MartinHafer In the 1980s and 90s, two huge problems were big in films. The first I would like to call the "Spielberg" cliché. That's where the world is saved by sensitive and all-knowing children. While governments, scientists and the like do their thing, the REAL geniuses (kids with a home computer in this case) save humanity! Ugghhh!! Second, there is the film makers' notion that says special effects can take the place of plot. However, rarely have I seen a film with such a bizarre and incomprehensible plot and such wonderful graphics--it's like a story wasn't even important to the film. What WAS important was lots and lots and lots of computer tricks and explosions--with graphics that were brilliant for 1996--but did nothing to create a movie worth seeing or understanding. It's as if they were making a film for people too dumb to want any plot! The plot, such as it is, is about some smart disabled guy who is using his über-brain to tie into all the world computers and mess with people--killing them in various ways that are super-graphics intensive. And, of course, it's up to a bunch of kids (and a down-and-out Patrick Bergen who must have been desperate for work) to save everyone. Is this really the best they could do?! Well it's obvious that I think this is a bad and vacuous film. However, is it bad enough to merit the inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list? Well, that's not an easy answer and I should talk about the confusion in putting any film on the list. I guess it all depends on how you personally would interpret a bad film and what should be on the list. For example, the films of Ed Wood and Al Adamson are abysmal low-budget messes and yet they are not on the list. Perhaps this is because in their own weird way, they are so bad that they are funny. Or, perhaps because they are so low-budget they shouldn't be taken seriously. "Lawnmower Man 2" is clearly nothing like these films--with a relatively large budget (despite some bargain basement actors) and wider release than an Ed Wood film, it clearly is in a different league. And, sadly, while bad, it isn't what I would consider fun viewing. And, considering the sheer waste of money (i.e., "bang for the buck") and unwatchability, I would consider putting it on this infamous list. Pretty too look at mindless brain-rotting mush--that's MY interpretation of what should be on the list--and this clearly is brain-rotting mush!!

nrabond007 Where to begin? The shoddy acting is a good start. Patrick Bergin is tolerable, but everyone else is seemingly doing the cue card shuffle. Matt Frewer does a Jim Carrey impression with a character that should, by all means be serious. People accuse Star Wars of wooden acting, yet this makes all the star wars films actors look like scholars. Next, on a movie that should be touted for special effects, this movie has none. When you can clearly see cardboard burning and made to look like a hallway you have a problem. Speaking of train wrecks, this film has one, and it looks terrible. There are plot holes galore as this movie's main focus is on this Cairon chip (whatever that is) which is never fully explained. Somehow the main character, Jobe, is able to coexist in both the real world and cyberspace at the same time. If anyone can find anything positive to say about this movie I would love to hear it. I will then gladly put that person into an insane asylum.

jdkeaton1 Virtual Reality never went that far. There was some people who thought that it could become like real where you can have your own world and make it your way. And then they of course had what they called cyber sex so people would think that it was a way to have free love. Now the idea of VR is just silly and that is why the lawnmower man movies where funny. Of course 1 was better then 2. I think 2 was more like a kids movie because it had a group of kids as the main caractures up against a super villain trying to take over that world how childish is that. I think it is a movie for some depressed people who probably listen to Tool way too much.

disdressed12 absolutely dreadful.who could have imagined such a disgraceful follow up to the first Lawnmower Man.i am almost stunned beyond words,but IMDb requires a minimum amount of lines,so here goes.very low budget and it looked it.horrible casting in the case of Matt Frewer,who this time around is supposed to be the title character.i can not take this guy seriously as an actor.he would be out of his depth in an elementary school play.the guy has no screen presence whatsoever.this a bad thing when the movie might possibly hinge on your performance.(although there is no fear of that happening in this dog,but still-Matt Frewer?)Jeff Fahey may not be the best actor,but he was perfectly cast for the original movie,and compared to Matt Frewer,he's Olivier.it is possibly that Olivier himself couldn't have saved this vomit,as it looked like it was a made with the change from a 20 dollar bill.less than 0*