MovieChat Forums > Scanners III: The Takeover (1992) Discussion > I actually liked this movie better than ...

I actually liked this movie better than the second one..

posted 17 years ago by wuja
13 replies | jump to latest

Did anyone else like this one more?

OK, besides the whole Buddhist Monk thing;

1. the acting was better [including some quasi-stars that i recognized]
2. the locations were better [not cold, sterile corporate/lab settings [i know it worked well in the original]]
3. it didn't try to be something it wasn't [i.e. some epic movie even though they had a little budget, they kept things relatively low-key]
4. the cinematography was better, felt more clean-cut
5. it established the family connection right away and not awkwardly 3/4 into the movie like the last one
6. it didn't have that annoying vampire guy with the long hair screaming and being annoying/looking annoying
7. and most importantly.... it had more T and A.

AMIRITE?

[–] megatone230 17 years ago

I just watched this the other night and actually enjoyed it alot more than I expected to. There was lots of deliciously campy dialog with the main character after she turned 'bad'. I thought the whole thing was very entertaining.
I still have to watch part II, but I did see some clips of that one and agree that the vampire guy was very irratating to watch...hehe

[–] j_barber84 17 years ago

ya the dialogue was hilarious.. awesome movie.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaVooz 16 years ago

yep you are totally right wuja, same here.

[–] Diamond_Dan 16 years ago

Scanners II: The New Order & Scanners III: The Takeover were both pretty good sequels to me. Definitely not as good or as classic as the first, but still, pretty good overall. And for being early 90's low budget movies, i think the both of them had some good special effects. I think i might have liked III a bit more than II, but they are both fine by me.

[–] DaVooz 16 years ago

It's said 'stupid Q's don't exist' but I'm gonna ask you one now: What is the original Scanners called, what year was it from and who was it by?
I always thought it was from the same director of The Fly and Crash, David Cronenberg? I confused him with Steven Soderbergh (whose Traffic I thought was terrific but whose Good German I thought stank) but then came across these two titles on discount in the shop (2006 re-release Warner Home Video). I believed Scanners II: The New Order (1991) and Scanners III: The Takeover (1992) to be follow-ups to the scary and shocking and/but still entertaining original (Scanners I: ?) I remembered having seen once, but got confused by the writing on the cover (credits) "Concept by David Cronenberg" (and not "From" or "Directed by"). You call it a classic and the best of the three, but could you help me out Diamond_Dan ? I got lost on my search here on iMDB...

Is it from 1981 and (simply) called Scanners, Written and Directed by David Cronenberg? I think it is, but was he or was he not involved in the making of Scanners II and III, or did the new or other production team used/bought the idea/theme from him?

[–] rrpostal 15 years ago

The original was a Cronenberg movie (The Fly, ExistenZ, Eastern Promises, History of Violence, Crash, Videodrome, etc, etc). The next two were horrible B movie schlep that at best are "guilty pleasure" material. They probably just said "inspired by" the Cronenberg movie on the boxes.n

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pops87 15 years ago

And they finally get to use New WORLD Order... :}

___________________
My votes: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=40912360

[–] RTheManF89 10 years ago

Personally, I think the Scanners series is one of those rare film franchises where each entry gets better. Scanners III is probably the best one. A pity they didn't make more, though

The two Scanner Cop movies are cool too.

http://houstonrambler.blogspot.com/

[–] oldpantsnewjersey 9 years ago

You are exactly right. I just watched all three in a row and was pleasantly surprised with the third installment, especially after how lame the second one was.

Helena had her corny one-liners (and that accent/dubbing was painful), but she was still a less cartoony villain than that evil scanner in Scanners 2. Her campy gang started making up for that as the film progressed, but fortunately, they didn't have a ton of screen time.

The first film wasn't even that gripping, but for some reason (probably the film grain), I still rank 80s sci-fi schlock over 90s any time.

[–] Briabba2 9 years ago

OK, besides the whole Buddhist Monk thing;

1. the acting was better [including some quasi-stars that i recognized]
2. the locations were better [not cold, sterile corporate/lab settings [i know it worked well in the original]]
3. it didn't try to be something it wasn't [i.e. some epic movie even though they had a little budget, they kept things relatively low-key]
4. the cinematography was better, felt more clean-cut
5. it established the family connection right away and not awkwardly 3/4 into the movie like the last one
6. it didn't have that annoying vampire guy with the long hair screaming and being annoying/looking annoying
7. and most importantly.... it had more T and A.

I agree with all but 7. There was no D and A (Sad)

[–] bloody-3 7 years ago

The second one was okay but I think I prefer this one because it didn't take itself so seriously. To me it came across as a black comedy more than anything else.