The Lawnmower Man (1992) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
161 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
The effects don't cut it anymore, but the movie is still fun.
BA_Harrison25 January 2019
Brilliant scientist Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Pierce Brosnan) uses simple-minded gardener Jobe (Jeff Fahey) as a guinea pig in his virtual reality experiments, using mind altering drugs and immersive computer technology to enhance his subject's intelligence and awaken parts of the brain that have lain dormant for centuries. As Jobe becomes smarter and smarter, the evil corporation behind Angelo's funding pull a switcheroo on the drugs, making the gardener more aggressive. Eventually, Jobe attempts to leave the physical realm to inhabit the worldwide computer network, where he would be a technological god.

So dissimilar is this film to Stephen King's original short story, that the author successfully sued the company that made it. Despite this, The Lawnmower Man still feels very much like a King product, especially with its dysfunctional characters, small-town setting, and occasional religious overtones. Since I deem anything King-related to be worth a watch, no matter how slight the connection, I had a reasonably good time with the film, although there no denying that its once cutting-edge visuals now look horribly dated, and render the film less effective overall (it's hard to be impressed by graphics that most of today's kids could do better on their laptop).

Watch to see a cyberchimp firing a pistol, Fahey transforming from a simpleton to super buff stud-muffin, an abusive father being chased by a big red lawnmower, Jenny Wright as a rich floozy, and a pre-Bond Brosnan with floppy hair pulling Semtex out of thin air. Don't watch expecting to be wowed by incredible special effects (the burning of a sadistic priest ranks amongst the worst CGI that I have ever seen).
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Let's party like it's 1992
Red-Barracuda14 September 2010
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.
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
An enjoyable trainwreck
BrandtSponseller10 July 2005
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 The Shop's facilities, they wear "spiffy" spandex suits reminiscent of Tron (1982). That may be enough of a problem in itself (and just who made those suits if Dr. Angelo had never been authorized to work with humans?), but the bigger problem is that the CGI is also reminiscent of Tron. That's not to say that Tron isn't successful, but it had very primitive CGI. There, it was more excusable for three reasons. One, it was made in the late 1970s/early 1980s, when CGI _had_ to be much more primitive. Two, realizing this, Tron director Steven Lisberger aimed at creating more of a minimalist world. And three, once introduced to us, most of Tron took place in that world.

By the early 1990s, computer graphics had progressed quite a bit. Yet, Leonard allows The Lawnmower Man's CGI sequences to almost exclusively consist of brightly colored, low-resolution, simple geometric shapes floating around in a featureless world. Admittedly, The Lawnmower Man was a bit low-budgeted. But I'm not sure that excuses computer graphics that look like they were done on a Commodore 64 by someone working through a basic pixel animation book. And this stuff is supposed to "accelerate the evolution of the human mind?" It wouldn't matter so much if this were not the crux of the film. But the CGI is as important here as the scenes inside The Matrix are to that film. The effects work a bit better when they're integrated with cinematography. But Leonard avoids that more than he should.

And the CGI isn't the only problem. The story otherwise is extremely awkward. Most of it is unintentionally absurdist. Jobe lives in a little shack in an otherwise normal suburban neighborhood. A sadistic priest regularly flogs him. A beautiful widow seduces him. Peter's family is almost a spoof of the typical King family, with an abusive, alcoholic father. All of these people bizarrely live right next door to Dr. Angelo. I could go on and on, but there isn't room.

Still, there are aspects of the story that work. When Leonard finally gets around to death scenes, they're pretty good. The suspense stuff when Dr. Angelo is in Washington is good. And the overall arc about Jobe transforming, but getting out of control and seeking revenge is enjoyable, pithy and certainly a classic, archetypal plot. But this isn't anything if it's not a mixed bag. Watch expecting a trainwreck, and you should be entertained for an evening.
51 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Not an absolute masterpiece, but well worth the rental
millennia-212 April 2000
I got 'The Lawnmower Man' as part of one of those 'Buy a pizza and get a free movie' deals, and I put off watching it. And put it off more. And more, until finally I had nothing else to do, so I popped it in the VCR and sat back. Two and half hours later (It was the director's cut- don't see the normal version as it is not nearly as good) it instantly became one of my favorite movies, so I rewound it and watched it again.

