Why so much hype?

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

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: 4.8Cast=4 Acting=2 Plot=6 Ending=7 Story=4 Scare=4 Jump=3 F/X=7 Creep=3 Gore=8Zack 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.

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.

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 FirestarterThe "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.

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