Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

thelectrichair101 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.

rzajac 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.

KineticSeoul This is a campy sci-fi horror movie that just isn't that horrifying or entertaining to watch. And despite the title, it doesn't have almost anything to do with the Stephen King's novel of the same name. As a matter of fact I was bored when I saw this flick. I gotta admit the main reason I decided to check this movie out is because of the release of the movie "Transcendence". Maybe this flick was actually really good when it came out, despite the crappy CGI even for when this movie came out. Although it's worse than Saturday morning TV shows now. The plot in this is about a scientist that believes that virtual reality is the wave for the future for human enhancement, testing it out on a mentally handicapped guy that mows lawns for a living. And it alters his brains to the point he becomes super smart and able to use telepathy, telekinesis and soon other ridiculous powers. Watching this movie was like watching "Flowers for Algernon" with virtual reality. There is parts with a Roman Catholic priest, but I still don't know why he was in this flick since it just didn't have much relevance to the plot. Who knows maybe I just missed something. I give this movie some credit for it's symbolism to represent technology as more than the means of sending and receiving information. Despite the fact that I found it ridiculous when it came to the movie's perception of technology. How the movie is pointing to the notion that we are dealing with higher dimensions that we can plug into on a mental and spiritual level and our physical bodies don't matter anymore. That people can transcend and enter into the virtual world and live forever as bits of data. Interesting idea though and I guess when it comes to the perception of technology, it's ahead of it's time because people are still trying to find the means to do that. I actually feel like trying the Oculus Rift now.4/10

Spikeopath 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