The Lawnmower Man (1992)

Its a good movie , one of those that keep you the whole time your attention on the screen. For this its deserve already a good rate. Then we could tell that the actors are quite good in their acting, that the visual effects aren't always perfect , but we were also in 1992!! Also its a good combination of Science fiction/Thriller/Horror movie , not many movies succeed in this. The supernatural that involve into the story sounds a bit strange but who knows effectively what could happen when certain barriers are broken?....and visual effects are not "all" in a movie, the audience fantasy should still play a rule... sorry for my English) *Frankie*

Fmovies: When many people (who have seen it) hear of Lawnmower Man, they immediatelycringe and think of a poor rendition of a movie and wonder why the actors who were in it... were in it. The Director's Cut fills in so many blanks left out by the "normal" version that it isn't even funny to think about the "normal" version anymore. The Director's Cut should have been the one to reach press, and the public... The show was done well with excellent storyline.

This effect-laden sci-fi horror film looked pretty impressive back in 1992. But of course times move on, and such movies have a tendency to look dated quicker than most as technology marches on to new levels. I guess The Lawnmower Man is one of these films. But in fairness, it can be quite fun to look back at old special effects and see what was cutting edge back in the day. In truth, today if you were to give a 12 year old child a computer game with graphics similar to those in The Lawnmower Man, that child would turn around and laugh in your face. Such is the speed of computer technology. So yes, The Lawnmower Man no longer looks cutting-edge but neither does it look terrible, its effects work within themselves and are only occasionally atrocious, such as the burning priest.

As most people already know, the story is about a simpleton who is turned into a genius via virtual reality technology. The side effect of this method is that it turns the, otherwise good natured man into an insane evil psychotic.

The Lawnmower Man is neither a particularly good film, nor an especially bad one. There's certainly nothing special here, and the effects were by far its chief selling point. Without them this would almost certainly be a forgotten B-movie. Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey are reasonable enough in their roles, but they were always going to play second fiddle to the CGI. At the heart of it all it's a simple clichéd story that doesn't really hold very many surprises to be perfectly honest. But it's still quite good fun in a silly kind of a way.

The Lawnmower Man fmovies. Given the absolute trainwreck that this film is in many respects, it's surprising that the story works as well as it does once it gets going. The middle of the film is actually somewhat engaging, there are scenes where odd flashes of competence shine through, and the beginning of the climax, at least, is pretty suspenseful, even though it peters out when it should be reaching a fevered pitch. Even with the plethora of problems, The Lawnmower Man is worth watching for fans of "so bad it's good" films (even though this isn't exactly so bad that it's good), just to witness the atrocious special effects (almost all CGI) and the bizarre concatenation of elements that it's almost impossible to imagine anyone thought would be a good idea if they weren't intentionally shooting for a comedy or an absurdist genre film. Yes, director/writer Brett Leonard, co-writer Gimel Everett and the production team were serious, and thought that they were producing a cutting-edge, hip and thrilling genre film--something like the Matrix of its time. That alone is funny enough once you've seen a few minutes of the film to make this worth a watch.

The story has two protagonists, one of which eventually becomes something of an anti-hero. The film begins with a text prediction about just how prevalent and influential virtual reality will be at the turn of the 21st Century. In retrospect, it underscores just how ridiculously inflated revolutionary or "savior" technology predictions tend to be. We then meet Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Pierce Brosnan before he was in a position to turn down starring roles), who is engaged in virtual reality research for the government (his superiors call their project/division "The Shop"). He's experimenting on monkeys, and per his superior's orders, the focus is on military uses--the monkey is being virtual reality trained in battle strategy while they're manipulating its aggression levels. As anyone who has seen at least two or three genre films could guess, this ends up backfiring. The monkey freaks out and runs rampant through the secret government facility, attacking employees.

Dr. Angelo semi-voluntarily goes on hiatus. He had wanted to eventually test human subjects for susceptibility to his virtual reality "mind expansion", without the emphasis on violence, but that seems a lost cause. However, after his wife leaves him, he decides that maybe he can do the research on his own. He decides that the perfect test subject is the titular lawnmower man--his neighbor Jobe Smith (Jeff Fahey). Jobe happens to be developmentally disabled. Of course, things do not go exactly as planned with the tests on Jobe, either, especially once The Shop gets wind of what Dr. Angelo is doing.