To date I have seen it four of five times, as it has problems, it's not very fast paced, but is terribly engaging and Fahey is superb in the lead. The writing isn't great, but is passable, and the computer effects, though far from the center of the story, are excellent.

If you haven't seen it yet, or have only seen the normal version, it is well worth the rental, or even purchase.
63 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"I hate it when you smoke in bed"
hwg1957-102-26570420 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
The film starts with an over optimistic view of virtual reality, but then it was made in 1992, and then plunges into a story about how VR can ramp up a person's intelligence, the person being the titular Lawnmower Man (he mows lawns) called Jobe. He does grow smarter and eventually wants to take over the world. As you do. It's a blend of 'Flowers For Algernon' and a revenge story that doesn't really work. There are good performances however from Jeff Fahey as Jobe, Pierce Brosnan as the tinkering scientist and Geoffrey Lewis as Jobe's easy going employer. The VR sequences themselves are colourful, being the best CGI they could do then, but they do look primitive now.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Was a good movie at the time and it still is
Fusion-88 December 1999
I went to see this movie in the theater when it was released. At the time the graphics were not dated in any way shape or form. Where is VR today? I recently bought the DVD and after watching it and remembering that it was an eight (8) year old movie, I still enjoyed it. I have seen a few VR games in arcades and to be honest the graphics today aren't much better than they were in this movie. I have seen a lot of comments about the effects being dated and I think that should be common sense when watching an older movie. When I watch Tron I don't think that the graphics are dated, I just remember that the movie was made in 1982 and effects and computer animation weren't the same back then as they are today. Most older movies have that look when compared to today's special effects. I always take that into account when watching older movies. I enjoyed Lawnmower Man then, now and I will the next time I watch it. I will keep it in my DVD collection.
61 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A man makes a movie, called "The Lawnmower Man".
Crowbait15 March 1999
It's not often one can say sincerely, "This is the worst movie I've ever seen." I thought that when I saw this film in the theatres, and seven years later it's still the champ. Basically, it's a riff off of Flowers for Algernon, except the characters are unsympathetic, the geniuses are not especially bright, and the things they do are not very interesting. When the movie came out, its sole redeeming feature was the computer graphics, which were technically impressive but not very pleasing to the eye. (That is unfortunate, given the large amount of screen time they get.) Now, of course, a $1000 home computer does a much more impressive job. The acting is bad, the pacing if awful, and there is exactly one professionally looking shot in the entire movie: a backlit shot of Fahey, as he comes over a hill. Unfortunately, the image itself was a cliche even then, and it's the most successful aspect of the movie. There is a modicum of an attempt at a suspenseful ending, via a "chase" as Dr. Frankenstein tries to prevent his monster from destroying humanity, however, if you're still watching at that point, and you're actually in suspense, then I envy you: the SECOND movie you watch in your life, whatever it happens to be, is going to be much better than this one. So, don't give up on this "movie" thing just yet.
13 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A modern sci-fi/horror adaptation from the mind of Stephen King
kclipper3 July 2011
The first half of this science fiction horror tale (based on a short story from Stephen King's Night Shift Collection) is thought provoking and gripping, but the latter half decides to dive deep into an eccentric and confusing mix of special effects and pseudo-scientific mayhem. Dr. Angelo (Pierce Brosnan) is a brilliant but obsessed computer science specialist that is engaged in secret government experiments to create super-intelligent soldiers out of chimpanzees by using virtual reality simulations to stimulate the brain. When the experiment goes haywire, and a rogue chimp gets away, Angelo believes his destiny is to better mankind by using a human subject for his projects for the purpose of curing brain diseases and not warfare. His subject is Jobe, (played perfectly by Jeff Fahey) the half-wit lawnmower man that lives in the shed of a church next door. As Dr. Angelo's experiments progress, Jobe becomes an intelligent super-human genius whose powers eventually spiral out of control.

