The Lawnmower Man (1992)

I remember watching "The Lawnmower Man" back in 1992 when it was initially released, and I do remember it as being a good movie, and I do remember that I was rather impressed with the effects in the movie.Then I returned to watch "The Lawnmower Man" in 2017, and boy was I sorely disappointed. Not only is the story in the movie rather mundane and so far fetched, especially with the way that VR has turned out today and that the story and its predictability of the future of VR was so exaggerated and off course. But also because the special effects were hopelessly outdated and painful to watch.The cast in the movie was actually quite alright, although I only remember that Jeff Fahey and Geoffrey Lewis were in the movie. I had totally forgotten that it was Pierce Brosnan that had the lead role. It was a nice treat to see Dean Norris in the movie as well.The storyline in "The Lawnmower Man" wasn't particularly thrilling or captivating. Sure, it was entertaining back in the day, because it was innovative and new. But if you watch it today, then you don't get half as much enjoyment out of it as you would have back in 1992.For a movie back in 1992, then the special effects and CGI weren't even all that impressive, not when you take into consideration other movies from the same period of time.All in all, then "The Lawnmower Man" is a thing of the past, and it should remain there wrapped in the fond memories that one might have had back then.

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.

Saw this when it came out, because I was curious about the cgi and a bit about the theme. I hazily remember not being too enthusiastic about it, but the theme was at least futuristic.I felt I had to watch it again today, especially because I was curious about why, with VR in tech news constantly, no reference was made to this "precursor". I know why: the movie is so crap, it has no possible redeeming qualities. It actually fails so badly in most respects, on multiple layers, in a way that it doesn't even capture that feeling of "so bad, so good", like some carpenter's movie (or even a lot worse movies).Brosnan is atrocious, like he's been in many other movies, the plot is totally lost halfway through the movie, acting from the guys in suits is so beyond insulting, it can't even be amusing, the evolution of the story and the ending feels like a bad B movie.I'd say the only redeeming quality is the imaginative VR CGI, which today obviously looks like crap, but for the time it was a fair potpourri of pop tech ideas. Hit or Miss, but it does convey a sense of vintage tech that is actually interesting...to study maybe.Steven king proves again to be a cheap shot.If anything, it remembered me extremely crappy movies were aplenty in the 90s too.

A scientist performs experiments involving intelligence enhancing drugs and virtual reality on a simple-minded gardener. He puts the gardener on an extensive schedule of learning, and quickly he becomes brilliant. But at this point the gardener has a few ideas of his own on how the research should continue, and the scientist begins losing control of his experiments.....1992, when this film was released, I remember the posters saying, Better effects than Terminator 2. As a fourteen year old, it sold me, I went to see it and remember the VR scenes, nothing else.Now, being a little more wiser to movie quotes, that poster quote was put there because obviously at the time, no one had anything good to say about it. and this was quite a big release back in 1992.21 years later, and the film hasn't aged well, frankly it looks awful, and those groovy effects I saw when VR was a big thing, look terrible.As for the plot and narrative, it's basically Fahey combing his hair and dressing like Eastwood in his movies with Clyde, and Brosnan holding his head and shaking, and smoking in bed.Some say the directors cut makes it more worthwhile, filling in important plot holes, believe me it doesn't, it makes the film more of an ordeal.But it's still watchable in the car crash sense of the word. it's an unmitigated disaster, but there are a few funny scenes.But it really hasn't held up well.