. If you don't care for what you're watching then it's hard to really root for anyone or feel any suspense. I will say that the lead performances were quite good and that includes Ironside and Lack who make for great rivals. I'd also argue that the score was very good as was the cinematography. Then you've got the special effects from Dick Smith that are downright wonderful and especially the various head damage that is done throughout.

While it seems a bit dated, this is a captivating film. It involves people who have been genetically changed. They are given destructive telekinetic powers and the ability to read the emotional beings of other people. This has created several outcasts who must battle each day to survive and to try to control the powers thrust upon them. Are they real people or automatons? They have no memory of their past or their lineage. One of them eventually begins to seek out what has happened to him and hooks up with a beautiful young woman (Jennifer O'Neill) who falls for him big time. He now has purpose but doesn't have the wherewithal to strategize his actions. Eventually, he is able to piece things together, but, even then, there are unanswered questions. While a bit contrived (how could it not be), it is still very embracing. The conclusion is quite satisfying under the circumstances.