The Lawnmower Man grew out of a Stephen King short story that most famously appeared in his Night Shift collection. The King story is only a few pages long, and it bears almost no resemblance to the film. The only scene that's at all similar is the one involving a lawn mower and Peter Parkette's (Austin O'Brien) father. It might be informative for those who have a less than consistently favorable opinion of King-oriented films to note that King sued to have any reference to his name removed. I actually like most King-oriented films, but I find the suit amusing, too.

What makes The Lawnmower Man such a trainwreck? The most prominent problem, because it is such a focus of the film, is the CGI. When Dr. Angelo is working with human subjects in T

The movies of yesterday get quite a beating by the moviegoers of today.

"Cheesy" is the word used most often, for movies like MANNEQUIN or WEIRD SCIENCE, that have silly or unbelievable plots surrounded by fun and humor. Movies like WARGAMES and TRON get bashed, because of their dated looks and technology-related plots that are clearly not possible today, only because the technology of today renders them ridiculous.

ROLLERBALL also suffers this fate, ironically, because its supposed to be a brutal future-sport based on Roller Derby, which by now has all but disappeared from the sporting world.

Taking all of this into account, I still love THE LAWNMOWER MAN. Jeff Fahey plays Job, a slow, mentally and physically abused man who is laughed at and mocked by his entire community, save Jeffrey Lewis playing Terry, his partner and friend throughout the film.

Pierce Brosnan plays the scientist Lawrence Angelo, a man who is obsessed with exploring the higher dimensions of the functioning brain by using chimpanzees as guinea pigs. All is going very well for him, until "the Shop" (admittedly a bad pun on Stephen King's work, most notably FIRESTARTER) demands that his research be used to modify the chimps into killing machines. When one of his chimps suddenly escapes, and cannot tell reality from the simulated virtual reality he was being trained in, all hell breaks loose.

As a result, the project is halted, and the doctor is out. Way out. He sinks into depression, questioning his life and his purpose. He decides one day, when he sees Job come to mow his lawn, a potential new guinea pig for his experiments.

Looking back at this picture, I can see that the doctor's intentions went way beyond his actions. He used Job as an experiment, and the experiment went awry. Mix in the fact that the Shop interferes, much in the same way that it did for the mass-murdering chimp, and even more hell breaks loose than before.

Now, is there a level of "cheesy", here? Absolutely. Some of the moments in the film where Job is having side-effects of his treatments come across as overdone, and the fears of the effects of Virtual Reality of yesterday are nothing but jokes today, because the tech still isn't really going anywhere. The ideas are strong, without the tech to back it up.

But you could make similar arguments about TRON. You could probably make similar arguments about ANY sci-fi pictures that came out before the nineties. Hell, you could probably make similar arguments about any sci-fi picture at all, once you debunk the science behind it.

What we've forgotten is how to have FUN at movies. The reason why silly movies like this one were so good is because we DIDN'T know how the world worked. We DIDN'T care about the tech behind it, because we knew it was FICTION. There are too many movies coming out today that are based on reality. Too much of what we see on the screen, both big and little, are rooted in the grim, grisly world of today.

If you want to enjoy this movie, like I still do, sit back, put your feet up, and pretend that what you see before you is actually possible. Let the actors do their jobs (which they did very well) and enjoy the ride. Enjoy the score, the theme, the plot, and even the silly CGI that doesn't hold up to today's standards, but looked pretty good for the crazy movie they were making back in the day. Stop taking everything so seriously.

Because I think THAT is the reason why &q

I saw this movie in early 90's (1991?) and a that time I spaced out on the special effects. In Amsterdam where I lived at that time there were enough helpful "items" which influences the way of experiencing movies. So with a little "green" help this really was a great movie. Imagine that it is possible to alter your personality or intelligence by experiencing virtual reality. Scary, but interesting thought.

Nowadays I still think it was a strong movie for that time. Just use your imagination and don't compare it to real life and Matrix kind of movies and you'll enjoy it.

If you have no imagination leave it in the box.