bowmanblue 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.

trishaade I watched this movie for the first time recently - I missed it when it was first released. I really liked some of David Cronenberg's other movies (THE BROOD) and have found some of them quite disturbing (VIDEODROME). I'd also seen, on numerous occasions, the quite iconic scene towards the beginning of the movie.The film is about corporation where one of their divisions has been doing specialized research on people with psychic powers, called scanners. One scanner has gone rogue and has recruited other scanners to join him so that they can win world denomination. The corporation pits one of their scanners against the rogue with the hopes he will be destroyed. I had very high expectations for the film, and was somewhat disappointed. It's not that the movie is bad, per se, its more that it is miscast in parts, doesn't make much sense and has a tendency to move on the slower side. There are parts of the film that just drag on and on, especially through the middle. I feel that the lead didn't have enough of a dynamic personality to own the role and I had some difficulty finding him believable. Whether this is the fault of the actor or his voice, the director or the casting people (or a mixture of all of them) is anyone's guess. I believe that if the lead had been given to someone who was less subdued, the movie would have been much better. There is also a right place, right time kind of thing going on throughout that didn't make much sense. Additionally, some of the situations the scanner "employed" by the corporation, who was once homeless, finds himself in and is able to master without previous knowledge left me shaking my head. It was all a bit much.On the plus side, there were some nice special effects and almost every one other than the lead did a fairly good job with their roles. There are some nice twists and turns towards the end that I didn't see coming. The soundtrack is effective.This film generally has pretty good reviews overall, so if you are a fan of sci-fi or Mr. Cronenberg, give it a watch if you want. Horror fans may like it too, but again, it didn't float my boat as much as some other viewers.

gwnightscream David Cronenberg's 1981 sci-fi/horror film stars Stephen Lack, Michael Ironside, Jennifer O'Neill, Lawrence Dane and Patrick McGoohan. Lack plays Cameron, a man who has a special gift of mind control called "scanning." He's a test subject of scientist, Paul Ruth (McGoohan) and soon he's sent to find and kill dangerous man, Revok (Ironside) who is also a scanner and his followers. Dane plays Keller, Revok's associate who is a traitor of Ruth and O'Neill plays Kim, a scanner who becomes Cameron's love interest. This is a pretty good film with bloody, suspenseful and disturbing moments. Ironside plays a good villain as usual, Dick Smith's make-up effects are impressive and Howard Shore's score is great as usual. I recommend this.

avik-basu1889 'Scanners' has all the Cronenbergian tropes that you'd expect from one of his films. You get the gross scenes with the body horror, you get the somewhat fictional idea of mental problems and powers and to some extent you can also sense an allegorical element underneath the crazy images and visuals. I think in 'Scanners', Cronenberg is making a statement about the state of Cold War existing at the time between the US and Soviet Russia and the inherent espionage element of the scenario. I think one can find biblical references in the script in terms of the battle between Lucifer and Michael. Cronenberg's directorial sense and his style of storytelling is something that has always intrigued me. His scripts and subject matters always tend to feature high concepts and allegorical depth. His stories are set in a world which is close to our own world with some sci-fi fantasy-esque flirtations. 'Scanners' is no different. Consequently his films tend to involve some weird, larger than life characters and exaggerated mannerisms and deliberately over the top acting. But in order to pull off these heightened mannerisms expertly, you require really skilled actors. I think 'Scanners' suffers a bit in this regard. The acting here is probably deliberately off-putting and weird, but I don't think it completely works. The script itself is a bit weak too compared to other Cronenberg screenplays. There are inconsistencies when it comes to a scanner's and in particular, Cameron's powers and what he can and can't do and there are loopholes. The character of Kim Obrist pretty much has no purpose to serve, except offer the viewer a connection between Kim and Cameron and in some way humanise the blank slate of Cameron.Having said all that, 'Scanners' still remains entertaining and intriguing enough. Cronenberg conjures up almost a B-movie like visual texture for the film and the film has a very raw, stripped down look to it which I found charming. However. the greatest and most admirable element here is the special effects scenes involving Cronenberg's distinctive body horror. One has to give a special mention to the makeup artist Dick Smith, for his work here. There are certain images in the film that have become quite rightly iconic. 'Scanners' in my eyes, is not one of Cronenberg's best. It has its fair share of problems. However, it still offers some rewards to he viewer in terms of Cronenberg's images, body horror and his weird style of storytelling.