User Reviews

When I saw this movie I certainly did not think it was an award winning movie or all that good, but it was okay. It passed the time, had an interesting enough story, add some more gore and kills and it might have been a really good horror movie. Like I said in my summary though, I have heard from many people the book is better, but then when have you not heard that cry when a book is made into a movie. This one is about a boy who finds a dog, what could be more touching than that. In fact I would have to say a bit to much time in the film is used exploring their budding friendship rather than on the super creature that is now coming for said boy and dog. Which there is a creature of super power homing in on the boy and his dog, killing those that get in its way. The boy finally finds out about this and he and the dog and I think the mother go into a cabin and have a final showdown with said monster. You will not get to see said monster all that much and there could have been a few more kills or something, but for the most part I found the movie entertaining. I would compare it to another Corey Haim horror movie "Silver Bullet", both are horrors that need more horror, but both can be called okay...just kind of fluffy.

I'm a great fan of Koontz, and thought this might be an adaptation worth watching. I admit that due to the complexity of most his books, with all its subtlety, it is difficult to make a perfect adaptation, but this movie just barely made as a mediocre production. In an effort to make the movie 'cute' instead of the full-fledged horror it should be, it concentrates so much on the dog and its antics, but leaves us to imagine the monster for the most part. Given that the monster is at least as smart and complex as the dog, to see it reduced to simply a killing machine was a waste. And I still prefer the book ending to the movie ending - at least it made more sense and left one feeling a bit sad at the monster's demise instead of gloating over it.

If you went into watching this movie thinking it was going to be an exacting adaptation of the great novel, well, you apparently haven't learned your lesson. Because this is almost never the case, especially movies from this era.

I will judge it for what it is: a B-horror starring an early Corey Haim, still in his prime. There is plenty to like about the film, including some of the gore and terror sequences. Corey Haim's acting is still spot on and sharp (on of his last), and the movie does flow very well. It is an easy film to digest. There are frights aplenty, if you are prone to it. If you are a critical horror fan, you'll find the gore to be well-done, and the film amusing - so long as you don't judge it by the standards of the book.

Having said all that, there are some down sides to it: Some highly inane, and poorly written dialog at times. Also, the film itself, could stand to be spruced up. They could've also tightened up some of the editing.

As far as B-horror fare goes, I recommend it.

Watchers. An excellent, humorous, and poignant novel. Watchers, the movie. Everything I just said, only opposite. Corey Haim plays Travis, who, in the novel, was a fourty year old man with a horrible curse. The curse is that anyone who seems to get close to him dies. Not only does the movie not touch on this (the major theme of the book), but it downplays all major themes of the novel. It doesn't even come close to anything that made the novel so wonderful, which is why Watchers, the "movie", is one you should miss.

Based on the excellent novel, Watchers by Dean Koontz, is this extremely awful motion picture that probably shouldn't be viewed by anyone. Not since "The Running Man" have I seen a book butchered so far beyond recognition. The difference, however, is that "The Running Man" film was still enjoyable as an amusing action film laden down a million catch phrases. This film… Nope, nothing remotely amusing. In fact, if you love the book, as I do, you'll hate this bastardization even more.

**WARNING**CONTAINS SPOILERS** Rightio, I'm basically going to tell you the story here, almost in it's entirety. Why? Because you, dear reader, do not also need to suffer through this abomination—it's okay for me, because I enjoy watching crap. Because I like complaining about sh*tty things. Now, on to the nasty: This film revolves around a boy and his mother running away from the government and a mutant-monkey-creature-soldier which escaped from a destroyed Government genetics lab with a super-smart golden retriever which the "hero" calls "Furface." Groan… Trust me, in the novel, this story rocked. I'll get to that later. Anyway, the hero is none other that dreamy boy-child Corey Haim. Oh, I'm not kidding. Our hero runs around, crackly voice and all, trying to convince his Mom to help save this dog from the "evil government" which birthed him and made him genetically ultra-smart. The monkey-creature, retardedly referred to as an "Oxcom" (God help us) is also a genetic-stew of a creature built to be the ultimate fighter on battlefields of the future. Michael Ironside (Total Recall, Starship Troopers—always plays a badass) is also in this film, and no, I couldn't figure out how anyone convinced him this would be a good idea. He plays a government agent with the NSO hunting the dog and creature. Oh yeah, here's some spoilerama: He's also a creation from the government, and the same lab, and lo and behold spends most of the movie being a prick and killing people—and all that killing is supposed to be done by the monkey-soldier. Instead of a rockin' kick-ass, creepy horror film, we have a rectal hemorrhage of a teenybopper horror flick. The dog's intelligence is discovered all-too-conveniently, and believed easier than we believe we can see clouds by looking outside. Breakdown!!

Change from Book to Film:

--Lead character (Travis) turned from man to boy-child.

--Man's love interest in book (Nora), is now his mother—and all her depth and character growth is completely gone.

--Lem Johnson, black man, is now white Mr. Ironside. This matters as the character's strength was built on his heritage in the book.

--Relationship between two authority figures completely ignored, Lem now kills the guy who was originally his best friend.

--One principle character in the book is now totally absent, the "immortal" that hunted the heroes--maybe this is supposed to be Ironside, but then why is he someone else?

--Dog never receives deserving name of "Einstein" in the movie.

--No part of the book took place in a High School—at least nothing that had strong bearing on the plot.

--Takes place over a matter of days, rather months like the book—unrealistic pacing.

--Corey Haim's girlfriend in the movie appeared in no more than two chapters in the book--and they never met in the book.

--Character of Lem Johnson is no longer cool-headed; instead, he's a total asshole that bullies his way through people.

--Hero Travis was part of Delta Force (military segment specializing in hunting terrorists), instead, his Dad, who is never seen in the film, was part of that group.

--Perceived intelligence in the monster now totally absent.

--Subplots involving Soviets and The Mob completely gutted out of the story.

--These are just the most obnoxious changes, and the one's I could remember off hand (and a day later).

The Good:

--Eventually, after 90-odd minutes of pain and mental anguish, the movie ended.

Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help It:

--Michael Ironside—usually, I like him.

--The dog is still fairly likable.

--Wacky "totally 80's" title screen.

The Bad:

--Okay, the writing for one is extremely awful.

--The direction is so half-assed that anyone watching the film will feel superior to everyone involved in it.

--The acting is crappy and weak, especially from Corey Haim.

--Loose, weak, watered down story.

--The monster looks just pathetic, that is, when we are actually allowed to see the bloody thing. Its head is gigantically over-sized, the yellow eyes that were so much a part of the thing in the book are seen for no more than two seconds. Instead of a lean, powerful, fast, intelligent killing machine, we have some jackass in a puke-ugly monkey suit forced upon us.

--Absolutely no character development.

--Even the violence and gore are done poorly, for f*ck sakes, this is supposed to be a HORROR film!! Usually violence is at least done well!

The Ugly:

--The idea that Dean Koontz whored out his brilliant novel to become this filthy f*cking piece of sh*t brings me dangerously close to vomiting all over myself and anyone near me. There are movies worse than this (headache-inducing as that idea may seem), but so far, only "Alien vs Predator," at least to me, is a bigger travesty and more painful disappointment.

Memorable Scene: Watching the end credits start.

Acting: 3/10 Story: 4/10 (the novel was really good, this is just terrible) Atmosphere: 5/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 1/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 0/10 Violence/Gore: 4/10 Music: 5/10 Direction: 3/10

Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10

Overall: 3/10

I would recommend that no one watch this movie ever, except for a few extreme die-hard horror fans—and only if you haven't read the novel. Instead, I would recommend that anyone interested in this avoid it entirely and buy/check/borrow the book.

www.ResidentHazard.com

I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right, Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too.

The script for this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't know why – the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash! Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any undiscerning viewer of eighties horror.

Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" is one of the finest books I have read. Sadly, the movie is a sad caricature of the book. The disillusioned middle-aged hero and the lonely spinster with whom he finds a meaning to his life are converted in the movie into a couple of silly teenagers, the stoic security agent and the conscientious sheriff are combined into a farcical villain - you get the picture? The moviemakers have taken a moving tale of love, horror and adventure and converted it into a Z-Grade horror flick aimed - very poorly - at the teen market.

Buy the book and enjoy many hours of reading - it will be far, far more rewarding than watching the movie.

There is an explosion in a classified research laboratory. Lem (Michael Ironside) is called in to clean up the mess. A super smart dog escapes followed by an OXCOM (Outside Experimental Combat Mammal). The OXCOM is linked to the dog killing anyone in its way. Travis Cornell (Corey Haim) is sneaking around with Tracey. They are almost caught by Tracey's dad so Travis leaves. The dog sneaks into Tracey's barn. The OXCOM attacks Tracey and kills her father. Then the dog hitches a ride from Travis. Sheriff Gaines thinks it's a bear but Deputy Porter thinks it's Sasquatch. Lem takes over the case waving his NSO credentials.

The clueless parent is one of my least favorite cinematic tropes. The mom is literally talking to a dog and she stubbornly refuses to accept it. Barbara Williams does her best especially later on. It's not the worst thing in the world but this movie has so little going for it. Corey Haim has always been a better nerd struggling to get the hot girl's attention. There is something lost when he starts off with the hot girl. The special effects are pretty tame and a bit lame. The bloody violence looks cheesy with the creature mostly off screen. Again it's not the worst but the film doesn't have the skills to make lemonade out of lemons. There are no Steven Spielberg and John Williams when the shark isn't working. It is fascinating to see a young Jason Priestley. With Lem hiding Tracey, it seems obvious that Travis should contact the doctors or the cops. There are massacres but these two NSO agents continue to dominate. Even if the movie forces the conspiracy to continue, the whole area should be saturated with cops or military or both. The final twist isn't much of a surprise and comes off again rather cheesy.

When a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab, two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in Washington State. One is a dog with unusual intelligence. The other is an "Outside eXperimental COmbat Mammal", or "OXCOM". Because of reasons divulged further into the film, the oxcom hates the dog, and so is trying to kill it. Watchers concerns the accidental involvement of Travis Cornell (Corey Haim), his mom Nora (Barbara Williams) and his girlfriend Tracey (Lala Sloatman) with the dog and oxcom, as two National Security Organization agents, Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) and Cliff (Blu Mankuma), track them down.

Many comments are made about Watchers being very different than the Dean Koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. This is true. But it should not affect your rating. If you want the book, read the book. Judge the film on its own merits, not how closely it matches the book. Bill Freed and Damian Lee, who wrote the screenplay, are just as much artists as Koontz is (that's not a quality comparison, just a statement that they're all artists). So is director Jon Hess. Their job as filmmakers isn't to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. They're adapting the book, as artists, to make a unique artwork. It's based on the book. Not identical to it. You have to loosen your preconceptions/expectations when you watch the film, because you're going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with, even if you've read Koontz' novel.

So, is Watchers a good film? It's pretty good, not excellent. Good enough to earn a "B", or an 8. Hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions I've seen in awhile. Unfortunately, he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick, jargonistic exposition. After that scene Watchers threatens to become a clichéd 1980s film as we first meet Travis and Tracey.

Veering towards cliché is a tendency continually threatened. But it is only a skew. More often than not, Hess is able to transcend well-trodden territory with a number of interesting twists: Both Travis and Tracey are from single parent homes, with their genders flipped. Both have unique, mature relationships with their parents. Although this is a horror film, a major focus is a cute, intelligent canine, and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror, a thriller, or sci-fi, which are all genres it touches upon. Hess introduces a large cast of characters, some not entering until late in the game, yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust--all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. The structure is also complex in that there are two major villains, the second becoming less obviously ill-intentioned as the film progresses, until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. Soon after, Hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist.

The biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded, common one with horror films since at least the 1980s--the "attack" scenes are shot too darkly, too close, too out of focus, and they're edited too choppily. It makes it extremely difficult to tell what's going on, which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. Surely, part of Hess' motivation for the style, and this is the typical justification for this problem, was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and/or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. In my view, presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn't a satisfactory solution. We only get to see the creature costume/makeup clearly towards the end of the film. It was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9.

Regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film, Watchers presents a gripping story using smart, alluring characters. It is frequently a nail-biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect, if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). Watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature--don't pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception.

As horror movies go, I've seen worst, but given the fact that this movie is based on Dean R. Koontz,s terrific novel, the film comes off as a very sad attempt. If 'Watchers' was an original concept for a film, I might have enjoyed the movie a bit more. Unfortunately, it's hard to enjoy an average movie after reading a great book. Still in all, Watchers isn't so bad for a friday night thrill with some popcorn and friends!

This movie begins with an explosion of a laboratory in a remote part of the Pacific Northwest. As it turns out this government lab was conducting secret genetic experiments on animals and two of its creatures managed to escape. The first is a unique golden retriever which is extremely intelligent and can communicate to a certain degree with human beings. The second creature is a horrible monster which is equally intelligent but is emotionally deranged and kills everything in its path. And the one thing it wants to kill above everything else is the golden retriever. That being the case, it tracks the dog to a barn where a young woman named "Tracey" (Lala Sloatman) just happens to be working. Being the hostile creature it is, it immediately attacks her and then kills her father when he attempts to come to her aid. Fortunately for Tracey, however, is the fact that the police arrive just in time to scare it away. After that, because of her injuries, she is taken to a hospital for medical care. However, when her boyfriend "Travis Cornell" (Corey Haim) comes to see her he discovers that she has been taken to an undisclosed location by mysterious people who turn out to be NSO agents trying to keep a lid on everything--and they will stop at nothing to prevent any information from getting out. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was a relatively standard sci-fi/horror film which was pretty much predictable from start to finish. That said, while it certainly wasn't a great movie by any means, I suppose it was worth the time spent and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.

A lot of people do not like this movie. In fact, almost all the reviews here are negative. The problem seems to be that a lot of loyal fans of the book were angered by all the changes made in this movie adaption. I had the same type of feeling after I saw "The General's Daughter." "The General's Daughter" left a lot of stuff from the book out and changed lots of stuff too. I found myself disliking the movie barley a half an hour into it. Luckily I have yet to read Dean Koontz's book "Watchers" and that is probably one of the reasons why I liked it so much. I was able to watch it on it's own and not compare it to the book and in my opinion it is a fine little horror movie.

Corey Haim wasn't as bad as I thought he would be. After I had seen the hideous "Fever Lake," which is on the IMDB's bottom 100 list where it deserves to be, I became cautious not to rent anything with Corey Haim for a long time. Then I found out Michael Ironside was in it and decided to risk the dollar and thirteen cents. Michael Ironside was excellent as always. He seems to be at his best when he is playing villains, like he did in "Total Recall" and "Highlander 2."

The film is well directed and it moves at a very fast pace. The monster isn't that bad. You don't really see much of it thought, other then a flash of hair, or and arm coming out of the roof or something. You start to see the whole thing during the ending climax at the cabin, which by the way I thought was pretty exciting.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie. It is fast-paced and it doesn't fall apart at the end like many horror movies do. It doesn't try to insult the viewer either with a dumb twist ending. Not that their bad, we just don't need them all the time. Michael Ironside was good as always and his scenes are the best parts of the movie. I think tomorrow I'll rent "Watchers II." I give this 8/10

I can't be sure whether it's the fault of the book (since I haven't read it) or its adaptation to the screen, but the story here doesn't seem to be very intellectually demanding, and gets pretty repetitive in the second half. However, the film is directed in an energetic manner, and the dog gives a great performance. It holds the picture together on its own. (**)

Preposterous, but quite a fun gory and relentless late 80s creature-feature, where the screenplay is loosely adapted off a Dean R Koontz's novel. Instead it turns out to be a horror vehicle for teen heart throb Corey Haim, especially the amount of the time his character has and it becomes somewhat of an annoying distraction. Along for the carnage is Michael Ironside, providing plenty of ticker to his villainous ham portrayal of a devious government agent. Also the cast features good showings by Barbara Williams, Duncan Frazer, Colleen Winton, Blu Mankuma, Dan Wilson and a minor part for a young Jason Priestly. The plot has an intriguing back-story (a canine experiment gone wrong), but simply it gets lost in its cheesy dialogues and fashionable need to have a healthy body count leaving it to be a generic monster on the loose threat on a small town community. So you just take it for face value. Sometimes its hard to keep a straight face, make light of its choppy attack scenes and certain plot devices are vaguely penned, but it's commendably directed in its systematic patterns that you just go along with its genetic madness. The costume of the creature is downright tacky (a mutated ape?), but for the majority of the running time we only get jumpy glimpses of it… be it the hands, legs and then of course there's monster POV shot and growling.

"We're in this together."

When a research lab got destroyed mysterious, a very intelligent dog is running away from a strange genetic mutation creature that wants the dog dead. Because these are two creatures nearly shares the same mind and there's something telepathic between the two. But the creature is designed to be a predator. This stray dog find shelter from a teenager Travis (Corey Haim), who's agrees to care of the dog after finding him in his truck. Now an mysterious man Lem Johnson (Michael Ironside) from the American government wants to find this mutation monster before it's causes more trouble with the help of the local police. But Travis finds out that this dog is just as intelligent as a human person and he belongs to the government after finding a code on his ear. But the Creature finds himself closer to the dog, while murdering people along the way to kill it. Now Travis, his mother Nora (Barbara Williams) and the dog are on the run from this monster. Travis has to find ways to prepare to kill this creature before it's too late.

Directed by Jon Hess made an technically well made Horror movie that is completely forgettable, despite some interesting moments in this cheap "B" movie. The golden retriever dog gives the best performance in the film, The dog scenes with Haim are the best moments in the picture. Ironside is always a joy seeing playing a bad guy with a hidden agenda. Surprisingly Two Time Oscar-Winner:Paul Haggis (Screenwriter of "Casino Royale", "Crash", "Million Dollar Baby") actually wrote the original adaptation of this movie. But they had many changes to his script, which his original script was probably closer to the novel. Since American and Canadian producers made many displacement that didn't look like from the novel by Dean R. Koontz (Hideaway, Phantoms) anymore. The most unconvincingly thing of the picture is the creature, which you never get a good look of the monster. Since most of the cinematography of the film is quite dark. Although it was probably wise since the director:Hess felt the monster looked like crap. Who else than King of the "B" Movies:Roger Corman (Frankenstein Unbound, The Intruder, Little Shop of Horrors) executive produced this mess. Since he produced plenty of cheap films are actually better than this one, half of the time. Which it was followed by three direct to video sequels! Look for the familiar Canadian cast members in bit parts. If u enjoy "B" movies, u might like it. Best Watchted, When you are in a silly mood. (** ½/*****).

I still find it hard to believe that a fine - if overlong - novel by Dean Koontz was transformed into this utter excrement.

This movie is so bad it's disgusting. Boos to all who participated. Shame on you!

P.S. The fact that sequels have appeared just goes to show how little taste and discretion remains in Silver Screen Land.

The ratings on this movie are perhaps a little unfair. If you look at the movie in the context of a fairly low budget 80's horror and ignore all else it is actually pretty good. I remember seeing it for the first time shortly after release and actually liking the film quite a lot.

That was most noticably, before I even knew it was based on a book. It was also in the late 80's and when I was in my early teens (my video store was never too worried about certificates). Now many years later and after being introduced to the very fine novel on which it was based, the film is very dissapointing. But still I would not call it a bad film and have to take into account that I did once think it was really good (although a lot of that may have been down to the story concept rather then the film itself).

The bottom line is that it is an average 80's movie. If you're a fan of the book, you will hate it. If you saw the film like me when it came out and haven't read the book, you will probably enjoy the film still. If you've never seen the film or read the book you'll probably be totally indifferent, so not really one to go out of your way to watch.

As it is with most book to movie adaptations the book fans weren't too happy with the result.Luckily I haven't read the book and am not handicapped with knowledge that could possibly taint my viewing pleasure.With that in mind I can say that Watchers is pretty solid and entertaining throughout.Is it thrilling or scary?The movie does move along in a nice pace and does contain some thrilling moments.There is just enough suspense to maintain interest.But scary?No,not really.Although there are some scenes that are bloody and gory to satisfy the gore hounds. In this adaptation the focus lies on the dog and his friendship with Corey Haim.A high cuteness factor that is very effective especially in the scene where the dog tells Corey Haim's character that he is endangering him.It makes the dog even more likable then he already was.Same goes for Corey Haim as he is not planning to abandon his new found friend.So it seems that the horror aspects have been dumbed down to increase the action and adventure elements.In this case it works.In my opinion Watchers deserves more credit and should not get slammed because it isn't a faithful adaptation.

Corey Haim and his mom find a super intelligent dog that has escaped from a secret research facility. The dog is being hunted down by a genetically engineered sasquatch called Oxcom- who has a penchant for gouging people's eyes out.

The trio are on the lam, while the men in beige from the NSO are trying to find them, so they can cover the whole fiasco up...mainly, that the Oxcom is responsible for several recent murders in town.

The dog and Oxcom are telepathically linked, so they cannot hide from one another...and it is so vindictive...it will try and kill any and everyone the dog has come into contact with.

So there's only one decision to be made: how to fight it.

This is based on a Dean Koontz novel (that I haven't read), but I can imagine people being disappointed by it's mildly cheesy nature, if they were expecting more.

The dog actor was lovable. But I was kind of hoping Corey Haim was going to sacrifice himself to save the rest of his family. Oh, well. At least he throat shanks that one dude. That's a nice consolation.

The sasquatch/Oxcom thing was pretty bad...which is probably why they barely show it for more than a second at a time throughout the whole film.

But it's still kind of entertaining, probably because of the dog. Yea. Definitely because of the dog.

5 out of 10.