Badmovies.org Forum

I remember seeing a big poster of the box art to this movie stuck to a wall in a dimly lit video store my parents used to frequent when I was about ten.  The silhouette of the OXCOM reaching out to the viewer scared me to death.  I just knew that if I went to the more dimly lit sections of the store, it would get me.  About ten years later, I finally rented Watchers.  And I laughed my head off!  To think I was scared of it for all those years.  Man, I was a jumpy kid.

Yeah I saw this film on usa or sci-fi. It was around I think 5-6 months back. I kinda like this myself! That i've seen to many films that look like it was evolving around tha same type of plot and had tha same monster look a like.
If I was grading this I say I would give this 6/10

Thats all... I have to go watch the 'Thing (from another world)'.
Peace, Blazin

I've read the book...  I never even knew there was a movie.  Your review doesn't sound too much like what happened in the book, except the OXCOM trying to kill the retriever, and kills a lot of people.  Wasn't the OXCOM supposed to be a dog as well, not a monkey??

this movies is not looking good

After reading the book, and watching the movie..I can just say that I have a sudden urge to stick a spoon deep into my brain and just suffer......but it was great to make fun of...
PS LALA isn't the dog

This was low

Okay, as a fan of cheesy monster flicks, especially those made by Roger Corman, I love Watchers.  The second and third ones are also great movies.  The fourth one blow ass, though.  The Outsider (that's what the monster's called, by the way.  I know the technical term is OXCOM, but every one in the movie and the books, even the lab guys, refer to it as the Outsider) is cool, but the actual movie built around it is awful.  But for anyone who loves a good low-budget monster flick, check out Watchers 1-3.  All excellent films.  And did anyone notice that the creature from The Terror Within (another mid-eighties Corman flick) looks just like the Outsider with no fur?

This is actually very good . . . as a book by Dean Koontz that is. The book had the dog, his master, a disturbed man and an neorotic woman facing of against a killer(not an orange monster) and G-men. And there were no kids involved.

I have seen numerous movies that  have taken a Koontz novel, and this one was one of my favorites, and turn it in to total s**t...I have never seen a movie more removed from the spirit of a book than this one, but then of course there is that other koontz novel they butchered with jeff goldbaum and alicia silverstone, enough said

I went to college with Dean and co-edited the literary magazine--I was poetry editor, he was short story editor.  Some of us thought he was kind of an a***ole, since he never wanted to party, smoke dope or go on roadtrips--all he wanted to do was write.  Now he's in California and worth a gazillion buckx--I'm in Alaska and went bankrupt a year or so ago, supporting my family by selling knives, jewelry and stuff out of the back of my 1984 Eagle.  Go figure!

I can't be objective about the movie, because they totally distorted one of my favorite books, Dean Koontz' "Watchers."  That had characters you actually cared about, a loveable, miraculous dog and a terrifying, and at the same time, pitiful monster, the Outsider.  Oh well...  

Movies made from books are never worth the time.

Koontz oughta sue these a***oles.

The book is a masterpiece with human characters that surpass anything Stephen King has ever managed.  The movie totally destroys the book.  The hero is now Corey Haim (doesn't look like a 30ish ex-special forces kinda' guy do he?), Nora is now his mom and not his girlfriend and her backstroy is ignored and she's generic as Hell, the investigator and the sherrif were very close friends in the book.  The changes are too many and the soul of the book is killed completely.  Forget legal action, Koontz should have the people responsible for this killed.  Image Stephen King's the Stand with an all midget cast and redone as a comedy to find something equally wrong.

Nora is his mom!  This confirms a long held belief of mine that based on a novel means the guy who wrote the screenplay read the book jacket and had a funny dream that night.

I'd like to apologize to the world at large for the sloppy way the government of Canada hands out Film Tax Credits (although, the good, pre-LA seasons of "The X-Files" was made up here too). It encouraged the making of a lot of crap movies from the late 70's to the early 90's, and we're all sorry.

I just watched the movie and I'd say I had good old time. 3/5 just because it was fun fun fun.

-the first rule of fat club-

Ok this movie is one of my favorite movies, they made the monster look really really sweet...hmmm well catch ya lata

Oh, Canada makes that many bad movies? I didn't know and I live in the capital... well at least we have James Cameron.
This movie butchers the book, dont get meh started. Travis was Nora's husband in the first and he was in special forces and he kicked ass. Now he's a little s**theaded brat who makes love to the dog. Let's not talk about that "twist" if it had happened in the book I would have puked and burned my copy. Johnson was a nice guy who was held back by his job and even lets the dog go in the end.
He was African too, *cough*Ironside*cough*
Avoid unless you liked The Stand, ababuah

I 've read the book, it's still one of my favorite ones. But this film has nothing to do with the book. Travis is an inbred child, and the OXCOM is gay.
The Outsider is supposed to be nothing, neither a dog, nor a monkey.

THAT was Jason Priestley? Or was it a different Jason Priestley? Even without the extra weight I wouldn't see any resemblance.

Wow...I've just read the book, and I absolutely LOVED it, but....this movie looks like s**t. I mean, you didn't even mention anything about the Outsider (*NOT* the OXCOM) tracking down the dog....and all of the main characters are kids!! >< I'm sure it's a good-ish movie and all, but...come on. It's movies like this that makes me make SURE I read the book first.  :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

 I can't freaking believe it. As I've grown older and wiser, I've come to understand and accept the fact that when a book is made into a film, not every detail or plot point is going to make it onto the screen. There's budget constraints, a resonable running time to keep track of, difficulty of visually achieving some scenes in the book, etc. Some characters, even if they're well-written and awesome, are ultimately not 100% vital to the plot and can be cut out.
  Still, the fact that someone desecrated Watchers in this way makes me both furious and sad at the same time. :hot: The book this movie was based on is a true work of art, a "desert island" novel if there ever was one. How badly did this flick mutilate the book? I'll just say extremely, unforgivably badly, and leave it at that.
 Andrew, I don't pretend to know if you're as much of a book person as you are a B-movie person, but I certainly hope this film doesn't dissuade you from picking up a copy of the novel. It's a true gem.

 P.S. This is one of the few books I read where I actually felt awful for the main villian.  :bluesad:

I was fortunate to read the book long before I encountered the movie.  It has been years since I last read it, but I liked the book a lot.

I know it's about three years too late, but if we're talking about desecration, look at what Hollywood (or its backwoods counterpart) did to F. Paul Wilson's The Keep. A crying shame.

It was made in 1988 (not 1983). The sequel is pretty good. It has Marc Singer!