Johnny Mnemonic

Oh man! Why so many bad reviews... if you wanted acting, WHY WERE YOU WATCHING A KEANU REEVES MOVIE?! If you wanted a thick plot with many twists and turns, you shouldn't have even went "Oh, lets go see a low budget b-film from '95!"!!! The movie didn't call for acting, they just needed a brief plot outline and charismatic actors to play the leads. When I saw this movie way back in '98 when it was on TV, I heard so many horrid reviews that were too over-analystic. When watching a film like "Dude Where's My Car?", are you going to look for the same quality you saw in a film like "The Usual Suspects"? Keanu Reeves did his role only good enough to support the movie... That's fine!!! The plot was a cliche cyber-thriller and you must have known that even just buy the back of the box or the trailer. It delivered a plot that was kind of cool, an star that does some one-liners, and action. If these three things were not what you wanted from this film then you shouldn't have went. It just delivers an action/adventure movie, nothing short of what promised. Don't be critical on films that are obviously intended as sheer dumb fun from start to finish... if these scripts even tried to be thinker, they'd be boring... AND YOU KNOW IT!

Heavens, why is everybody bragging about this movie? Maybe because they compare it to "Matrix? Probably, I wouldn't know another reason.

Nobody says that this is a real block-buster, but it is definetely not as bad as everyone here wants to make it.

It's a nice movie to enjoy (especially on DVD) and forget afterwards. Not because it was bad but just because it was good and entertaining for a short while. Nothing more, nothing less.

And it DID have its benefits: that crazy preacher was so hilarious to behold. A nice and funny mirror to the numerous fundamentalistic Christians in the American society. And, of course, some nice fighting scenes, cool hi-tech equipment, and a gorgeous Dina Meyer, all packed in a futuristic ambience. What else could I ask for for an action movie that you can enjoy and forget about afterwards?

This silly cluttered cyberpunk landscape is woefully dated and really just a backdrop for a man on the run picture. Like a B noir, Johnny takes a job that finds himself in over his head, where that head of his is carrying 320gb of data(!) that the Yakuza wants to tear off his shoulders. Keanu Reeves and Dina Meyer add to the cheese with their bland presence and occasionally funny/bad acting and we get some weird scenery chewing from Udo Kier and Dolph Lundgren, who is a Jesus freak bounty hunter also out for Johnny's head. Takeshi Kitano is wasted in a role that doesn't do much, except sit around waiting for others to retrieve his data and his casting seems motivated only for foreign sales. Ice-T plays the lead Lo-Tek, an anti-tech group trying to bring down the system and his role is practically the same (minus the kangaroo makeup) in his other 1995 sci-fi film Tank Girl. Even though Johnny Mnemonic is pretty damn stupid, it is entertaining no matter how misguided it may be and it is one misguided movie. There's a data decoding dolphin; some girl's soul stuck in a corporate computer system; a long and pointless opening credit scroll - since there's loads of expository dialogue explaining everything anyway; laser whips - which seems as dangerous for the user as the victim; and a trip inside the internet, complete with awesome mid 90s virtual reality effects - think Lawnmower Man fx, just slightly less embarrassing. Gibson and director Robert Longo damn the studio for re-editing the film before release, but I can't imagine this footage working no matter what was cut out or shifted around, but as it is, this is dumb pulpy fun.

Why does everyone hate that movie so much!?! All the reviews I have read called it "confusing". How could it be confusing?

1. Takes place in a world created in William Gibson's many works of fiction. 2. Man has data in head. 3. Others REALLY want data. 4. Man tries to get data out of head before it kills him -- or the people chasing him do.

Along the way there are some colorful characters, cool gadgets and cityscapes from Gibson's 2021, and even a smidgen of romance (but not enough to bother anyone). I mean what's the problem!?! The movie is very faithful to Gibson's vision and even asks the main character to wrestle with an ethical dilemma or two while all the action is going on...

This is not a terrible film as claimed, but it had faults: poor pacing; weak atmosphere (visuals were there, but insufficient music track to back them up); and its largely unexplained universe.

Ideally, you need to have read Gibson's short stories and "Neuromancer" first, and then all the props - cyberspace, 'black ice', grubby streets, brand-name hardware, Yakuza assassins, muscle grafts, etc - make sense. The "Blade Runner" style information dump was no substitute. Incidentally, many of these props appear cliched, but remember that Gibson more or less invented them; it's merely that this film appeared long after they had become standard movie fixtures.

Gibson's written work has fairly sparse dialogue, and makes heavy use of precise and rather introspective visual description to convey character. Perhaps this just doesn't translate well to film.