Watch Watchers II For Free

Admirable film.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The acting in this movie is really good.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

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!!!!!

Though this film adheres a LITTLE more closely to Dean Koontz's classic horror novel than the first Watchers film, it's still not very watchable. Tracy Scoggins, once deliciously campy on the old 80s soap The Colbys, appears as a "temp" animal psychologist whose "expert" abilities include such as displaying letters of the alphabet on a computer screen and sighing, "Z. This is Z." Wonder if the character needed a college degree.... (She must be smart though, because she sports big glasses and a frumpy hairdo through most of the movie.) Marc Singer, as Paul, displays some of his Beastmaster-like love of animals bonding with the beautiful canine star -- but unfortunately he and the mutt have more chemistry than Singer and Scoggins. At least a moment in tightie-whities gives Singer a chance to show he's in even better shape than he was in his Beastmaster days. Of course, the sex appeal in that scene is toned down a bit by his pulled-up knee socks, and the director doesn't bother to try to generate even a little sexual tension between Paul and his ex-wife.) That's just one of many missed opportunities for interesting twists. And several scenes that might be a little suspenseful fall flat because we don't know enough about the threatened characters to care whether they live or die.Early on, Paul's ex-wife mutters," Paul, you're not making sense," at a moment when he's actually making as much sense as he ever does. Maybe she was just making a comment on the overall script. (She does quickly follow with one of the film's only fairly good lines: "If you're thirsty, the toilet's open, OK?" -- delivered to the dog, and probably intended for her estranged hubby as well.) The "monster," which we see much too clearly, much too soon, looks like a reject from an old episode of The Outer Limits. And its potentially layered relationship with its creator is watered down by the creator character's bored delivery of exposition.Spoiling any kind of dark tone, the dog's abilities are played for laughs in moments more fit for an old Disney flick -- like when he drives Paul's convertible. Then again, a numbingly slow scene in which the pup taps away at a computer keyboard does give a clue who might be ultimately responsible for the clunky script.If you're a fan of the book, you might enjoy seeing a few key moments transferred to the screen (thankfully, without Corey Haim, star of the first Watchers film). But amazingly bad dialog, silly writing, cheesy special effects, wooden acting, and poor lighting combine to make this a pretty big waste of time.Based on excellent source material, this could have been camp, or scary, or at least interesting. Unfortunately, it scores on none of these fronts.

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..

WATCHERS 2 is a pretty lame sequel. The first cheap WATCHERS was mostly watchable, but this is garbage. The creature is from THE TERROR WITHIN, and the cast includes Marc Singer.Avoid this rank imitation of Dean Koontz's original novel.