Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

David Massey 'Scanners 2: The New Order' & 'Scanners 3: The Takeover' are more stand-alone interpretations of the themes and scenarios introduced by Cronenberg's 1981 classic than actual sequels. By all rights, it's no surprise that few have seen these; they are oozing with an early-1990's, straight-to-video feel but, as a couple, there is some genuine weight here and both films definitely have their merits.First of all, what is a 'Scanner'? Well, we learn in the original film that in the 1950's a medication called ephemerol was tested on a large number of women to ease the discomfort of pregnancy. Much to the surprise of all involved, the drug caused a mutation in the infants; they were born with powers including (but not limited to) telekinesis, extrasensory perception, and the ability to read minds. Each film builds on these powers, reaching a fever-pitch of suspended disbelief by the third.In 'Scanners 2: The New Order' we are introduced to David Kellum, a mild-mannered veterinary student who's scanning abilities are just surfacing – apparently the result of his moving away from the quiet countryside and to a volatile (and fantastically Canadian) city. He is approached by a research lab that is trying to find fresh Scanners who are not psychopaths; one of the side effects of the mutation is that it often drives those affected completely insane. David discovers that the corporation has a dubious ulterior motive and he uses his newly tuned scanning abilities to fight back.

t_atzmueller David Cronenbergs original, „Scanners", was a one of a kind film: it was science fiction, it was horror, an action film, yet, it felt more like a drama, the characters firmly in the centre of attention. We were able to relate to the Scanners, seeing them as normal human beings, who had super-powers that were at the same time a disease.The sequel takes a slightly different turn: the action- and science fiction elements churned up, it feels more like a "RoboCop"- then a "Scanners"-sequel and the amped-up colour, sound and special-effects give the film a comic book-feel. A good example is the use of the drug 'Ephemerol': in the original, it's a medicine that has no effect on 'normal' people but temporarily cures the Scanners from the side-effects of their powers; in "Scanners 2" it's a drug that turns Scanners and non-Scanners alike into bald-headed addicts, eventually killing them.In the original film, there's a 'sound' of what the Scanners hear in their heads, permeating almost every scene, fractions of sentences and words, voices and noise; the viewer can relate why the Scanners live a tortured existence. Here, the 'Scanner-sound' is reduced to a light, vibrating noise that sets in ever time a Scanner uses his powers.Christian Duguay clearly is no David Cronenberg; the director is more at home at the straight-to-video horror and science fiction genre. Not to say that the director is doing a bad job; within the limits of above mentioned genre it's a very neat movie but, to give you a reference, imagine Wim Wenders "Wings of Desire" being remade by Brad Silverling.As for the acting, most of the performances are B-movie at best, but adequate for a sequel like "Scanners II". Especially the villains, Tom Butler, Yvan Ponton, Vlasta Vrana and Michael Rudder, seemed to have climbed straight from a comic book. Special mention should go to Raoul Trujillo (decades before he'd play 'Zero Wolf', the monstrous Mayan bounty hunter in "Apocalypto"), who fantastically hams it up as psychopathic Scanner Peter Drak.The gore-factor, one of the trademarks of the "Scanners"-franchise, has been hyped up a notch or two, never reaching the level 'splatter-movie', but often coming close. However, especially younger viewers should be warned, that this movie comes from a pre-CGI era, relying entirely on special effects, not computer animation, hence, may seem a little rough on eyes used to contemporary CGI.All in all it's an enjoyable little romp but suffers the fate of most remakes: it just doesn't stand the comparison to the original. If you came for action, exploding heads and the archetypical "Scanner-grimacing", you cannot go wrong with "Scanners 2" – but if you consider the original film a piece of art and hope for a similarly inspired film, you might leave disappointed.8 points for being a 90's video-cheapo of it's own right, 5 as a sequel to an art-film like "Scanners", so I settle for 7 points out of 10.

disdressed12 the first Scanners may not have been a great movie,but at least it was original.there is no such novelty to this one.the acting is worse,in my opinion,and the story is slower and nothing special.i also didn't like the dialogue.and the special effects are no better than in the original.this is movie is inferior to the first one in all ways.the only thing different about it,is that it is loud and chaotic at times.but that doesn't make a good movie.if they had done something better with the story and made it interesting,this could have been a decent movie.i actually couldn't get through it all without fast forwarding through it.to me,this is a forgettable movie,and not much more.despite all that,there are worse movies.being in a generous mood,i'll give Scanners 2 a 4/10.

jbpott I have always love the film Scanners and have always loved David Cronenberg, but after Deadringers, I always felt he started to go downhill from a wonderful ride in the horror genre. Scanners was one of his best in his early period, when he was working from original screenplays and wasn't in an adaptation funk at all (ie., Naked Lunch, M. Butterfly and Crash). It was a promising plotline and was very entertaining. It has also become a cult classic. So when I saw this sequel when it first came out, I didn't think it would be as good as it is.I'll spare you the plotline since you've undoubtably have read the other reviews, but I will comment on the films structure. It works surprisingly well considering the original didn't leave much for a sequel like this one. If one were to truly look at the first film for a sequel, the likely route would have been to have the main characters be on the run from the secret corporate organizations (a plotline used in Firestarter) which could lead to a very boring and predictable outcome. But this film was made ten years later and the plotline ideas can have new twists and it is this factor that makes this film a success.The opening ropes you in by the way it mimics the opening to the original--homeless, drifting Scanner losses mind in public and gets corralled by the guys in shades and trenchcoats. But its different from the original opening in that Scanners 2 opens with the vagabond Scanner screaming at the city in agony as the mental voices of the population invade his extrasensory mind and drive him crazy. It would be like an itch you can't scratch. I liked this aspect of the opening and it made me realize the filmmaker was a huge fan of the first film. It proved he wanted to be true to the first film and not just make another sequel in name only. The plot device of making the Scanners junkies to mind suppressing drugs was another excellent addition. It further proves the filmmaker's desire to make a good sequel.If you loved the first film, you have to give this one a try. It is very entertaining, great character development and delivers in the gore factor department.