From: gt7257c@prism.gatech.EDU (Jose R. Perez)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.movies
Subject: The Lawnmower Man (very opinionated review)
Keywords: Bad, not horrible
Date: 13 Apr 92 07:08:53 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology


   I've seen a couple of good reviews of this movie in rec.arts.movies, and
basically agree with them. But since someone asked for a review, here goes my
shot at being Gene Siskel (or is it Roger Ebert?)

   "The Lawnmower Man" is not a very good movie, and worse, it tries to fool
the public. Stephen King had absolutely nothing to do with the movie, except
for using the TITLE of a short story of his for this work, and possibly the
ridiculous idea of using a lawnmower to chew through furniture. There
are several King themes that are explored, or should I say "borrowed" from
stories like "Carrie" (rejected and misunderstood person suddenly discovers
telekinetic powers and unleashes his fury on those who abused him),"Firestarter"(evil company "the Shop" searches for human experiment that has gone awry, but
that could have useful implications for stuff like destroying small countries),
etc... The result of all this is that if you have even remotely heard of
these movies, or movies like "The Fury" which are quite like it, you will know
what will happen in this movie from the first scene on... there are no 
surprises whatsoever.
   I am not going to discuss the plot in general... I think my role is that of
a reviewer, not a cliff note. The movie basically starts with an obsessed 
doctor who pays more attention to his work than his wife, which promptly leaves
him. This, howewer, is not a dramatic high point; the wife is as flat and
useless pice of scenary as they come - we don't even see things escalate into
her leaving, she just leaves after one argument. The doctor (played by Pierce
Brosnan, who gives a good performance considering the material) then decides
to experiment on the Lawnmower Man, a mentally retarded man who is awfully
played by an actor I hope I never have the displeasure of watching again. The
doctor's experiment consist of using virtual reality generators to stimulate
various parts of the brain, therefore increasing mental ability and powers.
From there on the movie unfolds into a predictable mess. I could hardly contain
my laughter at the stupid dialog, acting and the awful UV lights that kept
turning on every time something telekinetic happened.
    One thing I haven't mention... the movie does have good computer animation;
not mindblowing stuff, but entertaining nonetheless. Howewer, the utter
predictability, dumb scenes, and horrid acting were (IMHO)  more than enough
to sink the movie.

Rating: * out of ****		(given for the computer animation)

Ramblin' comments: I still wonder how my friends liked this; heck I still 
  		   wonder how they got me to even see it. This wouldn't
		   happen if I didn't feel so self-conscious going to movies
		   alone. Oh well...
		   Anyone who didn't laugh at the ending should never be shown
		   real movies like "Taxi Driver" or "Blade Runner", (IMHO)
		   Does anyone else think the relationship between the 
		   neighbor's wife and the doctor should have been fleshed
		   out a 'tad' more? Like, they actually talking to each other
		   before departing together? 
				:-)			(-:
Be excellent to each other,
-- 
*Jose R. Perez           |"Men learn to love the person they are attracted to,*
*Internet:               | while women get more and more attracted to the     *
*gt7257c@prism.gatech.edu| person they love." -Graham Dalton                  *
**********************"There can be only one."- Conner McLeod *****************