As a child of the 80's, I grew up with these kinds of films; films about people with special powers and government cover-ups. This film does a great job of evoking that same feeling, with a decent script and a pretty decent SFX budget. The acting, however, was beyond hacky, and really marred the integrity of the film. Almost everyone involved in this movie was just awful, with overacting and poor delivery abundant in every scene. It was like watching a student film at times, with people who have no business being in front of a camera. With a more talented cast, this would have been a worthy addition to 80's horror films. As it stands, it is a decent film with some really bad talent attached to it. Watch it for the carnage and gore, but be advised, you will be rolling your eyes every time someone attempts to deliver their lines with a straight face.
28 Reviews
Blew my mind!
subxerogravity8 August 2016
I'm a very big fan of low budget Sci-Fi films, and this one was quite impressive.
If you ever seen the David Cronenberg film, Scanners, it's very, very similar to that experience, The effects are simple and effective, and a good use of both visual and sound effects to make the psychokinetic powers seem eerie.
It's a good set of interesting characters with the best one being the guy who played the main antagonist, Slovak. He starts off sane and gets crazier like a super villain as the movie progresses.
The Mind's Eye follows Slovak as he hunts down and experiments on the ever growing population of psychokinetic people, in hopes of gaining great power from them, only to have to chase down a few of them who had escape his clutches.
I'm also a sucker for movies that allow me to reminisce over my 80s upbringing with a look and a soundtrack that remind me of that era (The film actually takes place in the early 90s)
It's a stellar production.
http://cinemagardens.com
If you ever seen the David Cronenberg film, Scanners, it's very, very similar to that experience, The effects are simple and effective, and a good use of both visual and sound effects to make the psychokinetic powers seem eerie.
It's a good set of interesting characters with the best one being the guy who played the main antagonist, Slovak. He starts off sane and gets crazier like a super villain as the movie progresses.
The Mind's Eye follows Slovak as he hunts down and experiments on the ever growing population of psychokinetic people, in hopes of gaining great power from them, only to have to chase down a few of them who had escape his clutches.
I'm also a sucker for movies that allow me to reminisce over my 80s upbringing with a look and a soundtrack that remind me of that era (The film actually takes place in the early 90s)
It's a stellar production.
http://cinemagardens.com
Okay time waster
kamikaze-49 March 2021
To call The Mind's Eye a homage to Scanners might be stretching it. A reboot of the Scanners series, maybe. In the long run, this movie is a decent thriller that would probably wow those who never saw the Scanners series. One thing that annoyed me regarding the patients VS the guards is there wasn't any conflict. All the patients had to do was stare down the guards, and that's that. The one guard near the end had it right. He told the lead patient to stare down at the ground or else! It didn't work, but it was a better solution to handle the patients.
A bad "Scanners" wannabe. Just bad.
atomikbuster6 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, it gets a 3 just because of the effort, the actors and camera work were pretty decent for some low budget movie, so I am recognizing their work.
The other missing 7 stars are just because of the awful script. it's so bad that you will be shouting at the TV in some scenes. For instance, the main good guy has the chance to kill the main bad guy in the first 20 minutes of the movie but refuses it, although before he killed some of his henchmen trying to escape from his prison institution. And all this just to kill the bad guy for real at the end of the movie (duh!).
Yep, the writing is that bad. 4th grade kid's homework bad.
Another thing that bugged me was the special effects, pretty cheap for this day and age, even low budget.
My recommendation is to spare yourself the losing of one and a half hours of your life and just watch (again) the much better "Scanners" made by the genius of David Cronenberg.
The other missing 7 stars are just because of the awful script. it's so bad that you will be shouting at the TV in some scenes. For instance, the main good guy has the chance to kill the main bad guy in the first 20 minutes of the movie but refuses it, although before he killed some of his henchmen trying to escape from his prison institution. And all this just to kill the bad guy for real at the end of the movie (duh!).
Yep, the writing is that bad. 4th grade kid's homework bad.
Another thing that bugged me was the special effects, pretty cheap for this day and age, even low budget.
My recommendation is to spare yourself the losing of one and a half hours of your life and just watch (again) the much better "Scanners" made by the genius of David Cronenberg.
Terrible.
deathlightdb11 August 2016
You can't direct a pastiche without adding a few humorous nods to the elements you're using. Otherwise it simply comes off as painfully cliché, overdone crap. I agree with the "most helpful" review, in that it definitely feels like a student film. In fact, that was my very first critical thought. I was somewhere around the half hour mark, and said to myself, "This is like a bad student film."
None of the actors stood out, nor were they bad enough to be funny/ made fun of. For instance: Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons? That is gloriously bad ham acting, so bad that it actually makes the loop back to good, because it's just so damn funny at times. The villain could have taken some notes from Irons' performance there- or indeed, ANY time that Irons has played a villain- because he never hit that over-the-top stride that should be seen in both the 80's horror and pastiche genre.
This film either needed to take itself much more or much less seriously.
None of the actors stood out, nor were they bad enough to be funny/ made fun of. For instance: Jeremy Irons in Dungeons and Dragons? That is gloriously bad ham acting, so bad that it actually makes the loop back to good, because it's just so damn funny at times. The villain could have taken some notes from Irons' performance there- or indeed, ANY time that Irons has played a villain- because he never hit that over-the-top stride that should be seen in both the 80's horror and pastiche genre.
This film either needed to take itself much more or much less seriously.
Not an homage!
arkhambat-513-17079528 September 2016
Homage does not mean rehash. Nor does it mean dull, unoriginal fan- fiction. That's what this is. Save yourself and just watch the material they ripped off for their "homage": Scanners The Fury Firestarter
The "Stranger Things" guys did a MUCH better job.
