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!!
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!!