Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace (1996) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
64 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
This was made by someone who hates everyone.
imdb-614-85441321 December 2009
My brother has repressed the memory of this film. I remain traumatized. Why would anyone make a movie like this and release it? Do they hate people? What are they going to do for an encore? Kick the homeless? Steal from the food shelves?

This movie is terrible. Not in the so bad it is good way. This movie should not be viewed by anyone - ever. The plot is incoherent - acting wooden and has more holes in the plot than swiss cheese. I think this film can kill puppies, club seals, slash the rain forest, throw kittens in the river, oils penguins.

I'm going to get a roofalate and see if I can forget this movie.
20 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
I screamed in pain, and other people joined me...
lizcroteau22 October 2003
Dear lord. I went to see this movie in the theater only because my S.O. at the time dragged me along. Normally, even when a movie isn't great, I remain respectful of others and remain silent. Not so here. It was so bad, I was actually SCREAMING "Dear God, Why?!?!?" Instead of getting shushed or having people get angry, I actually had people JOIN me in the sentiment. It was like we had to support each other to survive the blasted thing.

See it only to abuse it. It pained me.
55 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Abortion That Somehow Survived...
votok14 June 2004
An epic of unbounded worthlessness...

I always hate it when the sequel ignores the ending of the previous film and come up with a nonsensical way to continue the series on(Escape from the Planet of the Apes was the first to do that, though there was some redeeming value to continuing that particular series).

Anyway, dreadful as a descriptive term is not really enough. Abomination is more apt. Somehow the future has become a rainy Blade-Runner-esqe culture with lots of orphan kids banding together in subterranean hovels hacking the net and using words like "cool" a lot while fighting the Big Evil Fascist Programming Corporation. And becoming allied to Neo-Navaho Chip designers who've moved in to the Unibomber's cabin.

Enough with trying to describe this spam on film. It's main star, like the plot, has no legs to stand on right from the outset.

The Computer animation was far inferior to the first film, like low-grade hamburger is to prime-rib. Hamburger left out on the counter overnight. Phew!

A list of the faults and problems with this film could fill volumes and I'd just like to say AVOID THIS TORTURE, especially if you halfway liked the first film. This one completely ruins the first and even complaining about it won't help the sour taste left in your mouth after you swallow back your own bile.

Really, really ghastly...
31 out of 40 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
So bad it's funny
edwithmj4 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
First of all I think Matt Frewer is a good actor. His role in Star Trek Next Generation as a bogus time travelling scientist was excellent and reminded me of James "Jim" Carrey. In this he tries very hard but the script and directing is not there at all. This "sequel" seems to contradict the ending of the first film completely and so I ended up watching it for the hilarious clichéd moments. Here's a list:

The tag line is laughable "God made him simple, science made him a god, now he wants revenge." What the hell is that about? He wants revenge? For what? On whom?

"Accessing secret files" What computer would ever say that?

"We have to make Jobe so angry he destroys himself". That part had me in hysterics. Trace's ludicrous explanation why that would work.

The fact that Jobe is somehow alive despite in the previous film he was practically incinerated.

That weird bit in the middle where they try to find out who wrote a computer program by looking at a 3D image of a word.

The bit where Jobe start to use bad language was really unexpected and very unnecessary.

The over the top and pointless sword fight at the end. I thought Jobe had to destroy himself? Why the sword fight?

That scary looking blonde woman. What was her role in the film exactly?

The cliché of Trace the old computer master is now living a "simple" life in the desert.

Homeless kids somehow have ganged together, taught themselves computer science to the degree that they know more than the average adult and have expensive equipment that WORKS in an old train.

The Chiron chip. That thing really confused me. What was it and what was that talk of Egypt? How can everyone live in cyberspace? Their bodies would die. The whole idea is ridiculous.

Trace's weird and annoying shaped mouth.

That fight where Trace picks up a TV and smashes it on someone's head. It was clearly fake it looked like it weighed as much as a cardboard box.

