Virtual Reality is a normal thing nowadays especially in the gaming industry. If you watch this flick it's funny to see how they thought back then what VR should be. So far so good but that's the only positive thing I can say.To be honest, it has nothing to do with the original Lawnmower Man (1992). We do have Jobe ( the VR) but this time al acting is done by other actors. Still, it doesn't make sense at all. But for me made in 1996 the effects are really laughable, so cheapie. It do has an atmosphere that reminded me of Blade Runner (1982) and The Terminator (1984) only those were better done effect wise and story wise. Completely outdated but only to watch if you want to see what they thought the future would look like with cell phones and VR.Gore 0/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 1/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

This is not so much a review as it is to the confession of a crime; a tale of theft, an unreturned VHS-tape, left at the rental-return but not properly shoved into the slot and having taking said film home to be watched for free.See, it was the middle of the night, the shop long closed and the label of said videotape said "Lawnmover Man 2". Having been a huge fan of the first part, I couldn't resist grabbing the tape, dragging it home and shoving it into the player. Even acquired a litre of plonk wine (back then favoured by impoverished students) to celebrate the joyous occasion of finally seeing a sequel.The plonk didn't help it, the bottle empty before the second half of the film, upon which I ended this farce and pressed first the "stop", then the "eject" bottom. Returned the VHS to said return-slot the same night, not wanting to have it at home and fearing that a trash bin would reject the tape.And, if whoever had to pay late-fees for this tape happens to read this review: consider this the price of an education. One doesn't rent crap like that! No points from me and the obligatory one point that IMDb gives it.

Oh deal, just when we though Hollywood was recently going down the tube, this movie popped up in the Comcast on-demand option. Nothing beats watching movies free or for a fraction of buying the disc or renting it on netflick.This movie is basically followup to the first Lawn Mower movie. The kid that we see in the first movie is now grown up, a hacker, and a kid whose life went downhill. Where is Pierce Bronson's character? Well guess the first movie sucks, why bother being in it then.As for the Jobe guy, wasn't he all stretched out thin in the first one? Well, anyways, this movie is like the terrible Robocop 3 where our future is bleak, corporate has their own little military and its a dirty homeless city setting of a movie.Be warn, this movie is just a time filler if you're looking to waste time or as someone said earlier, a movie to scare your inlaws out the door. Its on comcast now if those who have an account can watch it.

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!!