This film is triumphant on many various levels. Films dealing with a gradual transformation/disintegration of a central character are very intriguing to watch, and this is very much "Cronenbergian" in its portrayal of Jobe and how he develops into a telekinetic mad genius from a complete idiot and ultimately becomes a tragically vengeful and emotionless entity. The themes dealing with the unlocking of the human primordial intellect and controlling its power by impatient force and not wisdom work wonderfully. The performances are superb as well as the animation sequences, and director Brett Leonard (Virtuosity) is good at integrating them into a live action film. There are many sinister government character types that add suspense to the plot, and Jenny Wright is great as the sexy seductress neighbor who has her way with Jobe. The only time this fails is when Jobe gets revenge on the government goons and the characters that antagonized him by merging his powers with the world of virtual reality resulting in some far out murder sequences that just don't seem to make any sense. Jobe eventually infuses himself with the computer mainframe, and the climax becomes a bit too bizarre, even for sci-fi computer geek fans. Nonetheless, this is a well-made, above-average assault on the senses. If you can find the VHS unrated director's cut, it is much better than the DVD release which is cut by almost twenty minutes, losing most of its character development and style. This is highly recommended for fans of mind-bending sci-fi/horror.
12 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Besides Mr Brosnan, this just ain't up to much
adamscastlevania218 September 2014
(34%) Despite the always solid Brosnan at the helm, this still manages to be too weak scripted for its own good as the plot boils down to a simple man gets experimented on, he becomes dangerous and powerful, the end. The secret lab base is one of the most ridiculous examples of set design ever. It looks so dark and depressing, and by the looks of things most of the workers have either killed themselves or simply left as every time it's shown it's almost completely void of people. This very well might be the first movie ever made in which more time and effort was spent on computer effects than the script itself. A true pioneer of CGI driven junk cinema.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Must see the uncut film to enjoy
redrum6-617 February 1999
This film once had the great master's name (Stephen King) on it, but he did right to sue them, as it has nothing to do with his story.

It is a good film all the same but you must see the uncut film to enjoy it as it is almost 40 minutes longer. There are some great efects in the film and, like always, the end leaves room for part 2 which is out now and not great. So this film is worth getting, but if you are a Stephen King fan this film is not a King movie
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
How to waste money on a ridiculous movie
b-a-h TNT-68 August 1999
This has well to be the most un-realistic movie ever, and sure one of the most senseless; I remember this coming out because of all the "virtual reality" hype. I can't see the director knowing a single thing about what virtual reality is. Maybe I missed something but hey, I never saw anyone being injected with some stuff that gives you supernatural intelligence, and I don't think virtual reality gives you the power to create objects at your own will. I mean, c'mon, the media are ignorant when it comes to talk about science or technology, but even the media never ever hit such a low point.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Back when movies were crazy, fun rides instead of dark, grisly adventures.
vesil_vesalier30 October 2018
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 "Hollywood can't come up with anything original anymore". Original, back in the day, was synonymous with "silly" and "chancy".

You wouldn't want any of that today, would you?
45 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A wonderful period piece
rzajac16 December 2015
It's a bit 'B', a bit dated, but with redeemable characteristics. Some of the writing is pretty good. The direction was hammy, but at least the tone is managed well, over-all. Dr. Angelo's character is given a little berth to pass off as a realistic character; this invites us to identify with him as a "voice of reason" in a cartoonish sci-fi universe.

Of course, the whole thing uses the misunderstood tech trope of the year, "virtual reality", boosted by mind-altering drugs, as a hook for yet-another story about man's effort to cosmically transcend. This is a strained notion, as any technically savvy dude or dudette knows. So the whole thing rides on a willing suspension of disbelief. The question remains whether this act of suspension rewards us with a sustainable, ennobling myth.

Well, my attempt to give the flick a slight jolt by voting it a '7' is an indicator. The flick is surely dated, but not bad for its time. Where the story fails to fully ennoble, it at least maintains a sense of momentum; I found it quite watchable.

At the very least, it worth watching as a heroic effort by the producers to mythically bend new (at the time) tech toward a moral fable about humankind's perennial tech hubris expressed as yet-another effort to bite off more than can reasonably be chewed.

I was particularly struck by an interesting form taken by the usual story-management effort to keep Dr. Angelo's karma clean: That the dosing of his human subject with the "next-stage" experimental drugs was effected without his knowledge, via subterfuge by admins; not by the researcher (Angelo) himself. Very clever plot point, that!