The whole film made absolutely NO SENSE.

Still it made me laugh.
11 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Is this the end of the world? No, its Lawnmower Man 2!
Sonatine9723 June 2000
Oh, God, this film is bad, oh so bad. I think I must have had too many beers in the pub prior to renting this pile of pants!

I do remember looking at the clock on the video and noticed 15 minutes of the film had passed. I don't remember the first 14 minutes, and by the time we got to 20, I realised I had better things to do, like inspect the innards of the toilet or cleanout the attic with a toothbrush & tweezers.

Its true when they say getting slightly drunk has an inverse affect on a person's ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. I must have had my drinks severely spiked to end up with something like this. But another good thing about alcohol, it makes you sleepy, and the following morning you tend to forget all those minor indescretions from the night before.

I like the original Lawnmower Man, and even though most sequels generally suck, this just gets blown away. I just don't have it in me to comment on the acting, directing etc, since they are all tended to blur into each other to form one big blob of Hmmm!

Not a good film, although if you have irritating guests in your home that you simply can't get rid of, put this on and I guarantee their coats will be on and the car keys ajingling before the opening credits finish!

Bad!

(blank)/*****
31 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
"Lawnmower Man 2"- A few competent scenes and a whole lotta unintentional laughs make it a fun one-time watch for fans of trashy b-movies. All else need not apply.
MaximumMadness1 April 2017
Pretty much a permanent fixture on IMDb's Bottom 100 list, 1996's "Lawnmower Man 2: Beyond Cyberspace" is not only widely considered one of the worst sequels ever made... it's widely considered one of the worst films ever made period. While the second claim might be somewhat debatable in retrospect (oh, it's bad... it's really bad, but maybe not "worst of all time bad"), the former is most certainly a given. The original film is a wildly dated but mostly harmless sci-fi thriller about a mentally-challenged man who is granted superhuman intelligence and abilities through the power of virtual reality, sending him spiraling on a path towards an evil plot for world domination. It's forgettable save for its cheesy early-CG effects and a few decent performances by future star Pierce Brosnan and the titular Lawnmower Man Jobe played by Jeff Fahey. It's a mediocre film, but it hit it fairly big at the box office, so a sequel was pretty much guaranteed.

What people couldn't have predicted, however, is just how incredibly insane the follow-up would be. "Lawnmower Man 2" is frankly bizarre, and never anything less than over-the-top from scene to scene. Story goes the studio-suits behind this mess were hoping to spin the series off into a teen-aimed superhero movie franchise set in cyberspace (a far cry from the more deliberate and slow-burn thriller the original was), and this film would be sort-of a stepping stone in that direction. Add to that woeful miscasting of pretty much every lead character, a lot of nonsensical ret-con work that frequently butchers the storyline of the first film and post-production problems including the director being locked out of the editing room... and you pretty much have a recipe for disaster.

Six years after the events of the first film in a now post- apocalyptic world right out of "Blade Runner" (I guess?), Jobe (now played by Max Headroom himself, Matt Frewer) has been discovered and brought back from the brink of death by an evil megalomaniacal VR tycoon, who needs him to perfect the film's MacGuffin- the "Chiron Chip"... the most powerful computer chip ever conceived. After re-discovering his old friend Peter Parkette (Austin O'Brien) in virtual reality, Jobe goes on a quest to track down the creator of VR, Dr. Trace (Patrick Bergin), who has key information that will assist in Jobe taking control of the Chiron Chip... or something stupid like that. Blah, blah, blah... Jobe goes power-crazy yet again and tries to take over the world with the Chiron Chip. Chiron Chip, Chiron Chip... Chiron Chip. You'll be sick of that combination of words by the time the film's over. They say it constantly.

Basically, the film is a weird mixed-drink from Satan's tavern... one part "Blade Runner", one part "Super Mario Bros. The Movie", one part "Tron", one-half part the original "Lawnmower Man"... topped off with five parts "Highlander 2: The Quickening." Garnish with overacting. Serve over ice from Flint, Michigan.

