Watchers II

I still remember how I was curious to know how they could do a sequel to WATCHERS when I saw this movie on a shelf of the video-store. The curiosity grown when I looked at the back of the cover and saw a gore scene not included in the cassette (which has no real bloody shots). Plus, the movie was forbidden for people under 18 - where the first one (here in Italy) was for all audiences. But what I saw wasn't that good I thought. This is not a remake of the original directed by Hess, but a second adaptation of the novel by Koontz (a quiet good horror novel, btw), more close to it (except for the character's names) than the previous. But it's still very far from the book. Besides some changes (this time there's only a scientist who tracks the beast), the main problem is that the monster's look is very far from being scary and the director had the bad idea to show it completely and very early in the story. In Hess' version, instead, we don't clearly see it and even if this is obtained through simple methods (POVs. shaky camera works, long shots in the fog), it works quiet well. Here Notz tries a little bit to create suspense (the creature's shadow on a wall wasn't that bad), but stops quiet early, preferring to show a guy in a cheesy suit who moves like an idiot. As the previous, the most incredible performance is delivered by the dog - and I mean it in a good way.

I still wonder where that gore shot was supposed to be inserted in..

Two years after the Corey Haim starring vehicle "Watchers", Roger Corman would produce another adaptation of Dean R. Kootnz's best-selling novel. This b-grade sequel is a sober retread changing or adding plot devices and losing the suburban setting for something urban, but probably being a little more faithful to the book as this screenplay would try to delve a bit more deeper in to this top secret experiment of genetic engineering. Here we even get an explanation (nothing special, but it is a reason) to why this creature takes out the eyes of its victim. The hybrid creature known as the Outsider is given human like instincts, but it just can't control what it was engineered to do… track down the super-intelligent dog it shares a physic link with and eliminated all who have been in contact with it. Quite slow-burn and carefully structured, but still providing the grisly shocks throughout this fugitive-on-the-run / creature-on-the-rampage theme. Instead of trying for cheap jolts, it tends to rely on its shady atmospherics (as its spends a lot time in darkly lit areas), edgy suspense (like the sewer sequence) and moody storytelling, where in doing so it doesn't feel quite as silly and dumb-down as its predecessor. Although the man in an unconvincing rubber freak of nature suit, does get a fair bit of screen time. The director doesn't really try to hide the creation either. Technically sound direction with a steady tempo if somewhat a dragged out climax. This time we have Marc Singer and Tracy Scoggins in the leads and they are quite likable. Jonathan Farwell is adequate as the unstable scientist who led the project. Also showing up in a minor turn is Mary Woronov.

"Can't teach an old dog new tricks. Cant ya?"

Watchers 2 (1990)

* (out of 4)

When you've got nothing original to do with a sequel you simply make it a remake and that's the case with Watchers 2, which isn't worth reading about let alone watching. Another government agency has created a new golden retriever, which is just as smart as the one in the first film. Of course, they also get the idea to create another creature and so the movie can continue, the creature and dog escape (again) and bodies begin to pile up while the government runs all over the place trying to track them down. Paul Ferguson (Marc Singer) is the lucky fellow who finds the dog, falls in love with it and must try and fight off the baboon looking monster.

Watchers 2 is pretty much the same movie as the first one, although this time Roger Corman was the actual producer. Apparently he didn't want to spend too much money on a script because there's certainly not one to be found here. While the first movie's monster was silly looking it at least was interesting but that's not the case here. From what I can remember the monster here appears to be the same one as in The Terror Within, another Corman production. Gore hounds might find a few interesting kills but that's not enough to keep your attention through the slow pace that makes this film a real pain to get through.

More like the novel than the original, but still unsatisfying. Had its parts that where fun, but still kinda corny. Quality was dark and couldn't see what was going 80% of the time. But still I liked it.

Original seemed to be more satisfying, but if your looking for a more novel like movie of Watchers - Watch it. 6/10 Because it wasn't boring, and I enjoyed a few more scenes. Yeah, watch it. Hey, it was better than the Koontz adaptation of Phantoms and Hideaway.

IMDb won't let me place this unless its longer.

Fine. I do own this on DVD, so it's not too bad. But if you want a REALLY GOOD Koontz adaptation see DEMON SEED. Now thats excellent. WATCH IT!!!!!

Oh yeah,"Watchers 2" is really bad,but certainly more enjoyable than "Grim" or "Haunted Sea".The acting is passable and the dog is smarter than every person in this movie.The monster is lame looking,the gore is almost non-existent and there's also no suspense at all.I still think that this one is slightly better than "Watchers"(1988)with its extremely laughable "monster",but not as good as "Watchers 3"(1994)-very stupid,but gory and fun to watch monster flick set in the jungle.Recommended,if you like this sort of stuff.