TERRIBLE Acting - Scanners (1981) Discussion

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] syvo 20 years ago

I was really glad to see this post. I could not agree with you guys more. I always thought I was alone in recognizing the atrocious acting that saturated this movie...I was shocked further to find out that a lot of people actually praise the acting. It made me sick, I couldn't even finish watching the film.

life's ill

reply

[–] the_man_with_the_plan 20 years ago

Goddamit yes!!

I saw it for the first time last night, and Ironside was cracking as ever (great gurning), but that Stephen Lack bloke... He sounded like he was reading off cue cards!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DisturbedPixie 15 years ago

I agree with you all. I think this needs to be remade. The effects were more than just poor, comical. Cameron was comical. They were staring at each other for most of the film and it was like that episode of South Park about the psychics vs Cartman. This whole film was a comedy for it's flaws.
I think the basic plot was interesting enough for this to justify a remake. It could actually be scary.

If you are Anti-American: Admit you are doing it just to be cool. Does it feel good to hate?

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ClintJCL 13 years ago

The 2011 remake is gonna be way better than this dated, preposterous movie.

Slow. Boring. Slow. Boring. Hardly anything happens.

The ridiculous *beep* idea that if you are telepathic and can access human nervous systems, that you must therefore be able to access computers, because "they have nervous systems too". What utter *beep* *beep*

The acting when people get scanned. Having to shake and act like "oh no i'm being scanned". The scanner battles. The expressions the actors make. CORNY!

The only guns are shotguns -- you better believe it! Then again, if a scanner may be messing with your aim while you are trying to kill him, a shotgun's wide blast radius might be the only way you still manage to hit them.

Yes, a computer can make a telephone booth explode. DEAL WITH IT. Ha ha ha.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

[–] miser42 9 years ago

The remake never happened and if this movie was so preposterous, why is it a cult classic?

reply

[–] ClintJCL 9 years ago

Since when was being a cult classic and being preposterous mutually exclusive?

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

[–] miser42 9 years ago

The point is, if you don't like the movie that is your opinion. Your opinion and others are not mutually "inclusive". See what I did there?

reply

[–] ClintJCL 9 years ago

No, not really.

You're free to like the movie all you want. I'm glad I watched it, but consider it barely passable badfilm. If I had to watch badfilm, I'd probably want to watch something more ridiculous and lighthearted. This is a bunch of staring, and then shaking your head. Over and over. The acting is terrible. Staring at someone isn't great acting. It's just ridiculous. And not in the good way I just described, haha!

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

[–] miser42 9 years ago

Well I disagree. It is not a bad film. Not in a bad but good way and not in a bad but bad way either. It has loads of atmosphere and presents interesting theories on the idea of telepathy and empaths. Cronenberg chooses to direct his actors in ways that make it unsettling and unnerving for the viewers. Yeah, Stephen Lack isn't the best actor in the world and his role is stiff and disjointed but I believe that is what was needed for the role. How is the films ideas any more ridiculous than say "The Wizard of Oz"?

reply

[–] ClintJCL 9 years ago

It's generally not, except, well... Telepaths being able to read a computer's "mind". Because those are so similar. ;) I guess they can simply read their car's mind to know if they need to purchase more gasoline.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

[–] miser42 9 years ago

It is a science FICTION/ Horror film. Hence, the word fiction. It isn't reality, nor is it supposed to be. It is just supposed to be an interesting story to get lost in for a few hours. Movies are entertainment, you are either entertained or not.

reply

[–] ClintJCL 9 years ago

What's your point? Are their nonfictional telepaths? No? Then it doesn't matter. We have a concept of what telepathy is. The ability to "Read" a computer's "Mind" (which doesn't actually exist) is nothing at all physically or logically like reading a person's mind. It's not what telepathy is. It's bad writing.

-ClintJCL
http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/category/reviews/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RobBase086-1 14 years ago

Ironside always plays a very good villian in any movie or TV show to be honest with you. That is why he always gets the bad guy roles in movies or pretty much anything you can think of.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/

reply

[–] saluk64007 13 years ago

He's not always bad. He was great as a good guy in Starship Troopers, and I'm pretty sure he's been good in a few other things. But yeah he's a great bad guy too.

reply

[–] RobBase086-1 13 years ago

Well that is where I have seen him mostly play is a bad guy and very seldomly do I see him play a good guy though.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans! http://www.usaupallnight.webs.com

reply

[–] sexy_dancer 10 years ago

He was a bad guy in Starship Troopers. The humans were the real villains in that movie. It's why they cast Michael Ironside and also Clancy Brown.

reply

[–] RobBase086-1 14 years ago

What could you expect that is how films are still being done today. Some people have experience and others do not. I thought the movie was good and I did not have anything to complain about it at all.

Dedicated to USA UP ALL NIGHT and the fans of the show! www.deefilmroll.com/usa-uan/

reply

[–] danielll_rs 20 years ago

Yeah, one of the worst performances I've ever seen in a mainstream movie. Too bad, because the film is pretty entertaining.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Chickensmoke 15 years ago

The acting WAS terrible, and this is probably the worst David Cronnenberg film I've ever seen. Stuff like 'The Brood' was more enjoyable than this, which was surprising cos this is the Cronnenberg film everyone goes on about (apart from 'The Fly'- one of my favorites!), so I was expecting it to be good. Not scary, silly effects (bar the exploding head) and YES terrible acting!

reply

[–] cruces2317 14 years ago

Ironside's brilliance makes up for any sub-par acting. Also, it is most definitely not a mainstream movie. It was lucky to be played on Cinemax at 3 in the morning, when I was a kid back in the 80's.

reply

[–] coex 15 years ago

sorry, this was not a mainstream movie at all! it was a b-movie made in 1981. back then, these films played drive-ins and second run houses, and Cronenberg wasn't a name anyone would hear about for years to come (unless you read Fangoria and loved B-movies!).
As pointed out in the other thread here on Lack: he was supposed to act this way. Pay attention to the story and who his character is supposed to BE.

reply

[–] infidelicity 15 years ago

Ha. It's amusing how modern viewers seem to assume that movies made in the past where somehow these splendid, wondrous, universally acclaimed masterpieces. Much was just as it is now. Most is poorly acted entertainment that does not age well with the years; with actors/starlets and directors trying to make a name for themselves.

By all means, we should appreciate it for what it is, in the context of when, how and why it was made, acting and all. As to his acting... frankly it reminds me of most movies of that era I've seen where the hero is supposed to be a sullen, maladjusted loner with a mystery past. Very reserved and ultra serious. It's annoying but we shouldn't blame the actor, blame the era.

Plus I don't think they chose him for his superior acting but for his freaky eyes for all the long staring close ups. :P The dubbing sucks though, I find it makes his acting seem -worse- than it appears to be.

-
Fantasy & Reality are one side of the coin. Just don’t confuse the two, it insults them both.

reply

[–] Herreken 15 years ago

I never knew the actor who played Vale had his lines dubbed. Did he do the dubbing or was it another actor? This may explain why he came across as comatose.

Strangely enough, he had a role in Dead Ringers but I don't remember it. I saw Dead Ringers about...5 years after I first saw Scanners. I think I would have recognized him. Did his acting improve or was it an unmemorable small role?

DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia!

reply

[–] Ore-Sama 11 years ago

Ha. It's amusing how modern viewers seem to assume that movies made in the past where somehow these splendid, wondrous, universally acclaimed masterpieces.

On the whole, yes, older movies are better then current ones.

"However cleverly you sneak up on a mirror, it's reflection always looks you straight in the eye"

reply

[–] K0walski 20 years ago

I agree. I watched this with a friend the other night and we were both in awe at how shockingly bad he was. I've seen high school plays with significantly better actors.

It ruined the movie for him, but I still rather enjoyed it. I didn't rent this movie to see great acting anyway.

reply

[–] tuttt 20 years ago

> we were both in awe at how shockingly bad he was.

Exquisitely bad. It was almost a relief to see his character catch fire and watch his eyeballs shoot out of his head. ka-POW!!!

Too bad he didn't BLOW UP, like that Louis del Grande character. He woulda blowed up REAL good!!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Innsmouth_Clay 20 years ago

For my money, I think the crazy artist may have Stephen Lack beat.

No mean feat!

He only has a bit part, but what he does with it is so astonishing it's indelibly imprinted in my mind. His mocking laugh, and then his thoughtful delivery of, "Who are you?" Cue cards, nothing. He performs as if someone's feeding him lines and movement through an earpiece because he has no idea what to do or say from one moment to the next. I don't know whether to cringe or laugh watching him.

Michael Ironside walks away with the film, but what does he walk away with?

The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once.

reply

[–] bps3013 16 years ago

Totally. And I second the nomination of "Crazy Artist Guy" for Worst Actor Runner Up. When he throws his head back and does that "WHOOOO-HOOO-HOO-HOOO" laugh thing, it's all over. Yeah, I get he's supposed to be a mental wreck, but that's just damn stupid.

And poor Stephen Lack... the less said about his performance the better.

reply

[–] MrGKB 16 years ago

I can't disagree with what's been said, but will note that this thread has actually motivated me to dig the daggone thing out and watch it again. I probably haven't seen it in fifteen years or so, but watched it numerous times back in the day. Cronenberg remains one of my favorite directors.

_____________________________
When in doubt, watch a movie!
Once certain, watch it again!

reply

[–] chexmix 20 years ago

The thing that makes it weirder is ... Stephen Lack is a well-known VISUAL ARTIST. Check out his IMDB bio. He sort of dabbles in acting, I guess.

I first suspected this when I saw that a "Stephen Lack" had an entry in the book _What the Songs Look Like_, a collection of "illustrations" of Talking Heads songs.

Why Cronenberg thought a painter would make a good lead actor ... ::whuff:: But Lack really is wooden in this movie, a major flaw.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] noonward 16 years ago

weird, I don't really care about acting in Cronenberg movies. I'm more interested in the writing and directing.

though Cronenberg does usually have superb lead actors hmmm

reply

[–] katungaforever 16 years ago

Besides the ominous performance by Stephen Lack, I believe this one is one of the worst Cronenberg movies, competing in boredom with "Spider".

reply

[–] jinx_malone 16 years ago

patrick mcgoohan wins in this movie and is clearly the best thing about it.

everyone else blows horrendously. david cronenberg actually cast stephen lack because he had wonky eyes. no other reason!

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] filterite 16 years ago

Yeah the acting's pretty atrocious when it comes to Vale and the artist guy. The funny thing is, the guy who played the artist has been in quite a few Cronenberg movies. I think this was the worst performance of the lot. But you could get away with wooden acting in Cronenberg's early movies.

reply

[–] Corthier 15 years ago

Lack's "wooden" acting is off-putting until you arrive at Revok's explanation at the climax, at which point you must completely reassess this performance in line with its character's back story. Gee, he seems vacant, unformed, and even baby-like. Could there be a reason?

Imagine that you can't even remember your childhood and have no sense of yourself as a person. Wouldn't you be a little blank, as though you were "reading off of cue cards."

A gutsy move on Cronenberg's part, to trust his audience's intelligence to such an extent....

reply

[–] jinx_malone 15 years ago

cronenberg himself regrets having casted lack in the role. think again.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] konitzlee 15 years ago

I don't know. This is weird. Maybe Lack was imposed on Cronnie by the producers. But still, when you have pretty good actors playing for you, and plenty of money, how could you allow such a bad actor like Lack to work for you?

reply

[–] coex 15 years ago

where does he say that?

reply

[–] jinx_malone 15 years ago

in the book cronenberg on cronenberg.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] jinx_malone 15 years ago

if you like, i can go back and post the pertinent bits from 'cronenberg on cronenberg' for you that talk about how he: thinks scanners is overall a flawed film, how he regrets casting stephen lack, and how he thought the paddy was super in it but that he was such a bad alcoholic that he was genuinely afraid of him. it was a tax bracket film. it has its moments--which for me are all about dr. ruth, since having patrick mcgoohan in a cronenberg film, even a crappy one, is about the coolest thing i can think of--but this movie was not well thought out nor was there much time to do so.

i think you're ascribing more to DC's motives in casting lack than are actually there to begin with.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jmkoons 15 years ago

For me, there was a level on which the mechanistic performance by Lack resonated, in light of the film's theme. Yes, there is the notion that his character is tortured and perhaps relates to other people with a blank persona. This also creates more draw towards Revok, who does not have this apathetic condition. In the same way, the blank delivery by Pierce passes - except for that awful attempt at maniacal laughter. A more critical and honest assessment would admit the acting to be just plain atrocious, no excuses. In this case, the explanation of the characters' lack of personality to be a deliberate trait is nothing more than justification for a major fault. Still, I find this a memorable film for this very reason, and when combined with Shore's fantastic other-worldly synth drones, makes for a strange experience. Its hard for me to imagine the film with Cameron Vale having a personality, in fact.

reply