Everything is a fundamental mess. The storyline is nonsensical and completely unclear, with the main focus being on delivering constant techno-babble as often as possible while punctuating every few scenes with an explosion or bizarro murder-sequence as Jobe picks off various targets, though sanitized for a PG-13 rating. As mentioned above, the film's MacGuffin of choice is the "Chiron Chip", though the Chip itself is poorly established and doesn't seem to amount to all that much in the story. There's also some genuinely laughable mis-judgments on the part of the filmmakers to try and gear the film towards children as per studio request... so you get uproarious scenes where the "Information Superhighway" is personified as an actual highway in cyberspace that our heroes get into a car-chase on. I could not stop laughing. Everyone in the cast mugs for the camera in such a way that you cringe so much that you can't help but giggle, with special props going to Frewer, who turns the quiet and sinister Jobe from the first-film into a cackling Jim Carrey wannabe who spouts one- liners at the top of his lungs in every scene. The editing is an absolute mess, with not a single moment given more than an instance of breathing room before it rockets to the next scene... probably because producers oh-so-needed it to appeal to the kids with their "Mtv's and their Nintendo's and whatever kids these days like." And the effects sucked, plain and simple. Not only were they poor in comparison to other films released around the time... they're somehow objectively worse than the effects in the original four years earlier!

Yet... I don't totally hate the film, and I even do have a mild recommendation for it. It's awful. Dreadful. But also kinda entertaining. Fans of trashy B-movies and bad cinema will probably get a kick out of it, much as I did. It's worth watching once for those crowds. I know I couldn't stop laughing at it. It's just so baffling and mind-numbing, that even as you feel your braincells depleting... you might get some serious chuckles thanks to it. Also, I can't help but comment... there is an occasional hint at brilliance here and there. You get the feeling that director/co- writer Farhad Mann was really trying his hardest, and there are a few scenes that are competently filmed and directed. I think there's a significantly better film somewhere beneath the surface that you glean the occasional look at here. Not a good film... but a better film. It'd be interesting to see what his original vision was.

But really, aside from bad-movie buffs, I cannot in good conscience recommend "Lawnmower Man 2" to anyone. It's terrible. Strange. And wildly confusing. And it is easily and indisputably one of the worst sequels ever made, earning a much-deserved 1 out of 10 for me.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Wash Out your eyes
Matthew-sawtell10 June 2004
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
38 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Rare is a movie this bad!!!!!
PIST-OFF25 August 1999
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.
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why did they do this?
online-1321 April 2004
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.
19 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst movie I've ever seen.
Lochness_3013 February 2001
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.
25 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
So bad it's unbelievable
chibidraco10 June 2000
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.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This film is rather brainless...
MartinHafer12 February 2010
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!!
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
What the hell happened???
Vegeta-521 April 1999
I'm sorry, but halfway through this movie, I realized I didn't know just what the Samuel B. Hell was going on! This movie does not deserve a long review so I will sum it up in two words:

It stinks!
16 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I liked it.
NoelCT10 August 2005
Dr. Bejamin Trace creates a brilliant device which allows unhindered access to all sources of electronic information: banks, hospitals, etc. When he questions their motives, the corporation that funded his research take him to court and claim the device as their own. Since Trace -- the only man who can make it work -- takes off to who-knows-where, the corporation pulls a crippled Jobe from the wreckage of the first movie and offer him a job.

Several years down the road, Jobe's secret work has lead to a future that's advanced on the surface, but hides a sad underbelly of poverty and unemployment. Jobe's nearly cracked the networking device, but needs to find Trace for the last crucial bits, so he contacts his old friend Pete, who's working the streets with a gang of homeless hackers. Pete's overjoyed that Jobe is alive and tracks the nomadic Trace down in a desert home free of modern convenience, only to learn that Jobe has plans of his own for the networking device. Plans that go far beyond the sharing or stealing of information.

