Aahhh...that's better. Man after fighting to get through part 3 this was a welcome addition. What a nice piece of redemption this film is. It isn't without its embarassments and screw ups but hey, what would the Watchers series be without it.
Four attempts at the same storyline and they still can't seem to get it right. With Watchers: Reborn it is at least tolerable. All of the Watchers films go like this...super smart dog genetically bred telepathically with super smart ugly ass monster. The dog goes in to warm up to the enemy and the monster comes in behind him killing them all. Well the experiments go wrong and they both escape...then chaos ensues. In Reborn they show a lot better about how and why they are doing what they are doing. It's good to see they actually cared for the viewer instead of assuming they'd read the book. In essence, Reborn is kind of deceptive. The storyline is pretty much the same, the creature's names are the same. They sure clung onto that Einstein name pretty hard. There's so much about this film that is the same that its hard to call it a reboot.
The cast in this film is a major upswing from part 3. First there was the Beastmaster kicking Watcher ass, now its Luke Skywalker and the Dream Master! Yes, Mark Hamill of the Star Wars fame and Lisa Wilcox of the Nightmare on Elm Street 4 & 5 fame team up to bring down the big bad wolf in this installment of Watchers. There are a few other welcome "faces" along for the ride too. It's good to see some talent back in the limelight. It makes the experience so much more worth it. But I will say...never and I mean NEVER would Lisa Wilcox want to jump Mark Hamill's bones. That's just gross. (she must have gotten some nice money to make out with him, or maybe she's just a major nerd)
Four Watchers films and three monster failures. The first one was good except you never saw the damn thing long enough to tell how gross it was. The second was just a cheap suit that was shown too much. The third was slightly better than the second but just slightly. Now in part four, a monster a horror fan can be proud of. The face moves, the puppetry is so much better, and the hair is back. It looks like a bigfoot/puppy dog hybrid. The way it should be. Well at least the way I want it to be. It actually is pretty scary and monstrous. I loved it!
Now there are some out there that would argue this movie is awful. I found it rather entertaining and fun. **SPOILER** Those that hate it probably hate it for one reason...the monster talks. "Pet me!" it begs. Aawww...it just wants some love. Poor thing. Now I like the fucking monster! He's not scary anymore, he just wants to be loved. God damn it. I wanted that thing to tear through people and then explode at the end. Now it has feelings and wants attention. You know, I actually kind of liked it. It brought the cuteness back. It was directed completely at something different, but it was kind of heartwarming. **END SPOILER**
Alright so was it worth it? Was the series worth it? Like most horror series there's always at least one black sheep in the family. There's always that one that was made for the sake of being made and its so bad nobody wants to think about it. Well Watchers is no different, part three was pretty bad and you can read my review on it via the Bad Movie Reviews page. But at least they pushed on and tried to redeem themselves of that embarassment. I think they succeeded but there are those that would disagree. I don't even know if Concorde/New Horizons is still around. I very highly doubt it. I kind of remember hearing Lionsgate has the films in their library. It would be really cool to see another reboot sequel or maybe even a remake. I hate to say it but the fans of the book could use a good version on film. In any case, I liked the series. I thought it was insane and crazy. Some of it was a waste but its just your average horror series. You won't find anything worth coming back to over and over again. Well maybe the dog.
Your independent source for everything Bad. Bad Movie Reviews, News, Articles, and Events. The Badness Begins here...
Showing posts with label Watchers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Watchers. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
BAD MOVIE REVIEW: Watchers 3 (1994)
I'll admit it, this movie is just awful. It's almost painful to watch. Coming from me, the lover of all that sucks ass, means a lot. There's just so little to like about it that I can't justify giving it anything higher than a 2 on a 10 scale. Man I hate doing that. I'll always give at least a 3 for effort and creativity, but this movie is just terrible. I'll illustrate why you should avoid it at all costs.