Anyway. It's not a great flick, but may be worth watching as a kind of worthy period piece. It's a bit of an aesthetic casualty of the 'B'-flick hewings of production folks of the time: If you factor that out, you can see the glimmerings of decent sci-fi.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
VR sex doesn't age well
beat_priest18 April 2017
Basically, think Flowers for Algernon crossed with TRON and a latter act taking cues from Elfen Lied, and you're somewhere on the right track. The CGI, while quite impressive at the time the film was made, hasn't really aged well. Especially Jobe's Digital Avatar, which sometimes enters the Uncanny Valley.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A movie well worth seeing
Reiver-2-229 October 1999
Warning: Spoilers
This movie truly impressed me. The special effects are pretty dated now, especially the scene where the *blocked to avoid spoiler* was caught on fire, and the computer effects are very colorful, almost like a cartoon. However, the plot was nice and satisfying, and watching Jobe change from a dumb farmer to a psychopathic genius was very interesting. It had a few niggling flaws, and is by no means a perfect movie, but it is very enjoyable and both Peirce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey give great performances!
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Why??
I've been a King fan since I first read Carrie when it was first published. Most of the movies based on his books(whether or not they suck!) pretty much stick to the story. THIS ?? Doesn't come close. The only thing it has in common with the story (found in Night Shift, along with "Trucks, Inc" the basis for "Maximum Overdrive") is the title. Honestly I'm not sure anyone would want to try to make a movie that sticks to THAT story! If you're hoping for something like the story...stick with the book.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not bad at all
Joeshar21 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie has a good screenplay that deserves a good remake and would like to see it's stars Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey (did you remember Lapidus from Lost) as cameos.

A low-iq man becomes highly intelligent to control everything around himself after scientific experiments (with a twist at the end). Definitely a needs a good director. it's a Stephen King story at the end.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
When The Author Hates The Movie, Well.....Still, It Had Its Moments
ccthemovieman-112 January 2008
The film is supposedly based on a short novel by Stephen King. I say "supposedly" because when he saw what they did to his book, King demanded his name be removed from any association of this film! When an author does that, it's kind of a tip-off that someone has made a bad movie.

I also wonder if Pierce Brosnan ever looks back and winces when he recalls being the star of this film? Actually, maybe he shouldn't because it's not that bad a premise. The film is no award-winner, but it is intriguing in its originality. I mean, how many films deal with a slightly-retarded gardener who becomes an experiment with a into-your-brain video game? Jeff Fahey is pretty interesting as "the lawnmower man." Being someone who is fascinated with special-effects, I watched the film probably normally would have considering some of the bias (see below).

What I objected to - and nobody else ever seems to - is another cheap shot at a cleric, where I see in almost every Stephen King story, whether he authorizes it or not. In this movie, we see a priest let the wandering mower-man live in a little shack in back of his church, and then he whips the man! Rule number one in a King adaptation - or in the movies, in general, seems to be: always show a Christian figure as a villain. At that point, I joined King and disavowed any association with this garbage.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Stephen King will disavow any knowledge of your activities..."
Gislef22 December 1998
How King sold the rights to his so-so short story about a murderous satyr who mows lawns to the producers, and how they turned it into this unrelated tribute to cyberspace/virtual reality, is probably a story in itself worthy of a movie. Don't be mislead by the King connection or the title: this is basically an early entry into the growing genre of virtual reality movie. There are some sympathetic performances, particularly Fahey but also by Brosnan. There is a definite "Flowers for Algernon" approach here, but ultimately it goes for a big finish and descends into a climactic battle for cyberspace as Fahey's lawnmower man turns bad. Adequate by the standards of the genre, but in no way a work of the master.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
It Lacks Qualcast Quality.
hitchcockthelegend30 October 2013
The Lawnmower Man is directed by Brett Leonard who also co-writes the screenplay with Gimel Everett. It stars Pierce Brosnan, Jeff Fahey, Jenny Wright, Geoffrey Lewis, Jeremy Slate and Dean Norris. Music is by Dan Wyman and cinematography by Russell Carpenter.

Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Brosnan) is a big mover in the science of virtual reality. When he tries his new technology on mentally challenged gardener Jobe Smith (Fahey), it elevates him to a higher intelligence and it's not long before Jobe acquires scary new powers…

Originally meant to be, and titled as, Stephen King's Lawnmower Man, the film eventually, after a King lawsuit, ended up bearing very little resemblance to the author's short story. There's a couple of small ligaments that link the two, but in the main (not Maine) this Lawnmower Man is its own entity and an obvious attempt to cash in on the then virtual reality zeitgeist.