First off, this film is cheap. It was made on a nonexistent budget and skipped out of the theaters before people even knew it existed. But, that aside, it works.

The sets and costumes brilliantly portray a Blade Runner-style future clearly divided between the haves and have-nots. The casting is perfect, from Patrick Bergan's portrayal of Trace as a man shoved around so long he finally ran away from the world, and Eli Pouget as Jobe's doctor who falls for her patient's seeming innocence. But the rowdy gang of kids steal the show. Heck, even Frewer, who I normally don't enjoy, does a decent job.

Farhad Mann deserves credit for a well constructed story with plenty of twists and turns that moves at a perfect pace. And more credit for bringing that script to life on such a meager budget.

There's really only two problems I have with the film.

First, Jobe doesn't gel with the original movie. Frewer's portrayal is of an anarchistic goof along the lines of Batman's Joker (especially the animated version), whereas Fahey played him as a twisted Buddha, one who thinks on a level beyond those around him. The performance works, though, if you just approach it as a different character.

Secondly, the VR scenes with actors in front of blue screen suffer when compared to the dated but beautiful cgi of the original. They still look fairly good, superimposing the actors over sprawling cybernetic vistas, but I guess I just miss the gimmick from the first one.

I like this movie. I know many out there don't, but I do. It's a rare sequel that tries to take the story off in a new direction.
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
One of the few times the sequel ruined the original
mdrejhon14 April 1999
Having watched the original Lawnmower Man a few times as a reasonably enjoyable (albeit far-fetched) movie which had a nice gradual change in mood from start to end of the movie, I originally looked forward to this sequel. When I saw the sequel in the theaters, I was not prepared for the big disappointment I was to be hit with. I have to say, that this sequel is one of the few times that a sequel ruined a relatively-good original. I now don't think I would be able to enjoy watching the original Lawnmower Man movie, after having some details forced into my mind from a really awful sequel.
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
No prize winner, but not deserving of the bottom 100
me-1713 July 2000
I didn't have high expectations for this movie, as I didn't think the first Lawnmower man was great and this was after all a sequel. I can't say I thought the film was good. However, I didn't walk away. I have seen some really BAD movies in my day, and while this was no prize winner, I wouldn't put it on my all time s*** list. Bottom line: If you're really bored and you can see this for free on cable, its worth a look. Otherwise, forget it.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This movie isn't even "funny" bad.
martin-48714 August 2004
I may be one of the few people who loved the first Lawnmower Man, but I did.

I've watched it over a dozen times and still look forward to my next viewing.

The horrible piece of tripe that LM2, however, is something that I wish I could erase from my brain.

There is no continuity from the first movie. There are none of the interesting themes from the first movie, like the awe-inspiring wonders of technology and their dangers, or the well-executed "power corrupts" motif.

Just don't do it.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Stupidly underrated
richdvk18 November 2003
This movie may not be good and seem slightly 80's but it certainly doesn't deserve to be in the bottom 100. Some of the effects are pretty impressive despite what you read here and the acting is really not bad at all. There are far, far worse flicks out there.

I'd give it a 6/10.
10 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Not a pretty picture!
JohnnyKo3 November 1999
I walked out of this movie initially and only barely got through the rented copy my roommate brought home. Unfortunately, I cannot say this movie was so bad it was good. The acting was sub-par and the plot was riddled with dead-ends and useless one-liners. Though the original is definitely a "must see" cult classic, this sequel is a waste of fi
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
It works for me!
pears0321 August 2003
"Lawnmowerman 2" is visually dazzling cyber-escapism, jam packed with synergistic energy that redefines the nature of reality even more than it's predecessor. It interested me so much I wanted to be challenged even more. I got my wish. What follows is an audacious conclusion, arriving at not simply victory but at revelation. Coming out of a sensational action sequence, the ending was subtly transformational.