I'm not saying every aspect of this film is complete garbage, but the bones (story and writing) are. The acting is on par with the level of production. The music is fun, but only serves to make me dislike the plot line even more and see it as someone piggy-backing on much better work like the aforementioned classics. The gall it took for this to be compared to De Palma or Cronenberg baffles and angers me.
The "Stranger Things" guys did a MUCH better job.
I'm not saying every aspect of this film is complete garbage, but the bones (story and writing) are. The acting is on par with the level of production. The music is fun, but only serves to make me dislike the plot line even more and see it as someone piggy-backing on much better work like the aforementioned classics. The gall it took for this to be compared to De Palma or Cronenberg baffles and angers me.
"Almost Human" Director Out-"Scanners" "Scanners" sequels!
dale-lover7 November 2015
Here's a first for yours truly: a review of a yet-to-be-released film that's currently making the festival circuit. The 'secret movie' and highlight of Brooklyn's Nitehawk Cinema's Halloween 'Nite to Dismember'celebration turned out to be director Joe Bego's follow-up to "Almost Human," the very 80's (particularly Steve Moore's wall-to- wall electronic soundtrack) "The Mind's Eye." What "Turbo Kid" is to 80's post-apocalyptic movies "The Mind's Eye" is to David Cronenberg's "Scanners": a contemporary homage that looks/sounds like the genuine article, right down to the ugly-looking logo of the institute at the center of the intrigue. Per Begos' representative at the screening, the director's aim was to make the sequel/follow-up to "Scanners" that he feels the actual "Scanners" sequels didn't live up to. It takes an awful lot of trouble for "The Mind's Eye's" psychokinetic characters to flex their mental muscles. A simple ax or gun seems to do the trick better for most of the film. Even though it mercilessly teases early on that big exploding heads and psychokinetic duels are coming, it's not until the final act that "The Mind's Eye" truly goes berserk in a good way. You know, like "Rabid" and "The Brood" and, yes, "Scanners."
Personally I feel "The Mind's Eye" has some shortcomings in the casting of its leads. Either that or Begos deliberately went with actors that feel miscast (Graham Skipper) or way over the top (John Speredakos) to match similar bad casting in Cronenberg's late 70's/early 80's films. That would be an even more meta tribute to the Canadian master of body horror than the "Videodrome"-like opening titles/fonts that start the movie. At least the supporting cast is populated with low-budget horror luminaries, from Larry Fessenden ("I Sell the Dead") and Jeremy Gardner ("The Battery") to Noah Segan ("Starry Eyes") and Lauren Ashley Carter ("The Woman"). For a 2015 low-budget film that sets its story in the early 90's (which makes it feel closer to Cronenberg's prime decades) the action is decent and the deaths/gore off-the-charts groovy, something "Scanners 2 & 3" definitely skimped on. For fans of body horror missing the old Cronenberg now that the genuine article is doing mostly psychologically-heavy stuff (not that I'm complaining), "The Mind's Eye" will make for a pleasant and entertaining evening's entertainment. Me and the Nitehawk Halloween crowd really dug it.
Personally I feel "The Mind's Eye" has some shortcomings in the casting of its leads. Either that or Begos deliberately went with actors that feel miscast (Graham Skipper) or way over the top (John Speredakos) to match similar bad casting in Cronenberg's late 70's/early 80's films. That would be an even more meta tribute to the Canadian master of body horror than the "Videodrome"-like opening titles/fonts that start the movie. At least the supporting cast is populated with low-budget horror luminaries, from Larry Fessenden ("I Sell the Dead") and Jeremy Gardner ("The Battery") to Noah Segan ("Starry Eyes") and Lauren Ashley Carter ("The Woman"). For a 2015 low-budget film that sets its story in the early 90's (which makes it feel closer to Cronenberg's prime decades) the action is decent and the deaths/gore off-the-charts groovy, something "Scanners 2 & 3" definitely skimped on. For fans of body horror missing the old Cronenberg now that the genuine article is doing mostly psychologically-heavy stuff (not that I'm complaining), "The Mind's Eye" will make for a pleasant and entertaining evening's entertainment. Me and the Nitehawk Halloween crowd really dug it.
Rip off of Scanners
mhorg20185 July 2018
Almost a competent film, there isn't an original thought in this movie. Whoever made it saw Scanners and said, Hey rather than do yet another low budget zombie movie, let's do Scanners. And that's what they did. It almost a paint by numbers recreation of Scanners right down to the mind off (face off) at the end. Not horrible. But not good either.
Indie Sci-Fi Horror At Its Best
boris_unanimate2 May 2020
'The Mind's Eye' is Joe Begos' idea of how to make a gory, low-budget homage to Cronenberg's 'Scanners'. And I applaud every choice he's made while trying to tell an intense, captivating story. While it may not be as flashy and posh as the over-produced flicks that have no idea where they are going with the story, Begos uses his cast, craft and locations to their fullest potential.
It's not for everyone, but those who appreciate hard work and resourcefulness, i.e. any Joe Begos film, will certainly find it easy to immerse themselves in his tight combination of art and gore. The acting can seem forced at times, but it's a supernatural horror about psychokinesis, so don't expect 'Shawshank Redemption'. The kills are brutal and well "executed" with spectacular SFX. The music should be played loud. Enjoy the ride!
It's not for everyone, but those who appreciate hard work and resourcefulness, i.e. any Joe Begos film, will certainly find it easy to immerse themselves in his tight combination of art and gore. The acting can seem forced at times, but it's a supernatural horror about psychokinesis, so don't expect 'Shawshank Redemption'. The kills are brutal and well "executed" with spectacular SFX. The music should be played loud. Enjoy the ride!