1. A failed movie ripoff. Predator synopsis: Deep in the jungle a mysterious alien creature is picking off specially trained soldiers on a rescue mission. The lone survivor fights and destroys the creature using his wits and the jungle around him. Watchers 3 synopsis: Deep in the jungle a mysterious ugly fucking creature is picking off crappily trained soldiers on a rescue/intel retrieval mission. The lone survivor (along with a stupidly smart dog and a mute native boy) destroy the creature using some bad one liners and stolen props from the original Predator set. In all honesty, you could watch these films back to back and they almost mirror one another. Obviously Predator kicks serious ass and this is a terrible knockoff trying to be something it can never be. The asylum does this all the time and they pride themselves on it, but this is the third film in a series based on a novel written by Dean Koontz. Come on people!
2. All the cuteness is gone. If you remotely enjoyed the first two films for their relationships between dog and man/boy, then you are shit out of luck. They try to put in a little native boy to have some kind of relationship going on but that kid is completely useless in every aspect of the word. What was his purpose for being in the story at all? The only thing, and I mean the only thing he did (because he's too dumb to actually talk), was pointed out the bow and arrow. That's it...nothing more. Come on guys, you can do a little better than that.
3. The monster...ok this is how I justify a 2/10 instead of a 1/10. This creature is a definite improvement over that stupid looking anteater thing from part 2. It's still lizard like and completely fake but at least its damn mouth moves! They seemed to have mashed up the sound effects from other Roger Corman features to make the howls for the beast. That was a definite turn off, but oh well what can you do with crap like this? Definite improvement, looks like something you would find aboard Davey Jones' ship. But still...I remember there being a strict...bigfoot vibe from the creature. Come on.
4. The plot, the story, the complete and utter carelessness of everybody involved. I don't like to bash people for making movies but this is a really lazy effort on everyone's part. The story was rushed too fast. They could have made things a little more dramatic or heartfelt with some short pauses but nope...straight into the next scene. Honestly wanted everyone to die, I cared for no one. Generic horror film characters, white leader, black tough guy, macho chick, pussy white guy, expendables. I guess when you are stoned off your ass and thinking its an original idea this seems pretty awesome. It's just a really poor film.
Alright I've done enough bashing, what would I say is actually good about it. If there are any Wings Hauser fans in the house...he's the star man. I don't know his career that well but he has quite an extensive resume. Fans of him might feel more in tune with this picture than I do. He does manage to spit out a few good one liners. Most notably, "I'm gonna put this bullet so deep in your head, your ancestors are gonna feel it!"
So in all honesty don't watch it. If you're like me and you just have to watch (and in my case own) the entire series of films then go ahead and give it a shot. I can't even tell you its good for a 4 am SyFy channel movie cuz it just isn't. Even though that's where I first came across it but stopped watching it after awhile cause it looked stupid. I guess I just won't learn my lesson. Ok well you get my drift. I love bad movies but this one just takes the cake. Kudos to you Watchers 3, a movie so bad that the worst of the actual watchers just can't handle it.
1. A failed movie ripoff. Predator synopsis: Deep in the jungle a mysterious alien creature is picking off specially trained soldiers on a rescue mission. The lone survivor fights and destroys the creature using his wits and the jungle around him. Watchers 3 synopsis: Deep in the jungle a mysterious ugly fucking creature is picking off crappily trained soldiers on a rescue/intel retrieval mission. The lone survivor (along with a stupidly smart dog and a mute native boy) destroy the creature using some bad one liners and stolen props from the original Predator set. In all honesty, you could watch these films back to back and they almost mirror one another. Obviously Predator kicks serious ass and this is a terrible knockoff trying to be something it can never be. The asylum does this all the time and they pride themselves on it, but this is the third film in a series based on a novel written by Dean Koontz. Come on people!
2. All the cuteness is gone. If you remotely enjoyed the first two films for their relationships between dog and man/boy, then you are shit out of luck. They try to put in a little native boy to have some kind of relationship going on but that kid is completely useless in every aspect of the word. What was his purpose for being in the story at all? The only thing, and I mean the only thing he did (because he's too dumb to actually talk), was pointed out the bow and arrow. That's it...nothing more. Come on guys, you can do a little better than that.
3. The monster...ok this is how I justify a 2/10 instead of a 1/10. This creature is a definite improvement over that stupid looking anteater thing from part 2. It's still lizard like and completely fake but at least its damn mouth moves! They seemed to have mashed up the sound effects from other Roger Corman features to make the howls for the beast. That was a definite turn off, but oh well what can you do with crap like this? Definite improvement, looks like something you would find aboard Davey Jones' ship. But still...I remember there being a strict...bigfoot vibe from the creature. Come on.
4. The plot, the story, the complete and utter carelessness of everybody involved. I don't like to bash people for making movies but this is a really lazy effort on everyone's part. The story was rushed too fast. They could have made things a little more dramatic or heartfelt with some short pauses but nope...straight into the next scene. Honestly wanted everyone to die, I cared for no one. Generic horror film characters, white leader, black tough guy, macho chick, pussy white guy, expendables. I guess when you are stoned off your ass and thinking its an original idea this seems pretty awesome. It's just a really poor film.
Alright I've done enough bashing, what would I say is actually good about it. If there are any Wings Hauser fans in the house...he's the star man. I don't know his career that well but he has quite an extensive resume. Fans of him might feel more in tune with this picture than I do. He does manage to spit out a few good one liners. Most notably, "I'm gonna put this bullet so deep in your head, your ancestors are gonna feel it!"
So in all honesty don't watch it. If you're like me and you just have to watch (and in my case own) the entire series of films then go ahead and give it a shot. I can't even tell you its good for a 4 am SyFy channel movie cuz it just isn't. Even though that's where I first came across it but stopped watching it after awhile cause it looked stupid. I guess I just won't learn my lesson. Ok well you get my drift. I love bad movies but this one just takes the cake. Kudos to you Watchers 3, a movie so bad that the worst of the actual watchers just can't handle it.
BAD MOVIE REVIEW: Watchers 2 (1990)
Roger Corman fans unite! Yet another crappy monster movie is upon us! Is it good? We all know its bad. But is it worth it? Well well, I'll tell you what I think.
Watchers 2, from my understanding, has more elements of the original text (Dean Koontz's novel "Watchers") than the original film did. There's a military guy kicking the monster's ass and the monster hates itself cuz its so damned ugly. That right there kind of tells you something. Perhaps they got so much backlash from fans of the book on the original that they tried to make up for it with the sequel. From a marketing point of view its pretty genius. I'd definately give it a chance if I was conned into believing it was closer to the book than the first one. My hopes would go up but eventually crash down.
Honestly, the cast kept me more interested than anything else. The Beastmaster, Marc Singer, is the lead male army hero. I think its kind of fun to see him outside of the Beastmaster role in normal clothes and short hair. He is still connected to animals because he's the one who befriends the super smart golden retriever in this film. Unlike a stupid boy. I was also happy to see Tracy Scoggins in here. She starred in Demonic Toys, an awesomely awful Full Moon puppet horror film. For some reason they don't get sick of making them and I never tire of watching them. And speaking of puppet movies...Irene Miracle is in this film as well...she was one of the psychics in the original Puppet Master...and she's naked.
The cuteness factor of the first film is back again. It isn't nearly as fun watching the hero connect with the dog like it was with the boy, but it is just as interesting. Similarities between those events occur, but I guess that's to be expected.
The story is similar to the first. More government experimentation on animals. Redevelopment projects and new monsters. It was pleasant to see that there was a connection between the doctor and the monster. Its good to know old ugly has at least one friend...but not for long. I remember the creature having a lot more fur than this one, but oh well, what can you do. Anyways...some dumbass animal rights activists trash the place and set loose the dog and creature. Then all hell breaks loose as the monster hunts the dog and slaughters everything in its path.
