Watchers II (1990)

Don't Believe the Hype

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Watchers II focuses on a secret genetic experiment named 'Project Aesop' that has thus far produced a super intelligent dog named Einstein & a monstrous deformed mutant creature (Tom Poser) who are both psychically connected with one another. During an unfortunate incident in the lab two NSA agents are killed by the creature, the top woman in the job Dr. Glatman (Mary Woronov) orders it's creator Dr. Malceno (Jonathan Farwell) to destroy it which is an idea he is not too keen on. Dr. Malceno devises a plan to move the creature to safety by creating a distraction so he lets animal rights activists into the lab to cause havoc but things don't go according to plan & the creature escapes as does the super intelligent dog Einstein. The creature wants Einstein but the dog is picked up by Paul Ferguson (Marc Singer) who doesn't know what he has gotten himself into. The creature will stop at nothing to get Einstein & starts a murderous campaign of terror to find the dog, Paul quickly becomes aware that he is being hunted by a monster & decides the best form of defence is attack...Directed by Thierry Notz this is the second Watchers film in a series that now totals four films, the original Watchers (1988), this, Watchers III (1994) & finally Watchers Reborn (1998). I must say right now that I have not seen any other Watchers film so I cannot compare them, sorry. The script by Henry Dominic is based on a novel by Dean R. Koontz (haven't read it so I can't compare Watchers II to it either) is really silly, it's stupid, moronic & you can't quite believe what your seeing on screen but when all said & done I enjoyed it for what it was & at least it entertained me which is all I ask for when I watch a film, to be entertained. It moves along at a good pace & is never boring or dull & it's certainly that little bit different which I'm sure most people wouldn't argue with. Of course it goes without saying that Watchers II is far from a brilliant film either conceptually with it's super intelligent Golden Retriever who can understand English & type on a computer keyboard or the creation of a hostile creature for no good reason whatsoever, or technically as it's a pretty low budget affair & it shows. I loved the scene when the monster walked up to a couple of homeless wino's & started drinking with them! Watchers II takes itself very seriously which actually worked & made me smile on a few occasions at just how daft it was getting.Director Notz does an OK job, some sequences are lit quite well, he keeps the film moving along & there's a decent low budget horror film vibe running through the thing. There isn't much blood or gore, someone is impaled on a hook, there's a decapitated head in a toilet, a clawed back & some splashes of blood & wounds but that's about it.Watchers II must have had a pretty low budget as the monster suit itself is pretty poor, it's obviously just some guy stuck in a rubber suit & the head & mouth have no movement at all, it actually reminded me of the monster from Monster in the Closet (1987)... a bit. The acting was OK, V (1984) fans will recognise Singer & everyone plays their parts dead straight.When broken down & analysed properly Watchers II is crap, of that there is no doubt. But for all that wrong with it, the duff looking monster & the absurd plot amongst other things I found it quite entertaining & it passed the time nicely enough. I can't recommend it I just can't but on a personal level I thought it was a worthwhile watch, the decision is yours.

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.

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.

Oh yeah,"Watchers 2" is really bad,but certainly more enjoyable than "Grim" or "Haunted Sea".The acting is passable and the dog is smarter than every person in this movie.The monster is lame looking,the gore is almost non-existent and there's also no suspense at all.I still think that this one is slightly better than "Watchers"(1988)with its extremely laughable "monster",but not as good as "Watchers 3"(1994)-very stupid,but gory and fun to watch monster flick set in the jungle.Recommended,if you like this sort of stuff.