Barely Watchable Ripp Off of David Cronenberg's Scanners
jacquesdr9 February 2017
If this feature stood on it's own, it might have made a weak 4 on my list, but as a rip off of the 1981 classic it barely gets a 2. So let's settle then on 3.
Though the story line deviates from David Cronenberg's Scanners, this feature is a clear rip off from Scanners with very obvious parallels – even a classic reference to the forced veins on the face of Michael Slovak, the deranged scientist.
Someone clearly forgot to tell this movie maker though that if you are going to try and emulate the style of a legendary director like Cronenberg, one should probably at least try and come up with an original idea or study the thematic content of that particular director before putting out a half-bred attempt to cash in on a new generation that would not know the classic.
But with a very weak story line, a complete lack of thematic content, an over obvious choice to emulate Cronenberg's style and an insulting lack of innovation and originality, the best thing about this film is the B-grade special effects that is slightly nostalgic of early Rob Zombie films.
Though the story line deviates from David Cronenberg's Scanners, this feature is a clear rip off from Scanners with very obvious parallels – even a classic reference to the forced veins on the face of Michael Slovak, the deranged scientist.
Someone clearly forgot to tell this movie maker though that if you are going to try and emulate the style of a legendary director like Cronenberg, one should probably at least try and come up with an original idea or study the thematic content of that particular director before putting out a half-bred attempt to cash in on a new generation that would not know the classic.
But with a very weak story line, a complete lack of thematic content, an over obvious choice to emulate Cronenberg's style and an insulting lack of innovation and originality, the best thing about this film is the B-grade special effects that is slightly nostalgic of early Rob Zombie films.
Just like they used to make 'em!
perkin200011 August 2016
Fantastic, fun, low budget, daft horror film made for peanuts. Just the sorta thing we here at Plop Towers love watching.
Written and directed by Joe Begos who also done the cracking Almost Human.
If you ask me, the horror genre, and films in general, need chaps like young Begos. People who won't let the lack of budget get in the way of telling a story, and doing so well.
Same goes for anyone who reads this, if you want the world to hear your voice, do it now. Don't wait for external endorsement, sponsorship or someone to hold your hand, it won't happen. You'll probably fail, but what do you wan't to say when your ticket's punched? You tried your best, or you thought about it a lot?
Good luck.
(Originally at www.filmplop.blogspot.com)
Written and directed by Joe Begos who also done the cracking Almost Human.
If you ask me, the horror genre, and films in general, need chaps like young Begos. People who won't let the lack of budget get in the way of telling a story, and doing so well.
Same goes for anyone who reads this, if you want the world to hear your voice, do it now. Don't wait for external endorsement, sponsorship or someone to hold your hand, it won't happen. You'll probably fail, but what do you wan't to say when your ticket's punched? You tried your best, or you thought about it a lot?
Good luck.
(Originally at www.filmplop.blogspot.com)
the gore at the end makes it worth picking up
trashgang6 September 2016
I did like Joe Begos earlier throwback to the horrors of the eighties Almost Human (2013) but this one wasn't really my cup of cake. For me the story was a bit weak but again, the director Begos made an ode to those heydays in the eighties of psychokinetic flicks like Scanners (1981) and the underestimated Bells (1982) still unavailable on any format, only VHS.
What I did like was the effects used towards the end. But you really have to wait until then because when the mind is being tricked by a kinetic one there aren't any effects, it's just the use of the eyes that makes contact of the enemy's mind. But at the end of course they all are against each other and it's there that the gore comes in. Oh yes, I can even say that it's ultra gory at some points but overall it was just above mediocre for me. Maybe some scene's took too long. Nevertheless, if you grew up in the eighties be sure to pick this up but if you're used at the horrors of nowadays you wont like it at all.
Gore 2/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
What I did like was the effects used towards the end. But you really have to wait until then because when the mind is being tricked by a kinetic one there aren't any effects, it's just the use of the eyes that makes contact of the enemy's mind. But at the end of course they all are against each other and it's there that the gore comes in. Oh yes, I can even say that it's ultra gory at some points but overall it was just above mediocre for me. Maybe some scene's took too long. Nevertheless, if you grew up in the eighties be sure to pick this up but if you're used at the horrors of nowadays you wont like it at all.
Gore 2/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5
Scanners Wannabe
pseawrig16 September 2019
Imagine if David Cronenberg had just a 100 IQ. This then is what Scanners would've looked like. It doesn't suck, but it's not all that impressive either.
Unlike Scanners, there is no cerebral subtext. What you see is what you get and nothing more. One thing that drove me sorta nuts watching it is that the characters will announce that some course of action is not a good idea and then proceed to do just that. They also engage in fights to the death, where they get the upper hand, but then do not finish off their opponents. Guess what happens.
The lead actress and the score are pretty good. Plus, the general storyline is interesting, the foreboding atmosphere is well maintained, and the practical gore effects are impactful. All in all, I'd probably rather just rewatch Scanners, but that said, you could do a lot worse than watching this homage/ knockoff/ what-have-you.
Unlike Scanners, there is no cerebral subtext. What you see is what you get and nothing more. One thing that drove me sorta nuts watching it is that the characters will announce that some course of action is not a good idea and then proceed to do just that. They also engage in fights to the death, where they get the upper hand, but then do not finish off their opponents. Guess what happens.
The lead actress and the score are pretty good. Plus, the general storyline is interesting, the foreboding atmosphere is well maintained, and the practical gore effects are impactful. All in all, I'd probably rather just rewatch Scanners, but that said, you could do a lot worse than watching this homage/ knockoff/ what-have-you.