Alright so my real beef with this film. It lost major points during the hotel scene. The one chick who came off as a whore, who had massive boobs, was about to get it on with some young dude, gets killed before we see the goods. Son of a bitch! Who made this movie? Also the monster is completely ridiculous. Its kind of like a human/anteater mixed breed. Unlike the original they show WAY too much of the creature here. If they could have kept more point of view shots instead of just showing close ups of the creature it would have been forgiveable. Its obviously fake and the effects are just rancid. The mouth could have moved A LITTLE.
But all in all...it was worth my time. I like these cheesy horror movies and if you are aware of Roger Corman and the films he produces than you have a pretty good idea what you're in store for. I love them because they are so bad, but to me that's what makes them so good. Happy viewing....at least the Watchers is back.
Watchers 2, from my understanding, has more elements of the original text (Dean Koontz's novel "Watchers") than the original film did. There's a military guy kicking the monster's ass and the monster hates itself cuz its so damned ugly. That right there kind of tells you something. Perhaps they got so much backlash from fans of the book on the original that they tried to make up for it with the sequel. From a marketing point of view its pretty genius. I'd definately give it a chance if I was conned into believing it was closer to the book than the first one. My hopes would go up but eventually crash down.
Honestly, the cast kept me more interested than anything else. The Beastmaster, Marc Singer, is the lead male army hero. I think its kind of fun to see him outside of the Beastmaster role in normal clothes and short hair. He is still connected to animals because he's the one who befriends the super smart golden retriever in this film. Unlike a stupid boy. I was also happy to see Tracy Scoggins in here. She starred in Demonic Toys, an awesomely awful Full Moon puppet horror film. For some reason they don't get sick of making them and I never tire of watching them. And speaking of puppet movies...Irene Miracle is in this film as well...she was one of the psychics in the original Puppet Master...and she's naked.
The cuteness factor of the first film is back again. It isn't nearly as fun watching the hero connect with the dog like it was with the boy, but it is just as interesting. Similarities between those events occur, but I guess that's to be expected.
The story is similar to the first. More government experimentation on animals. Redevelopment projects and new monsters. It was pleasant to see that there was a connection between the doctor and the monster. Its good to know old ugly has at least one friend...but not for long. I remember the creature having a lot more fur than this one, but oh well, what can you do. Anyways...some dumbass animal rights activists trash the place and set loose the dog and creature. Then all hell breaks loose as the monster hunts the dog and slaughters everything in its path.
Alright so my real beef with this film. It lost major points during the hotel scene. The one chick who came off as a whore, who had massive boobs, was about to get it on with some young dude, gets killed before we see the goods. Son of a bitch! Who made this movie? Also the monster is completely ridiculous. Its kind of like a human/anteater mixed breed. Unlike the original they show WAY too much of the creature here. If they could have kept more point of view shots instead of just showing close ups of the creature it would have been forgiveable. Its obviously fake and the effects are just rancid. The mouth could have moved A LITTLE.
But all in all...it was worth my time. I like these cheesy horror movies and if you are aware of Roger Corman and the films he produces than you have a pretty good idea what you're in store for. I love them because they are so bad, but to me that's what makes them so good. Happy viewing....at least the Watchers is back.
BAD MOVIE REVIEW: Watchers (1988)
Watchers is about the cutest damn horror movie I've ever seen. I wasn't exactly sure what to expect while watching it but after it was over I am glad I did. Lucky for me there is this old run down video store down the street from me. They have a whole wall of vhs tapes they rent or sell. Trying to weed out the inventory. How lucky was I to find all four Watchers movies sitting there and in great condition. So I picked them up and thusfar have watched the first one.
