Reviews & Ratings for
Watchers More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Index

54 reviews in total

---

27 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
If you read the book, seeing this horrible movie might make you cry..., 22 July 2000
Author: (roblowefanalways@aol.com) from New Jersey

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.

---

22 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
We get that it's not exactly like the book; it's not supposed to be, 3 March 2005

Author: Brandt Sponseller from New York City

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.

---

15 out of 17 people found the following review useful:
Watchers is not as bad as you probably think., 15 June 2001
Author: sean from Canada

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

---

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
The movie doesn't compare, 1 August 2003
Author: Eric from united states

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

---

19 out of 28 people found the following review useful:
Worst film ever based on a great novel., 27 September 2005

Author: ResidentHazard (romerodawn@yahoo.com) from Plymouth, MN

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

---

8 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
Just watchable, 26 August 2000

Author: Mike-DD from Singapore

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.

---

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:
Wonderful book - Horrible movie, 2 January 2000
Author: thom-15 from Scottsdale AZ

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.

---

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
* *1/2 out of 4., 11 September 2002
Author: Brandon L. Sites (brandonsites1981@yahoo.com) from Click on my name for over 500 horror movie reviews!

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.

---

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Slightly Underrated, 24 August 2008

Author: jeffronthi from Commerce Township, MI

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.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Mediocre movie based on a great book..., 28 June 2000

Author: mchicov from New York, USA

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!

---

---

Page 1 of 6:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user reviews	Your vote history