Lawnmower Man has a cult fan base, of that there is no doubt, where much like Tron from 10 years earlier, the effects work and the capturing of something very much being "in" with the youth of the time, has proved perpetually appealing to nostalgists. But strip away these and you have your basic Frankenstein story for the 90s, a pretty standard story lacking intelligent smarts or deep thematic points of worth. And then of course there is the bizarre fact of having a film decrying the advancement of computer technology, by using computer technology to make the film's strongest moments! Hee. It's only adequately performed by the cast, and Leonard's direction matches his writing, which is mundane when not about the visual effects; effects work that dated very quickly as it happened.

Other cuts and sequels would follow, the former didn't improve the same basic problems of the theatrical cut, the latter releases proved to be laughably bad. The Lawnmower Man, an interesting movie in the context of its time, and certainly fun enough for those who were there cloaked in a visually inspired warm glow, but it has not been a must see film for anyone else since 1995. 4/10
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Worth a second look
Grant-291 November 1999
Last week I had occasion to see this movie again, and I was surprised that it wasn't as offensive as I remember. The Lawnmower man came out in 1992, the year before the Internet hit the big time. Now that these 'VR futurists' have been shown wrong (and you can tell from the interviews that they were serious), one can watch it as a fantasy, rather than science fiction. In this respect it holds up: the computer graphics are beautiful, if a little dated, and a couple of restored scenes (in the director's cut or the DVD) make the story more compelling. Perhaps VR will deliver on its promises someday; meanwhile, there's a fairly good story here.

p.s. Stay far away from the sequel. It was just plain bad.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
cheesy with an interesting idea
SnoopyStyle14 April 2016
Dr. Lawrence Angelo (Pierce Brosnan) at Virtual Space Industries is experimenting on chimps with drug-assisted virtual reality to raise intelligence. The company is looking for military uses but Angelo wants other uses. Jobe Smith (Jeff Fahey) is a mentally-slow gardener. Dr. Angelo sees Jobe as an opportunity to test his work on a human specimen. Soon, Jobe gains brain power which leads to conflicts.

Jeff Fahey's slow look is probably the most memorable thing about this movie. The need to show cinematically his slow mental state leaving him looking silly. It's a bit of cheese which keeps one from taking this movie seriously. His normal look isn't much better and is kind of creepy. The primitive CGI keeps the movie looking dated. It's also notable for a lawsuit by Stephen King to take his name out. The movie is relatively flat without much tension. It's very static and the virtual reality isn't exciting. The movie has no tension for a long time. It's very broad and only for cult film lovers.
11 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Don't bother with the theatrical version
xdsdncs12 July 2021
For the longest time, I only ever saw the director's cut of this movie. It's no masterpiece or anything, but it's a good, well-told modern-day Frankenstein story. It has a slow build-up, with solid character building that creates an emotional core we can connect with.

I was APPALLED when I finally saw the theatrical version. It's a total trash fire. Everything that made the director's cut good, all the thoughtfulness and care, all the dramatic and sci-fi elements I like about this movie, are sucked out, leaving a lobotomized, hollow, nonsensical shadow of a story upon which to hang some early '90s special effects. Characters' motivations disappear and we're left with nothing of any substance. I hate the fact that it exists.

Get the director's cut (or "Collector's Edition"), which is about 140 minutes long. Accept no substitutes!
20 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Getting Too Big For His Britches
StrictlyConfidential1 September 2020
Novelist, Stephen King successfully sued the producers of "The Lawnmower Man" for attaching his name to this film, saying that it "bore no meaningful resemblance" to his story of the same name. As you can easily imagine, King's name was promptly removed from all of the advertising relating to this film.

Scientist Dr. Lawrence Angelo, working (unsuccessfully, so far) in the area of developing "intelligence-enhancing" drugs, combined with virtual reality, chooses for his guinea pig, Jobe Smith, a clueless, grinning, mental defective who mows his lawn.

Dr. Angelo puts Jobe through an extensive schedule of drug therapy and computer instruction. As expected, Jobe becomes phenomenally brilliant. And at this point he gets a few bright ideas of his own as to how the research should continue, while Dr. Angelo naturally finds himself completely losing control of the whole experiment.

