Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1996)

Talk about a disgraceful waste of film. Sequels have a reputation for being bad and this was certainly no exception. The original Lawnmower Man kept me entertained and had something that its sequel lacked...namely, a plot. It was also missing the good acting, nifty special effects and everything else the original had to offer. Can we say regression in action? If it ever comes out on DVD you'll have a lovely decorative coaster. Or if you want to break up with your significant other then rent this movie to watch with them..they might be gone before the opening credits finish rolling.

Fmovies: 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!!

After suffering through this pitiful excuse for a movie. My girlfriend and I just looked at each other as if to say, "What the hell was that??".

If you feel like wasting a few bucks, give it to the poor! If you haven't seen this embarrassment yet, don't let your curiosity get the best of you. No matter how you look at it, you'll be very disappointed.

Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace fmovies. God help me, but I actually liked the first movie. When I heard this movie was coming out, I rushed to the theater on the opening day.

At first I was confused, then upset, and finally insanely depressed. This movie was absolutely horrid. Bad acting, horrible plot, and mediocre effects. The first movie was definitely focused on adults/teens. This movie was either meant for young children or retarded monkeys (no offense intended to monkeys).

I should have seen it coming as there are no actors in common with both movies. This would not have been such a big deal if the "story" had not revolved around the original characters.

For anybody else who has sat and watched this, I urge you all to write and complain. I thought the Titanic was bad, so bad that I was routing for the iceberg, but this, this is beyond the limits.

92 minutes of 'What is going on', or 'what is the point 'questions. The truth, no point what so ever.

At least I did not pay to watch this at the cinema; I made the mistake of getting it out on video.

I can honestly say without fear or contradiction, that this film is the worst that I have ever EVER seen, and I have seen a lot.

a complete waste of video tape & time

All effects, no plot, acting that puts a shame on Hollywood and makes us have to rethink this whole movie business, directing that could better be handled by a six year old, horible horrible writing, and a lame computer dork of a plot. Matt Frewer couldn't be worse as an actor. As an actor he makes a pretty good janitor. Just the Hacker's like plot alone is enough to nausiate me. This movie is so bad it rolls over and plagues the first one which was good. The only good part about this movie is using the tape as a coaster for your drink when watching something more entertaining like, infomertials.