Watchers

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.

Adaption of Dean Koontz's book is about a teenager (Corey Haim) who takes in a stray dog. However, the dog was part of a top secret government experiment and a monster linked to the dog genetically is out to get the dog killing anyone in it's way. I have never read the book which most people consider brilliant. This movie is not brilliant, but it is entertaining and has some good shock scenes. It remains exciting from start to finish, but if your a fan of the book I would recommand staying away from this movie.

Rated R; Brief Sexual Situation, Graphic Violence, and Profanity.

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, too, have read the novel "Watchers" many times. It is a masterpiece of story-telling by Dean Koontz about how love transcends all boundaries - including that of species. Even the "monster" was given a soul that pierced the horror. By the end of the book you knew that animals think and feel and that a dog is more than just cute.

The movie "Watchers" offers no clue that anyone involved has even read this book. We need another teen slasher flick like we need another Linda Tripp. The dog could give acting lessons to the rest of the cast. Simply awful and I am embarrassed for Mr. Koontz.

However, two years later, it seems as if someone else thought that this novel deserved better. "Watchers II" - although unable to hold a candle to the book - at least came closer to the original storyline. Decidedly not Oscar material, "Watchers II" is, however, at least 47,000 times more watchable than it's predecessor.

Final words - read the book and open your heart.

I rented this movie because I thought (and still think) that the book was a masterpiece. The book is still on my top five novels ever list. So when I rented the film I expected it to fail in comparision. But not on this level. Travis is a Kid? I mean come ON. In the book the guy was ex-delta with plenty of tricks up his sleeve. In the movie he's a sixteen or so year old kid who seemed to be taught everything about traps and guns by the age of 10 when his dad died. I'm from the south and I don't know half the crap the kid was taught. Hell i was shooting guns at seven sure. 22s. BB guns. Not even a very entertaining movie. If you want to see a Dean Koontz book that made a good movie watch Phantoms.

*****/10