Great poster, terrible movie
jtindahouse7 August 2016
Too often I make the mistake of being captivated by a film's poster. The amount of movies I've seen based purely on their poster is higher than I'd care to admit. And alas, once again I've made the mistake. 'The Mind's Eye' has a clever, eye-catching poster indeed, but the film can in no way live up to it. In fact it doesn't even come close. It's a snoozefest. Evidentally psychokinesis does not make for a very good film subject.
The entire plot revolves around an insane doctor who wants psychokinetic powers for himself. Though the audience can't help but wonder, why? What exactly is this going to add to your life? What about having these powers could possibly be worth the effort and sacrifice you are clearly going through to get them? It just doesn't make any sense. Then add in the fact that the two protagonists are about as unlikable and dull as film characters come and you're left with a pretty unwatchable product. Director Joe Begos seems aware he doesn't have the strongest script (dispite having written it himself) and seemingly tries to make up for in the final third with excess gore, but even that falls flat with a lack of originality. There's really not a whole lot to see here.
The entire plot revolves around an insane doctor who wants psychokinetic powers for himself. Though the audience can't help but wonder, why? What exactly is this going to add to your life? What about having these powers could possibly be worth the effort and sacrifice you are clearly going through to get them? It just doesn't make any sense. Then add in the fact that the two protagonists are about as unlikable and dull as film characters come and you're left with a pretty unwatchable product. Director Joe Begos seems aware he doesn't have the strongest script (dispite having written it himself) and seemingly tries to make up for in the final third with excess gore, but even that falls flat with a lack of originality. There's really not a whole lot to see here.
The Fury. Only reeeeeeally bad.
S_Soma6 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Telekinesis, from just a relatively minor plot element all the way up to being the entire subject matter of a movie, has been around in cinema for quite some time. Many famous and notable actors have either wielded The Great Power directly or have been closely involved with those who did: John Travolta, Julie Andrews, Chevy Chase, Sissy Spacek, Kirk Douglas, John Cassavetes, to name just a few, have all lent their names and reputations to flicks involving telekinesis. Heck fire, even two Knights of the Realm, Sir Alec Guinness and Sir Richard Burton, were quite capable of throwing things around without lifting a finger.
All of which would tend to suggest, to me at least, that telekinesis is reasonably legitimate as source material for a movie, and that good movies with decent acting and imaginative plot lines can be made about it.
But you certainly wouldn't know it from "The Mind's Eye". Wow, what a stinker. Even terrible movies usually have SOME redeemable characteristic or element that prevent them from being COMPLETELY horrible. "Plan 9 from Outer Space", widely reputed to be the worst movie ever made, achieved a sort of so-bad-it's-art status. But not this dog.
I am extremely forgiving of movies involving science fiction, psychic phenomena, magic, horror, fantasy, fairy tales and so on. I'll willingly and voluntarily watch movies that would make most people's eyes bleed and work to find something worthwhile in them. But I couldn't even watch this one through to the end. When a movie makes you profoundly aware that you're wasting precious minutes out of your too-short life, it's a very bad sign.
Sociopathic scientist wants to steal telekinetic powers for himself and is willing to torture and/or kill anyone to get them. That's it. That's the plot. So not even trying there.
You would think that having telekinetic powers would give a person a decided advantage in a conflict, but no. Every time the good guys gain the advantage in some fracas, they run away. They often have the bad guys, and sometimes even the primary antagonist, completely at their mercy and they just run away, every time. Because if they didn't the movie would mercifully be over, and we can't have that. The good guys know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the bad guys will keep coming NO MATTER WHAT and will stop at nothing to achieve their evil objective, but they keep letting the bad guys go to keep stopping at nothing again and again and again. Meanwhile the bad guys leave a trail of dead bodies and bloody pieces a mile wide. That's it That's the whole movie.
When this "strategy" eventually results in the father of the primary protagonist having his brains splattered against a wall (meaning, of course, that the main protagonist is entirely responsible for the death of his own father), it doesn't change the primary protagonist's behavior not one whit.
The primary protagonist's girlfriend, also a telekinetic, seems to understand the reality of the situation and moves to finish off the bad guys fairly early on, but the primary protagonist actually STOPS her.
Only when our 87 minute run time winds down does the protagonist do what he should've done in the first 10 minutes: kill the primary antagonist with telekinesis.
The writer here clearly doesn't understand the notion of willing suspension of disbelief. Either that or he just doesn't care. Audiences can readily accept incredible premises like telekinesis. But they CAN'T accept characters behaving in ridiculous and inexplicable ways given the premises.
Directorial High Point: in the Final Showdown, the protagonist and the antagonist face-off in a telekinetic grudge match. Bear in mind that the primary antagonist has managed to acquire much more powerful telekinetic powers than the primary protagonist by this point. The director could've done something dull and unimaginative like, oh, have the protagonist and antagonist stare at each other, virtually immobile, for 2 or 3 minutes while yelling "ahhhhhhhhh!" until the antagonist suddenly explodes. But that would've been stupid. So he made the antagonist float about 8 feet in the air while the two of them stare at each other, virtually immobile, for 2 or 3 minutes while yelling "ahhhhhhhh!" until the antagonist suddenly explodes. Oh, yes. Much better.
The acting is atrocious, the writing is absolutely appalling, the special effects are abysmal, the music is canned and repetitive.
Some people are comparing this movie to "Scanners" and, from a science fiction standpoint, that would be completely off-base. "The Mind's Eye" is, as far as I can tell, completely about telekinesis. It doesn't have anything to do with any other psychic powers such as telepathy, mind control and etc. Additionally, "Scanners" DOESN'T share many of the plot elements within "the Mind's Eye" such as the romantic involvement, the death of the primary protagonist in protection of the love interest and so on. The correlation with "The Fury" I would argue is much closer. Even the ultimate end of the primary antagonist is identical.
