The first movie was actually pretty great for it’s time
Goodness. Did we see the same movie? Even with the better-than-Money-For-Nothing graphics the first one was not all that great of a movie to start with. Plus it tried to cash in on the hot streak that Stephen King stories were on at the time: the movie had nothing to do with the short story of the same name.
Still, I do not doubt your claim that the sequel was horrible.
Yes, we saw the same movie, but I really liked it. The actual Stephen King story is basically unrelated, it was a bizarre couple page short story about a weirdo that mows lawns with psychic powers and then ate the lawn clippings (yes really!).
As for the sequel, just imagine that whatever you would have rated the first movie out of 10, adjust it down by 8 points. Yes, you can go negative :)
Goodness. Did we see the same movie? Even with the better-than-Money-For-Nothing graphics the first one was not all that great of a movie to start with. Plus it tried to cash in on the hot streak that Stephen King stories were on at the time: the movie had nothing to do with the short story of the same name.
Still, I do not doubt your claim that the sequel was horrible.
Yes, we saw the same movie, but I really liked it. The actual Stephen King story is basically unrelated, it was a bizarre couple page short story about a weirdo that mows lawns with psychic powers and then ate the lawn clippings (yes really!).
As for the sequel, just imagine that whatever you would have rated the first movie out of 10, adjust it down by 8 points. Yes, you can go negative :)