Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Kamila Bell This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Curt Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Michael_Elliott Watchers 2 (1990) * (out of 4)When you've got nothing original to do with a sequel you simply make it a remake and that's the case with Watchers 2, which isn't worth reading about let alone watching. Another government agency has created a new golden retriever, which is just as smart as the one in the first film. Of course, they also get the idea to create another creature and so the movie can continue, the creature and dog escape (again) and bodies begin to pile up while the government runs all over the place trying to track them down. Paul Ferguson (Marc Singer) is the lucky fellow who finds the dog, falls in love with it and must try and fight off the baboon looking monster.Watchers 2 is pretty much the same movie as the first one, although this time Roger Corman was the actual producer. Apparently he didn't want to spend too much money on a script because there's certainly not one to be found here. While the first movie's monster was silly looking it at least was interesting but that's not the case here. From what I can remember the monster here appears to be the same one as in The Terror Within, another Corman production. Gore hounds might find a few interesting kills but that's not enough to keep your attention through the slow pace that makes this film a real pain to get through.

frankbob_monkey 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!!!!!

eer85 I still remember how I was curious to know how they could do a sequel to WATCHERS when I saw this movie on a shelf of the video-store. The curiosity grown when I looked at the back of the cover and saw a gore scene not included in the cassette (which has no real bloody shots). Plus, the movie was forbidden for people under 18 - where the first one (here in Italy) was for all audiences. But what I saw wasn't that good I thought. This is not a remake of the original directed by Hess, but a second adaptation of the novel by Koontz (a quiet good horror novel, btw), more close to it (except for the character's names) than the previous. But it's still very far from the book. Besides some changes (this time there's only a scientist who tracks the beast), the main problem is that the monster's look is very far from being scary and the director had the bad idea to show it completely and very early in the story. In Hess' version, instead, we don't clearly see it and even if this is obtained through simple methods (POVs. shaky camera works, long shots in the fog), it works quiet well. Here Notz tries a little bit to create suspense (the creature's shadow on a wall wasn't that bad), but stops quiet early, preferring to show a guy in a cheesy suit who moves like an idiot. As the previous, the most incredible performance is delivered by the dog - and I mean it in a good way.I still wonder where that gore shot was supposed to be inserted in..

pete4winds 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.