I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Many here have commented about being deterred by the film's dated CGI and "mundane story-line." To the contrary, I was quite intrigued by the film's premise and was excited by the film's early and revolutionary use of computer graphics within the still-novel concept of virtual reality. The film's plot is essentially that of Frankenstein's with the concept of virtual reality sewn in. Seeing this film for the first time just recently, I was shocked at some of the ideas introduced in this film (not even considering virtual reality): the evolutionary relationship amongst humans and computers, the ethical dilemmas and consequences involved with the immediate acceptance of technology into the mainstream, the digitization of consciousness as a possible segue into immortality/domination... I don't think it's too far fetched to mention that some of the ideas presented here resonate with those of Ray Kurzweil and other futurists and computer theorists. Forget 1992, even today this is some really groundbreaking stuff. The effects depicting the VR technology in this movie, while of course dated, are also fascinating to watch. Perhaps I'm biased since I'm very interested in the evolution of special and digital effects throughout film history, but watching the often surreal CGI abstractions left me amazed considering this stuff came out twenty-five years ago. There is something truly artistic about the free-form CGI in this piece, not at all bounded by the photorealism that all CGI produced today seems to strive for, that makes it extremely exciting and perhaps even enlightening to watch. Does the movie present these ideas perfectly? Well, no. Towards the end of the film I thought the movie spun out of control to put it simply, and there was a romance that was little rushed,, but to me those are very minor complaints compared to what else the film DOES give us, in terms of groundbreaking ideas, pioneering and truly mind-warping visual effects, a novel yet traditional story-line, some heartfelt performances, and entertaining scenes. Perhaps this film was misunderstood in the pre-Internet days of 1992, but watching it again today it's clear that this film really sought to grapple with some pretty novel and complex ideas that most studio productions wouldn't dare touch today. And for that, I really admire this film.

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.

(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.

The Shop is at it again. Who is The Shop? The same clandestine government organization that was responsible for the Firestarter. Their goal is the same though the technology is slightly different: create a weapon from a human subject.The Lawnmower Man was Flowers for Algernon mixed with Tron. Dr. Angelo (Pierce Brosnan) developed a drug and virtual reality technique to increase intelligence. After his experiments failed with a chimp he decided to tweak things a bit and try again on Jobe (Jeff Fahey), a mentally challenged lawnmower man. The experiments worked to increase Jobe's intelligence but it also awakened another side of him as well.Initially I was attributing this movie to Stephen King, but after reading more on this site I found that Stephen King sued because this movie had almost nothing to do with his self-same titled short. I watched this initially in the early 90's and wasn't impressed. In the attempts to be futuristic Lawnmower Man came off as cheesy. In their attempts to apply virtual reality technology and effects on screen it made for terrible graphics. I know that virtual reality was all the buzz in the early 90's as we were rapidly progressing in the computer field as a people, but the graphics and special effects were still a ways off. What were supposed to be riveting, scary or jaw dropping scenes-were no more than cartoonish. I'm not saying this because CGI today is so breathtakingly real, I mean even in 1992 this movie never moved the needle on the scales. Consider that in 1991 we had T2 which was revolutionary as far as on screen effects, and in '93 (a year after Lawnmower Man) we were treated to Jurassic Park, another titan in the CGI department.The movie ended with an opening for a part 2 (which was done though I never saw it) but why? It would seem that a remake would make this movie so much better but the concept of virtual reality yet again wouldn't go over well. That drum has been beat too many times I'm afraid it's lost its effect.