source: Watchers II

Trailer—Watchers II

Watchers II

The film is pretty bad in all fairness, they stole the lou ferrigno hulk growl but the monster ain't no hulk.

Give this movie a break. I been a fan of Marc Singer since beastmaster and the V series really like this guy. For some odd reason like many good actors he chose a path in the direct to video movies instead of going big time. Tracy Scoggins is always a very beautiful women i guess no matter how she looks. The dog is really cuit too if you are an animal lover he will get to you. Its basically the same as THE WATCHER the first movie except i guess they had less of a budget for this one, but still the creature looks pretty good. No sure why this movie is getting such a low score its a really good way to pass time.

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.

Hey, I think that Marc Singer - he's the Beastmaster - and Tracy Scoggins - from Dynasty and The Colbys - are fine replacements in this film that finds OXCOM and a golden retriever still battling one another. Singer is a Marine gone AWOL. Scoggins is an animal psychologist from the top secret laboratory and the OXCOM still is a goofy rubber suit. And sure, this may be the same movie we just watched, but when has a sequel being the same as the first movie ever stopped us? Screenwriters John Brancato and Michael Ferris used the name Henry Dominic - the same alter ego they'd use for Bloodfist II, Flight of the Black Angel, The Unborn, Severed Ties and Mindwarp - as neither were members of the Writer's Guild of America. Brancato and Ferris would go on to write The Game, as well as The Net. Thierry Notz also directed The Terror Within which makes a lot of sense once you see this movie.

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!!!!!

In terms of quality, Watchers 2 wasn't great, but it was a far better adaptation of the Dean Koontz novel. Why? The original Watchers movie did follow the book, to a degree, but only to a degree, and the only characters from the novel were the dog and the creature. Watchers 2, on the other hand, included most of the characters from the original story. It's just my own opinion, but I believe an adapted movie should follow the book as much as possible. Watchers 2 did exactly that. Dean Koontz has been known to maintain creative control on many of the later movies based on his books, so that they also follow the book to his satisfaction.

This sequel to "Watchers" is just a reworking of the original. Or, more accurately, it uses Dean Koontz's original story as the basis for yet another "Predator" knock-off. Pretty lame, with some terribly unconvincing effects (check out that severed head), but an amazingly well-trained dog yet again saves the day (i.e., at least makes the movie bearable). (*1/2)