The plot is pretty creative. It's based off a Dean Koontz novel with the same name. From what I've read of other people's views on this movie is that you should avoid the film and read the book. I guess the characters and events are completely different. I, myself, did not read the book so I think that helped me to enjoy the film more. Ok, the plot...secret government experiment (oh you know this'll be good) in which they create some super intelligent creatures. First they make human intelligent dogs and then they make some mutant monster that is telepathically linked to the dog. The point being? The cute innocent dog would infiltrate enemy bases and the big nasty monster would follow tearing up everything it came across. Beautiful. Well of course both of these creatures escape and all hell breaks loose. This all happens within the first few minutes of the movie.
As far as a horror movie goes it follows the rules pretty well. The creature mindlessly attacks and murders everybody it comes into contact with. You don't see much of it other than the occasional arm. All the shots leading up to the end are creature P.O.V. so you see it killing straight up front. I was a little disappointed at the end because there wasn't very good lighting to see the monster clearly. What I did see wasn't all that cool anyway.
So why do I say its cute? For the majority of the movie you see the boy (Corey Haim of the Lost Boys) bonding with the super smart golden retriever. Its cute because they laugh and get to know each other. The boy talks to the dog and it understands everything he says. The dog has feelings for the boy and tries to prevent him from being killed. It's kind of cute.
So if you're looking for a reason not to watch it here you go - The ending was kind of weak. It happens too fast. Boy hunts the creature, takes it down. Whoop dee do da. Corey Haim's hair style. Yes its the 80's but good lord what coon nested on your head. Gross. The effects are sub par but there's not enough of them to really care. And knowing that its based off a book I could actually feel that they struggled to whiddle it down. It feels like there should be a lot more. Why is the creature ripping out eyes? etc. So much more could use more explanation. I think I should go get the book and read that.
So do you want to see it now? In all honesty it wasn't painful to watch. It was more cute and cuddly than anything. Kind of a nice change of pace to feel good about watching people get tore up and eye gouged. If you miss it, I really wouldn't be too upset about it. But if you get the chance to watch it, its good enough for a rainy day.
The plot is pretty creative. It's based off a Dean Koontz novel with the same name. From what I've read of other people's views on this movie is that you should avoid the film and read the book. I guess the characters and events are completely different. I, myself, did not read the book so I think that helped me to enjoy the film more. Ok, the plot...secret government experiment (oh you know this'll be good) in which they create some super intelligent creatures. First they make human intelligent dogs and then they make some mutant monster that is telepathically linked to the dog. The point being? The cute innocent dog would infiltrate enemy bases and the big nasty monster would follow tearing up everything it came across. Beautiful. Well of course both of these creatures escape and all hell breaks loose. This all happens within the first few minutes of the movie.
As far as a horror movie goes it follows the rules pretty well. The creature mindlessly attacks and murders everybody it comes into contact with. You don't see much of it other than the occasional arm. All the shots leading up to the end are creature P.O.V. so you see it killing straight up front. I was a little disappointed at the end because there wasn't very good lighting to see the monster clearly. What I did see wasn't all that cool anyway.
So why do I say its cute? For the majority of the movie you see the boy (Corey Haim of the Lost Boys) bonding with the super smart golden retriever. Its cute because they laugh and get to know each other. The boy talks to the dog and it understands everything he says. The dog has feelings for the boy and tries to prevent him from being killed. It's kind of cute.
So if you're looking for a reason not to watch it here you go - The ending was kind of weak. It happens too fast. Boy hunts the creature, takes it down. Whoop dee do da. Corey Haim's hair style. Yes its the 80's but good lord what coon nested on your head. Gross. The effects are sub par but there's not enough of them to really care. And knowing that its based off a book I could actually feel that they struggled to whiddle it down. It feels like there should be a lot more. Why is the creature ripping out eyes? etc. So much more could use more explanation. I think I should go get the book and read that.
So do you want to see it now? In all honesty it wasn't painful to watch. It was more cute and cuddly than anything. Kind of a nice change of pace to feel good about watching people get tore up and eye gouged. If you miss it, I really wouldn't be too upset about it. But if you get the chance to watch it, its good enough for a rainy day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)