Watchers III

this is like predator, and if you look in the dictionary the word "adaptation" you will see that the movies are a very ver exaggerated adaptation of the novel, as a matter of fact the first movie only retained some of the original names of the novel, but their background where too far from being the same, i know that to adapt something, means changing the product so its suits better the intended public (i.e a french movie trying to take it to the American market, its changed so it fits the American viewer) but the adapatations of the novel are far from being relevant, anyway it only sucks story-wise, but it has good action,and the telenovela actor Christian meier played the role of the outsider (who would had imagined that)

I finally got to see this movie after about 8 years of research (when I started, Internet was something off-limits for most of the people), just because I've been obsessed with Koontz'novel (and related movies) for quiet a while. I'm pretty disappointed for what I saw, but I also have to admit I enjoyed the experience: this is one of those so-bad-is-so-good cases. The fun begins as the movie starts, when you see WATCHERS 2 footage re-used as new material (a voice-over and a detail of two boxes and you've your prologue - this is the real and pure Corman spirit) and proceeds through the entire movie, with blue-screen as sky for helicopter insides and a gummy suit with toy-eyes for the "monster". As Notz, Stanford decides to show the Outsider pretty early, giving away any chance of suspense: it doesn't matter if you insist with shadows and POV after, since you have spoiled it before. This time, the creature design is really horrible, in a bad way: even its shadow is ridiculous. A furry thing like the Oxcom in WATCHERS would have been better (and scarier). This is the first real sequel to a previous entry in the series: it takes the character of Ferguson from the previous movie, even though the two story lines are a little bit in contrast (again, other WATCHERS 2 footage: doesn't matter if the creatures are totally different). The screenplay adds some other elements from the original novel (the cave, for instance - even if it was switched to the sewers in the previous film) but most importantly completely rips off the PREDATOR storyline and settings, so we get a squad of soldiers (all convicted) against the "evil menace". Actually, the plot wants to be a little bit more dramatic than the previous entries, but you can't take seriously a movie with a bad Halloween costume as the monster. It's a little pity, since Wings Hauser tries to but has the entire feature against himself. On a first sight, this flick looks gorier than the previous, but actually it is not: after a mutilated body, we don't see very much - in fact, another funny element it's the way the characters die. The action sequences are pretty cheesy too (like the end). Again, the real and only impressive thing is the dog's performances. The first WATCHERS remains the best (and we're not talking about a masterpiece!), for now.

Horror novelist Dean R. Koontz has expressed unhappiness about several cinematic adaptations of his novels (like with HIDEAWAY). Though I haven't heard what he thinks of what Roger Corman did with WATCHERS, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's appalled, especially since Corman has used the rights to the novel to make several awful movies, including this one. Where to begin? Well, even though the end credits reveal this was filmed in South America, it sure doesn't look spectacular. The various jungle locations look bland and all alike. The story is pretty slow, with not that much jungle action and gore for the first half of the movie. When we *do* see the monster, it's a shockingly bad creation - just imagine the monsters you have seen in 1950s Corman movies, and you'll have a good idea as to how this unconvincing creation looks like. I guess some of the gore effects aren't bad, and it's always good to see Wings Hauser, but the movie ends up being overall a bad and boring imitation of PREDATOR. With PREDATOR freely available for rent or purchase, there's no reason to see this third-rate imitation.

What, it got no Oscars? I wonder why? Well, I guess Dean's Watchers will never be made into a good movie... which does not really matter in this case, because it has nothing to do with the novel. It's YAPR (Yet Another Predator Ripoff). You've seen one, you've seen them all. This one isn't as idiotic as some of them (X-Tro 3...), but certainly not 1/10 as good as the original. Simply another below-average flick. Watch it if you can't get anything else, and don't have to pay for this one. Or if you're curious about the Watchers line and you're wondering "what are they going to screw up this time?". They didn't screw up too much, but they just didn't come up with any ideas.

Sent to prison on trumped up charges, an American Army officer named "Paul Ferguson" (Wings Hauser) is given a chance to receive a full pardon if he agrees to undertake a top-secret assignment. Essentially, a genetically engineered monster known as "the Outsider" (Carlos Gonzales) has gone on a killing spree in the jungles of South America and a squad of convicts are sent in to engage the creature. What they don't know is that they are nothing more than dispensable test subjects sent in to gauge the ability of the government's creation. Fortunately for them, a genetically enhanced Labrador retriever is also in this vicinity and it knows the Outsider better than anybody. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film is basically a low-budget clone of the movie "Predator" but with a few items incorporated from "Watchers" and "Watchers II" to preserve its integrity. Unfortunately, the melding of "Predator" and "Watchers" doesn't really work nearly as well as it should due in large part to the low budget and poor acting overall. Even so, I didn't think it was terribly bad and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.