Der Rasenmähermann

I saw this shortly after its theatrical release and for years that was the only version of this story that I knew. It was campy, felt King-ish (despite King removing his name from the production) and had some interesting story elements. Then and now I can't escape the fact that the plot seems lifted directly from Flowers for Algernon set in what was at the time cutting edge CGI. The only thing missing from the "stolen" plot is the human science experiment (Jobe) losing his recently gained super-intelligence. In this flick, he becomes evil and unpredictable - but predictably so.

After a nostalgia viewing of the Director's Cut I can say that the restored footage makes a big difference in fleshing out the story. The original theatrical cut was a complete shitshow compared to the extended version. Angelo's girlfriend in particular became a whole character and some formerly missing scenes really helped the movie's overall cohesion. However, none of the restored scenes take away from some truly trite plot elements and wooden acting, particularly in nearly every role associated with "The Shop." Brosnan is decent, perhaps a bit overdoing the petulant scientist genius but Fahey's portrayal of Jobe is still very good. The transformation of his character from dolt to cyber god always struck me as well done and it holds up. Still unexplained in any adequate detail is the relationship with Dr. Angelo's neighbors.

The CGI, as mentioned in other reviews, is laughable in the modern day. Setting that aside, the themes explored in the movie still seem relevant and frankly I'd love an updated telling that incorporates contemporary sensibilities and more cohesive storytelling. Worth a watch - if you temper your expectations. After all, this was a 90s take on technology's implications, an idea that could have been great but suffered too much from corporate editing and profit goals in its native time.

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.

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?

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).

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!