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!!

grahamjaroslow Yes, it may be one of the worst films ever made, yes its incredibly dated, but it still has the futurama appeal of the 1st movie however, unlike the first this is far less intellectual (not to say V1 was), but since a couple things in this wont come to pass for a couple years now, i reaken the best time to watch this would be somewhere around 2011 on a computer hooked up to a pair of those $1000 glasses with a projector built in while using something like the emotive headset (google it before you cry n00b)instead of a mouse.But then again, since it's more of a cheap CGI/blue screen version of the Die Hard series rather than an intelligent forerunner to the Matrix like the first, i'm inclined to say this is more akin to a 1996 vinegar than to the 1992 port-noir the original was.

Michael_Elliott Lawnmower Man 2 (1996) * (out of 4) 1992's The Lawnmower Man was a disastrous film that somehow gained a cult following. Perhaps it was the special effects or perhaps it was the wicked performance of Jeff Fahey as the dimwitted Jobe that made people enjoy the movie. For some unknown reason four years later we got Lawnmower Man 2: Jobe's War, which fell into theaters in January and was on video within months. The first film was bad but this one here is something far worse.This sequel starts off where the previous film ended. The dimwit turned genius by virtual reality training Jobe (Matt Frewer) has been blown up but when special agents check out the building they find him still breathing. Jobe, missing his legs must undergo plastic surgery to save his face (and to bring a new actor in) and then the scientists try to figure out more about him. The evil Jonathan Walker (Kevin Conway) wants Jobe to teach him about the Chiron chip, which would be able to let Walker into any computer throughout the world. By doing this Walker could overtake the world and end it as we know it (God knows he isn't the first to try this).Due to the explosion and various other mental problems, Jobe has plans of his own, which included taking over the world himself. Jobe goes cyber surfing to a futuristic Los Angeles where he discovers his old friend Peter (Austin O'Brien), the same kid who gave him Twinkies in the first film (he's aged a lot for one day). Jobe tries to get Peter to help him but when the kid discovers what Jobe's plans are here turns to Dr. Trace (Patrick Bergin) who might be able to stop the maniac from taking over the world and saving us all. Are you on the edge of your seat yet? Lawnmower Man 2 is one of those films that's so bad I'd recommend you stick needles in your eyes instead of watching the film. I love bad movies like Plan 9 From Outer Space and Reefer Madness but this here is just so bad that I dare you not to hit the FF button or return it to the video store after the first five minutes. I'm really not sure why sequels like these are made. I'm really not sure who'd want to watch the film but I guess producers are hoping fans of the original will flock to this over the title.I'm really at a loss of words on talking about this film. I did a little research on the film and learned that it's number twenty on the worst films list over at the IMDb. To think there are people out there who think nineteen other movies are worst than this really blows my mind to no point. The media wants to mock and make fun of a recent Ben and Jen flick yet I bet none of them sat through this film. The acting makes Lopez seem like Bette Davis. The screenplay here makes Ed Wood look like Woody Allen.Another thing missing from this film is just a person choice of mine but I've always enjoyed Jeff Fahey as an actor. I enjoyed him in the first film and other horror films like Psycho 3 and Body Parts. I'm sure he wasn't too busy when this movie was made and the fact he turned it down says a lot about it. I always hate it when sequels come along with the same characters being played by different actors. The most mind blowing thing however is that the studio opened this in over fifteen-hundred theaters, which is a shame considering how many better films never get into one.

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.