Larry Fessenden is in this movie, clearly just doing the Actor Trying to Make a Living thing. He mostly plays typecast bad guy character roles (as far as I remember) and he does a decent job with the 2 or 3 minutes he gets and goes as far as he can with the thin writing.
There was one plot point that I did get a kick out of: know how you, a mere mortal, get the drop on a telekinetic who could theoretically squash you like a grape? You sneak up on them and put a bag over their head.
Yep. That's how it's done.
All of which would tend to suggest, to me at least, that telekinesis is reasonably legitimate as source material for a movie, and that good movies with decent acting and imaginative plot lines can be made about it.
But you certainly wouldn't know it from "The Mind's Eye". Wow, what a stinker. Even terrible movies usually have SOME redeemable characteristic or element that prevent them from being COMPLETELY horrible. "Plan 9 from Outer Space", widely reputed to be the worst movie ever made, achieved a sort of so-bad-it's-art status. But not this dog.
I am extremely forgiving of movies involving science fiction, psychic phenomena, magic, horror, fantasy, fairy tales and so on. I'll willingly and voluntarily watch movies that would make most people's eyes bleed and work to find something worthwhile in them. But I couldn't even watch this one through to the end. When a movie makes you profoundly aware that you're wasting precious minutes out of your too-short life, it's a very bad sign.
Sociopathic scientist wants to steal telekinetic powers for himself and is willing to torture and/or kill anyone to get them. That's it. That's the plot. So not even trying there.
You would think that having telekinetic powers would give a person a decided advantage in a conflict, but no. Every time the good guys gain the advantage in some fracas, they run away. They often have the bad guys, and sometimes even the primary antagonist, completely at their mercy and they just run away, every time. Because if they didn't the movie would mercifully be over, and we can't have that. The good guys know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the bad guys will keep coming NO MATTER WHAT and will stop at nothing to achieve their evil objective, but they keep letting the bad guys go to keep stopping at nothing again and again and again. Meanwhile the bad guys leave a trail of dead bodies and bloody pieces a mile wide. That's it That's the whole movie.
When this "strategy" eventually results in the father of the primary protagonist having his brains splattered against a wall (meaning, of course, that the main protagonist is entirely responsible for the death of his own father), it doesn't change the primary protagonist's behavior not one whit.
The primary protagonist's girlfriend, also a telekinetic, seems to understand the reality of the situation and moves to finish off the bad guys fairly early on, but the primary protagonist actually STOPS her.
Only when our 87 minute run time winds down does the protagonist do what he should've done in the first 10 minutes: kill the primary antagonist with telekinesis.
The writer here clearly doesn't understand the notion of willing suspension of disbelief. Either that or he just doesn't care. Audiences can readily accept incredible premises like telekinesis. But they CAN'T accept characters behaving in ridiculous and inexplicable ways given the premises.
Directorial High Point: in the Final Showdown, the protagonist and the antagonist face-off in a telekinetic grudge match. Bear in mind that the primary antagonist has managed to acquire much more powerful telekinetic powers than the primary protagonist by this point. The director could've done something dull and unimaginative like, oh, have the protagonist and antagonist stare at each other, virtually immobile, for 2 or 3 minutes while yelling "ahhhhhhhhh!" until the antagonist suddenly explodes. But that would've been stupid. So he made the antagonist float about 8 feet in the air while the two of them stare at each other, virtually immobile, for 2 or 3 minutes while yelling "ahhhhhhhh!" until the antagonist suddenly explodes. Oh, yes. Much better.
The acting is atrocious, the writing is absolutely appalling, the special effects are abysmal, the music is canned and repetitive.
Some people are comparing this movie to "Scanners" and, from a science fiction standpoint, that would be completely off-base. "The Mind's Eye" is, as far as I can tell, completely about telekinesis. It doesn't have anything to do with any other psychic powers such as telepathy, mind control and etc. Additionally, "Scanners" DOESN'T share many of the plot elements within "the Mind's Eye" such as the romantic involvement, the death of the primary protagonist in protection of the love interest and so on. The correlation with "The Fury" I would argue is much closer. Even the ultimate end of the primary antagonist is identical.
Larry Fessenden is in this movie, clearly just doing the Actor Trying to Make a Living thing. He mostly plays typecast bad guy character roles (as far as I remember) and he does a decent job with the 2 or 3 minutes he gets and goes as far as he can with the thin writing.
There was one plot point that I did get a kick out of: know how you, a mere mortal, get the drop on a telekinetic who could theoretically squash you like a grape? You sneak up on them and put a bag over their head.
Yep. That's how it's done.
Another bad indie horror movie rip off.
djangozelf-123517 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
This is a blatant rip off of the 70's cult classic "Scanners".Now,some 40 years later with all the new technology they still can't beat or come close to what Cronenberg did. Also (to me personally) it's not even one of his best works but he does a lot with it on a small budget.
The first scene of the movie introduces the telekinetic as he confronts the police and the acting immediately pulled me out of this movie.Just,so wooden and lines in a monotone voice that made it instantly boring. The effects were poor and not nearly so imaginative as from the original"Scanners".
The sound(which the movie says you should play loud) was annoying and reminded me of a south park episode where Eric Cartman is fighting these mediums that think they have telekinetic powers. In the cartoon it was funny but taking seriously in this movie was just sad.
If any element of "Scanners" would have been topped this would have been a not 1 movie and could have been a mildly entertaining popcorn movie.
But as it has non of that,I don't recommend it.
If your into low indie flicks...enjoy.
