Oddball campy cyberpunk thriller, with some rather odd tropes. A fine enough time waster, expectations should be set fairly low though.

No. Just... why? I wouldn't even be watching this movie if it wasn't marketed as a Stephen King adaptation, yet it barely adapts the story it's based on. This movie is a scam, is what I'm trying to say. The actual story this is based on is completely different: Harold's lawn needs mowing, a guy comes to mow his lawn, the lawnmower works on its own and is murderous, other things happen. It's got more to it than that but that's the basic summary. The actual movie is about VR where a dumb guy becomes smart through VR experiments and eventually goes out of control. It's not the most entertaining movie but it's completely different to the real story. The only real similarity is that the dumb guy has a lawnmower. And aside from the costumes and the aesthetic of the non-CGI parts, it's not a good movie either. The CGI is awful and completely takes you out of it, the story in execution is very boring and the VR simulations are basically just 90s computer games. Like, the first one is basically Doom. What a travesty of a movie. I'm never watching this again. I do not recommend this. I actively unrecommend this.

Although it's nothing like it's original source material I actually quite enjoyed the lawnmower man and it's bizarre effects.

Padded out King's flimsy short story with a script known as Cybergod. Not quite RoboCop or ReBoot, but fun and interesting. 8/10 - Great.

The notion that one can transform a person’s brain into a super machine is an interesting premise for a movie. And the scenes are well produced in so many ways. For example, all the high tech doesn’t seem terribly outdated. The direction or the acting if you will is just too campy. Its best accomplishment is to show that Pierce Brosnan is a rather superior actor than the rest of the cast. The character of the Jobe is idiotic… and so is everything that happens to him.

The ubiquity of the Director's Cut is good because you can see what they were going for and judge the complete movie on its own merits. There are definitely some interesting ideas here that have aged well (especially how the digital world cuts people off from reality) but the narrative is still frustrating as it resorts to cliches and short cuts.

Quite a goofy film, and quite distasteful. Laughable mostly - may have been filmed in the early 90's but very rudimentary graphics. I find it ridiculous the notion of taking a seemingly dumb lad to make him clever - but that film has awful film writing because it takes a sad man (the Angelo character) who was dislikable throughout the film, but then had the nerve to 'try' and make out he was some sort of hero at the end - he was never a 'hero', just a terrible person who messed with a decent lad.

I have seen a lot of movies, and a lot of bad ones. This was by far the worst. Killed off the best part in the first 20 mins. Do not watch!

As good to watch now as it was when released. Virtual sex scene is on point for its time.

I wish they could've made this with today's technology… this is a great idea and a cult classic… great flick saw it in the theater when it was originally released… you'll like it ignore the bad ratings

They had the right idea with this movie and it's even ahead of its time but for the most part it's a joke

actually fucking hilarious

He will always be a gem.

I liked this movie when it came out. Not bad story, great looking guys. Can't watch it now though it does look very dated. Nice in it own time and I thought fondly of it, probably watched it more than once. I've seen worse.

This movie is not winning any award for visual effects or acting, but the story makes it worth it, to me it's an ongoing conversation about ethics in science and human testing, would totally watch it again.

Pierce Brosnan plays a scientist working on a military project involving virtual reality and computer science. When something goes wrong sending his test monkey to an early grave, he begins experimenting on a friendly simpleton, played convincingly by Jeff Fahey, who mows lawns, turning him into something smart and powerful and deadly. I hadn't seen this in about twenty years and it's still pretty fun to watch although some of the visual effects are very basic and cringeworthy. Decent nonetheless.

Stephen King cliches abound in The Lawnmower Man, despite not even being a faithful adaptation of the story (cue the lawsuits and King having his name taken off of home media releases) and so does outdated CGI but the performances are sincere enough, the animation is visually creative despite how poorly its aged (getting sandwiched in between Terminator 2 and Jurassic Park certainly doesn't help) and the director's cut does try to improve on characterisations, especially with how clunky Pierce Brosnan's wife's exit is in the theatrical cut following her mood swings throughout that one scene. While there are better King adaptations than these, you could do a hell of a lot worse with The Lawnmower Man (and for what it's worth, King actually did like it as a stand-alone film so it must've done something right)

[Spoiler Free] I really, really want a complete remake of this movie (and to forget the abomination of a movie that followed this one). I'd love a remake that has extra story in between fleshing out some of the things that happened during the movie. Even though its runtime is close to 2 hours, it still feels shorter than it should be as there's quite a bit left unexplained. And, of course, it needs a fresh coat of paint on the VFX, although for the time period this movie was released in, these were pretty darn good at that time. Overall, I still enjoy this movie, and I'll continue to watch it every couple years!

(Director's Cut). I saw the this one in the cinema when it was released. From what I understand the studio butchered the theatrical version of the film, which I guess is partly responsible for its awful reputation. That, and the fact that Stephen King sued to have his name removed from movie. The director's cut adds 45 of material that fleshes out the story. The computer graphics are really trippy, the kind of stuff you'd see at mid-90s trance raves. There are some unintentionally funny moments which push the film into "so bad it's good" territory, such as Pierce Brosnan taking off his shirt in every other scene. Dean Norris (Hank from Breaking Bad) has a small part as a baddie, speaking with an English accent which I guess makes him seem more sinister.

The film has very primitive special effects but that's really the only thing bad about it. I can see why the money-raking sequel got panned as it's up there as one of the worst movies ever made. The original however has one of the greatest character arcs in film history. Probably the only time it's ever been okay for an actor to go "full special-person" as in this case it actually supported his developement and the plot. It's also one of the most interesting representations of man becoming machine, which makes it very relevant today. I encourage the critics to give it another chance. And maybe another star!