Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Beulah Bram A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

qmtv Decent Story. Sufficient Budget. Poor Execution, Acting, FX. Super Boring and Zero Atmosphere.Incredibly Boring. Acting sucks. There was a story and budget. Very poorly executed. Just a bad movie.Decent Story. Sufficient Budget. Poor Execution, Acting, FX. Super Boring and Zero Atmosphere.Incredibly Boring. Acting sucks. There was a story and budget. Very poorly executed. Just a bad movie.Decent Story. Sufficient Budget. Poor Execution, Acting, FX. Super Boring and Zero Atmosphere. Incredibly Boring. Acting sucks. There was a story and budget. Very poorly executed. Just a bad movie.

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.

Rautus Scanners II: The New Order is just as good as David Cronenberg's classic Scanners, Scanners was made in 1980 and Scanners II in 1991 so their's an eleven year gap between the two movies. The film captures the style of Scanners which is a good thing, it wouldn't be Scanners without a head explosion so Scanners II has a head explosion scene that's just has gruesome as the first. Scanners II: The New Order has some other imaginative gory scenes that are done well. The plot to Scanners II: The New Order is a new take on the series since it has the Scanners being used as a vigilante force for a police chief and a group of scientists until a young Scanner named David Kellum discovers he's being used and decides to get revenge.Scanners II: The New Order is a great sequel to David Cronenberg's sci-fi classic Scanners and should be seen. Check this out. 10/10

Darkblood1 Scanners II was released in the late 80's or early 90's, it was one of the last true low budget horror films before my town turned into big budget studio depot for films. Scanners II is both visually stunning with some great opening shots of Montreal and has a great comic book style plot. Yeah sure the connection to the first Scanners was kinda cheesy in execution, but this film is alot faster in pace and has more action than the very slow paced Scanners. The FX by Mike Smithson are great and very realistic before our dependence to all that is CGI. But overall the performances are good but nothing to write home about. Overall Scanners II has good cinematography and a clever little story of world domination to entertain fans as well as the casual viewer. I suggest to anyone to check it out and be totally entertained for 100 minutes.