Clevercell Very disappointing...

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

FlashCallahan Jobe is resuscitated by Jonathan Walker, and he wants Jobe to create a special computer chip that would connect all the computers in the world into one network.Walker would control and use the system, But he doesn't realise a group of teenage hackers, and Patrick Bergin, are on to him and out to stop his plan. He also doesn't realise that Jobe is now the bloke from The Taking Of Beverly Hills and not Jeff Fahey......What is there to say? Yes the film is bad, there is no real explanation as to why Jobe is a I've, but he is, and when he's in cyber world, he turns into some strange Jim Carrey wannabe hybrid. The plot is silly, narrative is all over the place, and the cast know its ridiculous, but blimey Charlie, its a lot of fun to watch. The effects are really bad, even worse than Spawn, and Bergin looks totally bemused to be in this, its long way from the time he starred in that Robin Hood movie that didn't star Kevin Costner.Fewer really overacts, and despite his attempts to be menacing, he's just too camp, and becomes the reason why the film is so funny.Its rubbish, but its entertaining rubbish, but I cannot give it a rather higher than a four, because it is a fundamentally bad film, but not bottom 100 worthy.Plus its the best film ever to come as a special feature on the originals DVD.

Death-2-trolls 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.

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!!

X X 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.