The first scene of the movie introduces the telekinetic as he confronts the police and the acting immediately pulled me out of this movie.Just,so wooden and lines in a monotone voice that made it instantly boring. The effects were poor and not nearly so imaginative as from the original"Scanners".
The sound(which the movie says you should play loud) was annoying and reminded me of a south park episode where Eric Cartman is fighting these mediums that think they have telekinetic powers. In the cartoon it was funny but taking seriously in this movie was just sad.
If any element of "Scanners" would have been topped this would have been a not 1 movie and could have been a mildly entertaining popcorn movie.
But as it has non of that,I don't recommend it.
If your into low indie flicks...enjoy.
Presents the potential of psychokinesis at its most gruesome
Condemned-Soul10 May 2020
Director Joe Begos has made a habit of combining gory violence with a synth score, but who can blame him for revelling in his cinematic tastes when the two work so effectively in tandem?
Begos presents a world in which psychokinesis is like an affliction; an increasingly dangerous power that few people have. But here, protagonists Zach and Rachel find themselves victim to a deranged doctor who's intent on harvesting their power for his own sinister agenda.
Begos isn't shy at showing his genre influences. There's little subtlety to the films that have inspired this low-budget effort, but he knows what he wants, and he often succeeds. The budget limits the characters and locations so that the film never touches on the worldwide concerns of psychokinetically gifted individuals like in Cronenberg's 'Scanners', but it still tells a dark tale about the addiction of power, and what those who don't have it will debase themselves to for a mere chance.
The violence could be criticised for being excessive and numbing, but on the other hand you could argue karmic retribution should come at a grisly price. Either way, the longer this sci-fi horror goes on, the gorier it becomes. Psychokinesis is shown at its most horrifying with heads exploding, bodies being ripped apart, and melee weapons being flung with lethal precision. Overall, with an 80s look and feel, and employing a great synth score, this is an underrated treat.
Begos presents a world in which psychokinesis is like an affliction; an increasingly dangerous power that few people have. But here, protagonists Zach and Rachel find themselves victim to a deranged doctor who's intent on harvesting their power for his own sinister agenda.
Begos isn't shy at showing his genre influences. There's little subtlety to the films that have inspired this low-budget effort, but he knows what he wants, and he often succeeds. The budget limits the characters and locations so that the film never touches on the worldwide concerns of psychokinetically gifted individuals like in Cronenberg's 'Scanners', but it still tells a dark tale about the addiction of power, and what those who don't have it will debase themselves to for a mere chance.
The violence could be criticised for being excessive and numbing, but on the other hand you could argue karmic retribution should come at a grisly price. Either way, the longer this sci-fi horror goes on, the gorier it becomes. Psychokinesis is shown at its most horrifying with heads exploding, bodies being ripped apart, and melee weapons being flung with lethal precision. Overall, with an 80s look and feel, and employing a great synth score, this is an underrated treat.
Had potential but crapped out at the end.
jcorcoran-478078 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I will try and be brief. The story of the film isn't too bad, albeit slightly bland as it feels like a Scanners remake. The acting wasn't too bad either other than the doctor and his goons. What really killed it for me (or made it better) was the end sequence. It all fell apart from there. It felt like nothing more than two constipated guys showing up and seeing who can take the biggest power dump to defeat the other. The constipation is so bad that blood starts coming out of everywhere. It was easily the worst case of constipation I have ever seen. Thank God I was stoned out of my mind for the end. It totally made the constipation scenes absolutely hilarious.
Fun outweighs faults thanks to hard work & sincerity
I_Ailurophile22 October 2022
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but one issue that somewhat troubles engagement rather quickly is how overproduced this is. It's no fault of this title alone, plenty of others face the same, but every set and scene looks entirely too neat and clean, and the cinematography too fluid - less like a place people actually inhabit or move around in, and more like rooms kept pristine behind glass in a museum. Filmmaker Joe Begos certainly doesn't have the same problem with his 2019 film 'Bliss,' but that doesn't help this picture any; perhaps it was a stepping stone as he developed his skills. Similarly, there's a broad difficulty in genre flicks with making mind powers interesting; how does one keep the viewer's interest when the manifestation of supernatural abilities is represented partly with effects, but mostly just with intense expressions on actors' faces?
If one can get past these matters then 'The mind's eye' is fairly enjoyable. It occupies similar territory as the 'X-Men' films, 'Scanners,' or 'Firestarter,' albeit without the benefit of the same financial backing. Even for such lack, however, and any weaknesses one may discern, the sincerity of the production is without question, and it's clear how much love and hard work everyone poured into it. Keeping in mind the level it's operating on, I rather think this looks pretty great, in fact. As the narrative progresses and gets nastier the concerns I noted above actually diminish, and the effects we see look really great - blood and gore, certainly, but also less visceral depictions, including makeup work. Begos' direction is capable, showing still more promise at this point, and all the other contributions of those behind the scenes are excellent. It's also very much worth noting the original score of Zombi mainman Steve Moore, a pulsing, synth-driven assembly of themes that lend to the tension and dark atmosphere of the increasingly violent spectacle.
Even for any other shortcomings one may perceive, minor though they may ultimately be, the most notable may be the faults in Begos' screenplay. It's not bad by any means, but there's a heavy-handedness, and commonness, that pervades all aspects. From the characters and definitely dialogue, to the scene writing and overall narrative, it's not entirely unfair to say that 'The mind's eye' doesn't represent anything we haven't seen before. On a like note, I observe that some of the music cues or sound effects employed, those accompanying use of the characters' powers, are decidedly over the top and needless flourishes. Still, the most severe possible flaw on hand is never so significant as to meaningfully dampen the viewing experience, nor offset the earnestness of all involved. That includes the cast - sometimes the performances come off as overacting, particularly where wide-eyed grimaces of "MIND POWERS, ACTIVATE" are concerned. Yet that's simply a broad issue with the genre, and by and large I think the actors otherwise perform admirably. I'm predisposed to liking Lauren Ashley Carter, having loved her in other titles I've seen, but others here show no less skill: Graham Skipper, John Speredakos, Matt Mercer, Larry Fessenden, and so on. My commendations to them all!
The brutality and effects ramp up as the story goes on, until by the time the climax comes around it's been easy to set aside any abject criticism and just kick back, relax, and enjoy the show. This is perhaps nothing so extraordinary as to demand viewership, but when all is said and done it's quite a good time, and a decent way to spend ninety minutes if one is so inclined. Suggested above all for fans of the cast, this earns a soft recommendation for fans of sci-fi horror at large, for I think the work everyone put into it deserves at least that much. I didn't necessarily have high expectations when I sat to watch, but at length I find it really entertaining; 'The mind's eye' isn't a must-see, yet is reasonably worthwhile to check out if one has the chance.
If one can get past these matters then 'The mind's eye' is fairly enjoyable. It occupies similar territory as the 'X-Men' films, 'Scanners,' or 'Firestarter,' albeit without the benefit of the same financial backing. Even for such lack, however, and any weaknesses one may discern, the sincerity of the production is without question, and it's clear how much love and hard work everyone poured into it. Keeping in mind the level it's operating on, I rather think this looks pretty great, in fact. As the narrative progresses and gets nastier the concerns I noted above actually diminish, and the effects we see look really great - blood and gore, certainly, but also less visceral depictions, including makeup work. Begos' direction is capable, showing still more promise at this point, and all the other contributions of those behind the scenes are excellent. It's also very much worth noting the original score of Zombi mainman Steve Moore, a pulsing, synth-driven assembly of themes that lend to the tension and dark atmosphere of the increasingly violent spectacle.
Even for any other shortcomings one may perceive, minor though they may ultimately be, the most notable may be the faults in Begos' screenplay. It's not bad by any means, but there's a heavy-handedness, and commonness, that pervades all aspects. From the characters and definitely dialogue, to the scene writing and overall narrative, it's not entirely unfair to say that 'The mind's eye' doesn't represent anything we haven't seen before. On a like note, I observe that some of the music cues or sound effects employed, those accompanying use of the characters' powers, are decidedly over the top and needless flourishes. Still, the most severe possible flaw on hand is never so significant as to meaningfully dampen the viewing experience, nor offset the earnestness of all involved. That includes the cast - sometimes the performances come off as overacting, particularly where wide-eyed grimaces of "MIND POWERS, ACTIVATE" are concerned. Yet that's simply a broad issue with the genre, and by and large I think the actors otherwise perform admirably. I'm predisposed to liking Lauren Ashley Carter, having loved her in other titles I've seen, but others here show no less skill: Graham Skipper, John Speredakos, Matt Mercer, Larry Fessenden, and so on. My commendations to them all!
The brutality and effects ramp up as the story goes on, until by the time the climax comes around it's been easy to set aside any abject criticism and just kick back, relax, and enjoy the show. This is perhaps nothing so extraordinary as to demand viewership, but when all is said and done it's quite a good time, and a decent way to spend ninety minutes if one is so inclined. Suggested above all for fans of the cast, this earns a soft recommendation for fans of sci-fi horror at large, for I think the work everyone put into it deserves at least that much. I didn't necessarily have high expectations when I sat to watch, but at length I find it really entertaining; 'The mind's eye' isn't a must-see, yet is reasonably worthwhile to check out if one has the chance.
awful infantile rubbish
inkwarp25 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
i can only agree with previous comments to the effect that this is a terrible film. it sure is, it's a total irredeemable stinker. i hate to say it , i suspect this was made in trying circumstances, on a minuscule budget but i cannot deny that this was a total waste of time. ( Sean Carruther's Primer will show you what can be done with less than a thousand dollars. the music was a fair pastiche of late 70's Howard Shore but the film it tries to ape more than any other is of course Scanners. I can imagine the makers discussing how they can blow up somebody's head and then building the rest of the film around it. yes it is a film of 1 or two lackluster set-pieces displaying the wonderfully clever mechanical effects they constructed, the rest is beyond un-engaging and utterly risible. the lead is to ineffectual and the villain of the piece is hilariously over the top bad, not affectionately bad, absolutely execrable bad. by the time they face off i was ready to sleep. the end of scanners works because of the protagonists, you can totally believe that Michael Ironside will " suck your brains dry" bad line but, as i say, it's michael ironside) the two characters at the end of this just look as if they are constipated - it's one of the most unintentionally funny moments i have ever seen in a movie. And there is a sex scene which seems so ill-judged that it makes the love scene in "Watchmen" seem like something out of DH Lawrence Yes, it is an homage to 70's Cronenberg, but it is a very bad one. giving this 4 is generous and allowing that this is a feature debut ( and the soundtrack was the best thing about it). Definitely one of the worst sci-fi films i have ever seen. and i am all about the sci-fi : )
Scanner Time !!!!
Moviereeeels1230 September 2018
This is a low to middle budget film from most of the people that bought you 'Almost Human'.
This movie has a great 'John Carpenter' type score all the way through, no CGI cheap effects , a lot gore scenes, and there is quite a bit, using the real built effects ...a real nod to the scanner films and horror's of the 1980's & 90's.
Not got a big budget, but the film works well , worth a watch, i did enjoy it!!
Low rent Scanners
jmbovan-47-16017321 January 2024
The Mind's Eye is basically Scanners but lower budget, and less detailed plot. It's a decent watch, but don't expect too much from it. Leading actors are good. Others tend toward a bit of hammy acting, but given the suspension of reality we have to give for psychic powers, hammy isn't too bad.
