TERRIBLE Acting

fantastic story and special effects but lead actor was so funny with his bad acting!

Terrible Acting indeed...Stephen Lack almost ruins the entire film. Why he was ever cast is a total mystery to me. For those that argue his monotone, wooden performance was intentional because of the character's personality, I have to disagree completely. There were times when Lack's character was *clearly* supposed to show emotion and Lack just couldn't pull it off. Plus, Patrick McGoohan's character was rather cold and aloof (and purposefully difficult to size up), yet he still managed to give a good, believable performance.

Do you guys remember in the beginning of the film when Lack is walking through the fast food place and he's supposed to sneeze and wipe his nose with his hand? He couldn't even pull that off! He looked ridiculous.

Thank goodness for Michael Ironside, Patrick McGoohan and Jennifer O'Neil (who comes across as Meryl Streep in comparison to Lack.)

I've read through the whole thread I was surprised to see that most posters thought the acting was awful. You see posts like these all over IMDB but mostly the majority defends it. Here it's the other way around which, to me, would suggest the acting IS bad.


Personally I really like this film. It has a good tempo and the special effects are pretty impressive.

As far as the acting goes I didn't think much about it being either exceptionally good or bad. It's pretty consistent with all 80's movies and compared to the 80's movies from the "lesser genres" (horror, fantasy etc) it stands up well.

So I'm surprised at the general consensus haha.

Stephen Lack doesn't stand out to me as the protagonist and I'm not sure he was supposed to. For example, there are a lot of scenes that he's not in which, to me, makes gives it a more objective viewpoint rather than subjective. So, for me, it wasn't important that I couldn't relate to him and that he wasn't the star or best actor.
Maybe?


i don't know. Anyway, Scanners is pretty great in my eyes and one of Cronenberg's better films.

This is the worst acting I've seen in a lead so far. He couldn't get more wooden if he were planted in the ground.

At least Dr. Ruth and Revok had more of a screen presence, and gave me hope that this movie had some substance. But it wasn't enough to make up for the cue card delivery of Lack. I could stand it for about 45 minutes and then started fastforwarding through scenes.

If Hollywood wants to continue this remake craze, then by all means take Scanners. It's a good idea ruined by terrible plot and acting, just the sort of film that deserves a second chance.

And yeah, I disagree with those of you who say it's fine as it is. IMO this film is not worth watching with the exception of a few scenes.

I agree that the film is flawed, and the actor playing Cameron Vale was really not doing a good job, but these aspects didn't really put me off the idea of the whole film, and I still think the other actors were doing a fairly enjoyable job of their performances. I'd recommend the film to anybody who enjoys a good science fiction / horror film.

it doesn't really matter that much. the film has other qualities that are more important. the ideas in the story, the effects, the atmosphere, the music, ... in general i find acting the least important aspect of cinema. i know this goes against popular beliaf, but really, cinema (unlike theatre) is not much about acting, it's about editing, it's about the camera.

"Wait, is he SUPPOSED to be a bad actor as part of his character?"
Yes.

Yeah, Stephen Lack was really bad in this, everyone else was pretty good though. I thought the guy who played Dr. Ruth did a good job.