The dazzling and impressive computer generated imagery for "The Lawnmower Man" took 7 people 8 months to complete, on a budget of $500,000. To get a proper perspective on this film's historical context, it was released just a year after "Terminator 2: Judgement Day".
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So bad it becomes good then becomes bad again, all within half an hour...
mentalcritic12 October 2007
It perplexes me, seeing people give this film ten out of ten ratings. I generally trust the opinions of people who do so to the extent that if they told me the sky was blue, I would look out the window and see for myself. Because no matter how you look at it, The Lawnmower Man was a film with a terrible script, based on some terrible ideas, trying to trade off the name of an author who was at the peak of his commercial success. Said author, one tall American by the name of Stephen King, liked the idea of his short story being used to bolster the bleak commercial prospects of this film so much that he took the producers to court and demanded they stopped using his name. Having read Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man for myself, I completely understand why. Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man is a surreal terror story that twists suburban convention in a manner that only Stephen King can. Brett Leonard's The Lawnmower Man has not an original or well thought out idea anywhere in its little head.

Part of the problem stems from the basic story of the film. The central story involves a scientist attempting to use virtual reality to train simpler minds such as those of monkeys to perform tasks that any normal human being would regard as complex. When our bold scientist meets a man who is, to put it bluntly, quite retarded, a light goes on in his head. What if the virtual reality simulator could be used to accelerate the functioning of this gardener's brain to the point where at least nominal calculations are no longer beyond him? And therein lies one of the problems most critics never pick up on. The human brain is demonstrably more complex than an electronic board or an engine, and accelerating it or repairing it is a much more complex process than this film gives credit for. When you add to that the fact that if Albert Einstein had been born around the same time as I was, he would have been diagnosed with High-Functioning Autism, this film's conception of the difference between simple and god-like becomes very shaky indeed.

Not helping matters any is the apparent lack of research or planning that permeates the screenplay. In one memorable scene, we are told by the supposedly brilliant Doctor Lawrence that Jobe has mastered the Latin alphabet in a matter of hours, whereas it took him a year. This prompts the question of who is really retarded in this scenario, given that the Latin alphabet is something every child in the English-speaking world learns between their fifth and sixth birthday. At other times, the script seems to have been written by a twelve year old who has been listening to Black Sabbath songs like Iron Man a little too closely. Jobe's proclamation about how he will take over every computer system in the world being the best example. But the worst parts come when the script paints the characters into corners that they have no possibility of escaping, so the writers shoehorn in a convenient device. The writers here clearly had no idea of what a security backdoor is or how it works in the real computing world.

Fortunately, Hollywood productions tend to have at least one strength they can fall back on when all else fails. Since the Hollywood system attracts some of the best actors money can buy, it stands to reason that The Lawnmower Man would have some commendable performances in spite of the terrible screenplay. Jeff Fahey's performance as Jobe easily rings the truest in this entire film. Pretending to be retarded is enough of a challenge for an actor. Pretending to be retarded, then suddenly gifted with mental faculties that would make Newton or Tesla envious, then given over the megalomania, is quite an acrobatic act. That Fahey pulls it off so well in spite of the script he is working from is a credit to him. Pierce Brosnan is no slouch, either, even though his performance as a scientist has little to discern itself from his performance as a secret agent. Somehow, this matter-of-fact, questioning portrayal really suits the scientist a lot better. Brosnan's performance as the man wondering where he went wrong is the only real anchor this film has.

Much has been made of the virtual reality environments around which some of the plot is based. In 1992, simulating a self-contained environment within a computer was a frontier, and someone in the studio obviously thought this would be a good trend to cash in on. What they did not anticipate was that computing was becoming a very monolithic market, and a lot of the fantastic dreams we had about the future of computing were about to fall by the wayside. At the same time, the ability of computers to splice funky effects into films was growing at an exponential rate. A year prior, a little film called Terminator 2 had dazzled audiences with a combination of very simple computer-generated effects and practical effects that made the villain of the piece seem almost invincible. By comparison, the attempts to convince an audience that our characters had found their way inside a computer system were so half-hearted that it left audiences wondering if this were some kind of joke. Sadly, the end result has that Ed Wood touch of broadcasting a failure to think things through.

As a result, this production of The Lawnmower Man ends up being a classical one out of ten film. Film school students can look at it for examples of when an ambitious effect or series of effects are not done well.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed