Masterful Cinema

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

If I were Dean Koontz I'd be ashamed to admit this movie was based on one of my books. About the only thing this awful piece of tripe has in common with the book is the name and the dog. And even the dog they managed to get wrong. How hard can it be to cast a dog called Einstein without changing it's name to Furface?? They took a grown man and his wife then changed them to a boy and his mother? They keep the dog and The Outsider then add another perfectly created monster in the form of a government agent (that is actually believable! Government agents being monsters I mean.).The only reason I have rated this a one is because it won't let me rate it a zero. In the process of ruining a good book the acting is completely mediocre. The plot line is subpar. The only thing that saves this movie from being complete junk is the occasional flash of brilliance from Micheal Ironside.

This failed adaptation of the Dean Koontz novel about a man befriending a super smart dog. Why do I say failed? Because they took the book's thirtysomething ex-Delta Force lead and made him Corey Haim. Yes, Corey Freakin' Haim. I'm sure Dean Koontz started rolling before he even gets close to being in a grave. Even sadder, the dog co-star acts circles around Haim. Seriously. Director Jon Hess makes a fine looking film (shot in British Columbia) and stages some nice attack sequences with some decent gore. But the monster design, something instrumental to these kind of flicks, is downright sad. Not as sad as Feldman, er, Haim being the lead, but sad enough that they have to keep it hidden in tight close ups or shadows. The always reliable Michael Ironside also gives a nice performance as the Government agent tracking the dog. Look for Jason Priestly as "Boy on bike" who gets offed.Corman made sure to get his money's worth out of his license of Koontz's novel as he made three sequels to this; they all basically remake the film with the second one being closer to the book than this one. As I said about RAWHEAD REX somewhere in this thread, I'm not a proponent of remakes but this is definitely a case where some filmmakers could make a movie 100% better from the source material.

I would consider myself a fan of Dean Koontz; having read a number of his novels and liked them all, but unfortunately I never got around to reading Watchers so I'm left with no choice but to rate this film on it's own merits rather than comparing it to the book that I haven't read. I went into this expecting something awful, and while I didn't exactly get a brilliant horror film; I am lead to believe that it's fans of the book that are rating it down because as a film in it's own right, Watchers is an entertaining and somewhat original little horror movie. The plot obviously takes some influence from Predator and begins with an explosion at a research lab. It's not long before a rancher is killed by some strange beast and the boyfriend of the dead man's daughter has picked up an ultra-intelligent runaway dog. A secret Government agency is soon on the case, as the murders continue. The boy continues to be fascinated by the dog's intelligence, but it somehow ties in with the murders and the agency is soon on his tail too.The script for this film was originally written by Paul Haggis, who later disowned it. I don't know why – the writing here is nowhere near as ridiculous as his 2004 hit Crash! Anyway, the main reason this film works is undoubtedly the dog, who aside from being rather cute, is also the best actor in the film. Corey Haim, hot off the success of The Lost Boys is the human lead and actually has a rather good chemistry with the dog, although it is a little bit ridiculous seeing him talk to it most of the way through the film. The plot is rather convoluted and as such the film is more than a little bit messy; but the ridiculousness of it all pulls it through during the more awkward moments. Michael Ironside also appears in the film and does well as the 'bad cop' side of the Government agents. The monster is, of course, one of the most interesting things about the film and the way it goes around killing people is always entertaining and gory; although unfortunately we don't get to see a lot of it and when we finally do it's rather disappointing - obviously the filmmakers had seen Bigfoot and the Hendersons! Still, this is the sort of film that can be easily enjoyed despite the numerous problems and I'd recommend to any undiscerning viewer of eighties horror.

Watchers (1988) ** (out of 4) Apparently we shouldn't trust any government agencies. Out in the middle of nowhere the government is trying to create superhuman creatures that they can use for war. Two creatures are created one being a Golden Retriever who has been taught pretty much everything a human can do. This includes answering questions, being able to type and best of all he can retrieve his own food. The second creature is a Bigfoot type creature known as an Oxcom. The secret is that the dog would go into the enemy's camp to find targets then the Oxcom would follow and kill whatever is by the dog.However another government agencies tries to destroy this project and blows up the building where the two are being held but neither are killed and they both head off into the woods. The dog has the advantage but the Oxcom is close behind and ready to kill whoever the dog goes near. The dog eventually ends up with 16-year-old Travis (Corey Haim) who takes a liking to the animal and also understands how smart it is. While all of this is going on the Oxcom is stalking and killing people all over the county. Meanwhile the government agents, head by Michael Ironside, shows up to track the creatures down.Watchers is based on the novel by Dean Koontz but I haven't read it so I'm not sure how close the movie follows things. The executive producer was Roger Corman so that there should tell you what type of film this is going to be. If you've seen any of the low-budget drive-in shockers from the 1950's then you've pretty much seen this film. This film plays out exactly like all the others, although this here does have a few good aspects but there isn't enough to make the film worth watching.The biggest problem is that the film is simply too cute to really be a horror film. The dog in the film is so darn lovable that you really can't take your eyes off of him and the scenes between him and Haim seem like something you'd see in a Disney film and not a gory horror movie. I'm actually a fan of Haim but he's also a problem here due to the rather silly performance. Most of the time he's trying to act tough but it comes off laughable especially the silly ending, which seems like something Rambo should be doing.As I mentioned earlier this film plays out just like the monster movies from the 1950's and this is a problem. The director uses Corman's trick of not showing the monster too much throughout the film, which is fine if the movie runs a little over an hour but coming in at 92-minutes the film simply runs out of steam very early making the rest of the film drag along without anything interesting happening. The story is laughable and not too believable but this could have been overlooked had the viewer ever feared the actual creature. That's not the case so there's very little here except for the cute dog.