And in some ways, the shaved plotting may actually humanize the characters well. That made this a bit more watchable and compelling to watch to the end.
Overall, the plotting is simplistic especially as you watch the bad guys and hear their motivations. Oh, wait, the main bad guy as the henchmen all function as typical henchmen, in it for the money.
Still, for a small production, not bad.
And in some ways, the shaved plotting may actually humanize the characters well. That made this a bit more watchable and compelling to watch to the end.
Overall, the plotting is simplistic especially as you watch the bad guys and hear their motivations. Oh, wait, the main bad guy as the henchmen all function as typical henchmen, in it for the money.
Still, for a small production, not bad.
My brain does not get weak
nogodnomasters28 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Dr. Michael Slovak (John Speredakos) runs an institute in Rhode Island to study telekinesis. He recruits people who have this power and experiments on them. Zach Connors (Graham Skipper) and his girl friend Rachel Meadows (Lauren Ashley Carter) are the strongest of the two. They are kept drugged up, have spinal fluid extracted and injected into Dr. Slovak. Not to hard to figure out where this goes.
This is a low budget, "Scanners" type of film. The film had a lot of decent gore effects such a head explosions and head splitting, kudos Melissa Asci and whoever else was involved. For some reason they opted to make the film stupid. First they used a demonic voice distorter for Dr. Slovak which didn't come across too well. If you are going to shoot people a few times, either have them die, or hobble around. Don't bring them back like nothing happened. And was was with the grimace contests that were gong on all the time. It looked like the stars could have used a decent stool softener. I was confused why Zach allowed guys to live who were trying to kill him and I didn't understand the vein distortion side effect.
Now it did win "Best Director" at the Austin Fantastic Fest 2015 against some good competition so maybe its just me. Minus 1 star for the voice distorter. Sometimes less is more.
Guide: F-word. Brief sex and male butt nudity.
This is a low budget, "Scanners" type of film. The film had a lot of decent gore effects such a head explosions and head splitting, kudos Melissa Asci and whoever else was involved. For some reason they opted to make the film stupid. First they used a demonic voice distorter for Dr. Slovak which didn't come across too well. If you are going to shoot people a few times, either have them die, or hobble around. Don't bring them back like nothing happened. And was was with the grimace contests that were gong on all the time. It looked like the stars could have used a decent stool softener. I was confused why Zach allowed guys to live who were trying to kill him and I didn't understand the vein distortion side effect.
Now it did win "Best Director" at the Austin Fantastic Fest 2015 against some good competition so maybe its just me. Minus 1 star for the voice distorter. Sometimes less is more.
Guide: F-word. Brief sex and male butt nudity.
Your services are no longer required...
lojitsu22 October 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Here's a Fresh Meat review of "The Mind's Eye" (NR - 2015 - US)...Your services are no longer required.
Genre: Horror/Paranormal My Score: 4.8
Cast=4 Acting=2 Plot=6 Ending=7 Story=4 Scare=4 Jump=3 F/X=7 Creep=3 Gore=8
Zack and Rachel were born with psychokinetic capabilities. When word of their supernatural talents gets out, they find themselves the prisoners of a deranged doctor intent on harvesting their powers.
Once I saw that the lead looked like a love child between Zach Galifinakis and Daniel Radcliffe...I lowered my expectations. The acting was extraordinarily bad, making it a tough pill to swallow. The gore however, was really good...that was the only part that actually reminded me of "Scanners". Considering the lack of budget and the temperature where they were filming, I was really impressed with how good the blood was. If all you were looking for was gore, then it would be worth seeing. If you're looking at the total package, this is barely a meh.
Genre: Horror/Paranormal My Score: 4.8
Cast=4 Acting=2 Plot=6 Ending=7 Story=4 Scare=4 Jump=3 F/X=7 Creep=3 Gore=8
Zack and Rachel were born with psychokinetic capabilities. When word of their supernatural talents gets out, they find themselves the prisoners of a deranged doctor intent on harvesting their powers.
Once I saw that the lead looked like a love child between Zach Galifinakis and Daniel Radcliffe...I lowered my expectations. The acting was extraordinarily bad, making it a tough pill to swallow. The gore however, was really good...that was the only part that actually reminded me of "Scanners". Considering the lack of budget and the temperature where they were filming, I was really impressed with how good the blood was. If all you were looking for was gore, then it would be worth seeing. If you're looking at the total package, this is barely a meh.
Good attempt at 80s body horror
jr-0517220 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
From the start this is a film that wears its influences on its sleeve. It wants to Scanners and It wants to be an 80s film. Not a bad thing to strive for. The feel of the film achieves that as does the subject matter yet the details are what lets the film down from being what it set out to be.
the acting is good (even though a little over dramatic at times) the effects are good and so is the music - if there is one thing that holds the film back it is the writing.
For example when the lead goes on the run, he goes to hide from his pursuers at his father's house. They would never look for him there? It's points like these that hold the film back from really being something great.
Obviously this is a low budget film and the film makers did a good job on working with what they had. Maybe on their next film (since I see that the actor and director have worked together before) they can take a little more time and fix the script problems and really make a sci-fi / horror classic.
the acting is good (even though a little over dramatic at times) the effects are good and so is the music - if there is one thing that holds the film back it is the writing.
For example when the lead goes on the run, he goes to hide from his pursuers at his father's house. They would never look for him there? It's points like these that hold the film back from really being something great.
Obviously this is a low budget film and the film makers did a good job on working with what they had. Maybe on their next film (since I see that the actor and director have worked together before) they can take a little more time and fix the script problems and really make a sci-fi / horror classic.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
