Film: Scanners (1981)

[tambourine-man]

Despite having some of the worst acting performances in a David Cronenberg film (or any film for that matter) in the form of Stephen Lack, this is pure B-movie bliss. Probably one of David Cronenberg's more accessible films, low on the overt headfuck element but still high on the creepy quotient that Cronenberg excels in.

There's Michael Ironside pulling funny faces, exploding heads and a character called Dr Ruth. What's not to like?

Anyone else?

 

[silverwheel]

Everyone rags on Stephen Lack, but I'll stick up for him (to a point). He doesn't ruin any scenes, and his character calls for a childlike naivete that Lack communicates well. He's kind of a blank, but that's partly by design. That being said, if Cronenberg wanted to digitally replace him with Viggo Mortensen, I wouldn't argue.

Interestingly, this film is structured just like A History of Violence.

 

[debaser]

I have to admit I'm not too fond of the first films of David Cronenberg, the films before Videodrome. That said, I kind of like Shivers. But I LOVE all the other films of this genius filmmaker.

 

[Outta Pocket]

Decent movie, I love the premise... The execution, not so much. Definitely some classic "mind blowing" scenes though, har har har

 

[tribal girl]

I never really liked it tbh. I could never get passed the aforementioned terrible acting. It's not even so bad you can laugh at it, it's just irritating.

Videodrome is so much better imo.

 

[tambourine-man]

Yeah, as Outta Pocket stated, it's probably the concept that carries it.

I think it probably lacks the depth of later efforts - videodrome in particular - and doesn't explore the trippier aspects of Cronenberg's usual themes. But I enjoyed its accessibility and the effects were pretty good for the period.

 

[tribal girl]

Oh yeah, there's no denying the effects were good for the time. I enjoyed that aspect of the film. And I really wanted to like it, but I just didn't.

 

[Feste]

Cronenberg = god.