It's a film that likely to transfix fans of computer gamesmanship as well as dazzle those with quaintly humanistic notions of "life" for the computer-generated characters that jack in Virtual Reality. Farhad Mann has synthesized a savvy visual vocabulary and stylishly captures the duality of "real" vs. VR. "LM2" is great fun; on another level altogether, it causes us to take a look at our responsibilities to the/our "real" world.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sucks big time
daniel_roach19 April 2002
I actually enjoyed the first movie, (one of the few who did), So I grabbed the opportunity to watch this on video..

What can I say - The acting is terrible, There's no plot and The effects are terrible, putting it bluntly it totally sucks, I can't think of one positive thing to say about it.. (Except perhaps the bit where jobe kills a good guy starting with the words "a little nosy aren't ya??" - There is a quite nice effect there)

Pants with a capital p.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why, oh why was this piece of crap made?
pmoney1323 July 2001
To get an idea of how bad this movie is, the stars of the original, Pierce Brosnan and Jeff Fahey, wouldn't even return to reprise their roles. And its no wonder why they refused: the whole thing is a disgrace to movies everywhere. For starters, it contradicts the ending of the first film, and since Fahey wouldn't return, they had to make up some dumb story about Jobe having plastic surgery.

I had the misfortune of seeing this movie in the theaters, and I was truly in awe of what I was seeing on the screen. It was like a nightmare. You know, the one where you're trapped someplace and you can't move, then you wake up. Only I couldn't wake up. I was frozen in terror at this...this excrement of films. Let me detail the more ridiculous points of the film:

1. When all of the people of the world are flocking in herds to worship, through cyberspace, a bald, crippled goof who talks mumbo-jumbo.

2. When the young kid and some woman track down the scientist from the first film to help them find Jobe, only to realize that he has become some wigged out crackpot who looks like an indian.

3. A ridiculous chase scene in the middle of the film, as an evil tycoon and his guards race our heroes to find some chip or something.

The first Lawnmower Man was an okay film with great special effects. This sequel is a bad film with bad special effects, characters, visuals, etc. etc. etc. I could go on, but that would simply be wasting your time, just like, coincidentally, this movie.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Horrid
Michael_Elliott13 March 2008
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.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What happened to VR anyway?
jdkeaton129 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
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.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Almost No Relation to the First Movie
parhat10 January 2005
The first Lawnmover Man was a decent movie, at least for the first half.I liked the movie, and was really hoping to see Lawnmower Man 2 in the theater. There is a good reason: it is one of the precursor movie to Matrix, Existenz, Dark City, 13th Floor which deals with concept of virtual reality. Despite the good showing of the first lawnmower man the theaters here in Thailand refused to be shown. So I had to wait until it came out in video stores. Strangely enough, the first time it went on sale, they were selling at a deep discount. I thought it was a bargain, so I bought it. It was the one of biggest mistake I have ever made in my life. Stephen King is no longer active. Actors are totally changed. I cannot see any resemblance at all to the first movie. At least hiring Pierce Brosnan would have helped a lot to the continuity. The characters looked like paper doll. The story line just did not fit with the first movie at all. You can watch this movie in itself without any knowledge whatsoever to the first film. The ending of the first Lawnmower man was he is now in Cyberspace. In the second part, he is back and still alive as a human and no longer in cyberspace. Total contradiction. I completely forgot the entire movie minutes after watching it and had to forced watch THREE TIMES because I could not understand it. The PLOTS for the entire movie are so complicated and if you bothered analyzing them, made no sense at all. The technology that the Evil Company offered made no sense and the public looked far too gullible and the government is as mindless as ever. The "religion" that people joined looked like zombies. If you pretend you are in a video game playing Lawnmower Man 2, then it looks just that, a video game not a movie, but lacking of action sequences. Movie is somewhat similar to the lame Matrix 3. This has got to be the worse movie I ever watched, besides Super Babies: Baby Geniuses 2. Oh yes, I forgot, my pet dog died while watching this movie.

Score 2/10
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed