O.G.M. - Organisme Génétiquement Meurtrier

One Watcher asked who makes these movies? Well who doesn't know Roger Corman or Loyd Kaufman, Full Moon etc. Also why are they made. Well probably because they are making money. What investor or company is going to want to invest in something that won't make it's money back. Yeah, they are cheesy and sometimes horrible, but they are still fun. When I watch a Roger Corman movie I know not to expect Lord of the Rings or the Godfather. I mean come on it's Concorde. Believe it or not there is a market for this or they wouldn't be hear. I mean dude Carnasour, Rapter, Deadly Outbreak, Cybervengence, The Outsider (which is basically a cheap straight to video remake of Westworld) When you hear the midi music that should really clue you in this is going to be a b-film. When you see certain actors that you know are considered washed up, TV movie or straight to video movie actors etc., when you even see chicks such as Shannon Tweed etc. you know you are about to watch a b-film.lol

Watchers III (1994) is a movie I recently watched on YouTube. The storyline follows a group of convicts sent into the jungles of South America to retrieve an escaped science experiment. A golden retriever happens to be running through the same jungle that appears to be willing to help them...

This movie is directed by Jeremy Stanford (Trantasia) and stars Wings Hauser (Rubber), Gregory Scott Cummins (Cliffhanger), Daryl Keith Roach (Crocodile Dundee: Los Angeles), Frank Novak (Watchmen) and Christian Meier (Terminal).

The storyline and execution for this movie felt like a Predator ripoff...plus a dog. The opening kill in the jungle was fun; but unfortunately, probably the best part of the movie. The creature in this looks terrible and I'm surprised they put it on the cover of the film (they must have thought it looked good). Most of the horror scenes were a poorly executed man in costume sequence with limited gore but some good blood splatter here and there.

Overall, this is bad and not really worth your time. I would score this a 2/10 and recommend skipping it.

Yet another attempt to remake Dean Koontz's novel into a feature length film is yet another failure. This so called sequel adds some elements of Predator into another tired entry lacking in decent special effects and suspense. This time around a group of soldiers fall prey to a monster that is linked to a super intelligent dog and kills off everyone in its way.

Rated R; Violence.

I finally got to see this movie after about 8 years of research (when I started, Internet was something off-limits for most of the people), just because I've been obsessed with Koontz'novel (and related movies) for quiet a while. I'm pretty disappointed for what I saw, but I also have to admit I enjoyed the experience: this is one of those so-bad-is-so-good cases. The fun begins as the movie starts, when you see WATCHERS 2 footage re-used as new material (a voice-over and a detail of two boxes and you've your prologue - this is the real and pure Corman spirit) and proceeds through the entire movie, with blue-screen as sky for helicopter insides and a gummy suit with toy-eyes for the "monster". As Notz, Stanford decides to show the Outsider pretty early, giving away any chance of suspense: it doesn't matter if you insist with shadows and POV after, since you have spoiled it before. This time, the creature design is really horrible, in a bad way: even its shadow is ridiculous. A furry thing like the Oxcom in WATCHERS would have been better (and scarier). This is the first real sequel to a previous entry in the series: it takes the character of Ferguson from the previous movie, even though the two story lines are a little bit in contrast (again, other WATCHERS 2 footage: doesn't matter if the creatures are totally different). The screenplay adds some other elements from the original novel (the cave, for instance - even if it was switched to the sewers in the previous film) but most importantly completely rips off the PREDATOR storyline and settings, so we get a squad of soldiers (all convicted) against the "evil menace". Actually, the plot wants to be a little bit more dramatic than the previous entries, but you can't take seriously a movie with a bad Halloween costume as the monster. It's a little pity, since Wings Hauser tries to but has the entire feature against himself. On a first sight, this flick looks gorier than the previous, but actually it is not: after a mutilated body, we don't see very much - in fact, another funny element it's the way the characters die. The action sequences are pretty cheesy too (like the end). Again, the real and only impressive thing is the dog's performances. The first WATCHERS remains the best (and we're not talking about a masterpiece!), for now.

this is like predator, and if you look in the dictionary the word "adaptation" you will see that the movies are a very ver exaggerated adaptation of the novel, as a matter of fact the first movie only retained some of the original names of the novel, but their background where too far from being the same, i know that to adapt something, means changing the product so its suits better the intended public (i.e a french movie trying to take it to the American market, its changed so it fits the American viewer) but the adapatations of the novel are far from being relevant, anyway it only sucks story-wise, but it has good action,and the telenovela actor Christian meier played the role of the outsider (who would had imagined that)