Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Benedito Dias Rodrigues Indecent...yes it's a name to special effects from bad graphic computer of this movie,could be a good sci-fi,but a lack of fertile imagination blow up the story which is very auspicious in many original scenes,if had a minimum brain behind of movie production,unfortunately they did not....Jeff Fahey and Pierce Brosnan is quite convincing in their roles,but the picture works as pastime and to burn a bad Priest,it's was a magnificent idea...beware l said bad Priest only!! Resume:First watch: 1995 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6

Paul Magne Haakonsen 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 But also because the special effects were hopelessly outdated and painful to watch.The cast in the movie was actually quite alright, although I only remember that Jeff Fahey and Geoffrey Lewis were in the movie.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.

trashgang I remember seeing this flick around 1994 and I found it a rather good flick with all the virtual reality action going on. What supposed to be a good B-flick became a cult flick due the effects and the story. And all the fighting going on between Stephen King and the producers did add another issue towards the fame of it. Normally it was supposed to be a flick based on a short story by King but it transformed into another story so sued by King they had to remove his name from the opening credits.Almost 25 years later I came across this flick again. Of course back then the effects and computer animation was top notch but technology went on and on and if you look to it nowadays it is completely outdated on that part. But it's still watchable, be advised, it is a slow mover and it takes a while before Jobe (Fahey) turns from a retarded lawnmower into a super genius men with special abilities so he becomes rather dangerous. It's up to Dr. Lawrence (Brosnan) to destroy the virtual reality and Jobe. Not one of the best flicks about technology but the superb Fahey makes it worth watching and if you're in a sentimental nostalgia tour do pick it up, back to the time before game consoles....Gore 0/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 4/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy

andycted 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.