User reviews

One Watcher asked who makes these movies? Well who doesn't know Roger Corman or Loyd Kaufman, Full Moon etc. Also why are they made. Well probably because they are making money. What investor or company is going to want to invest in something that won't make it's money back. Yeah, they are cheesy and sometimes horrible, but they are still fun. When I watch a Roger Corman movie I know not to expect Lord of the Rings or the Godfather. I mean come on it's Concorde. Believe it or not there is a market for this or they wouldn't be hear. I mean dude Carnasour, Rapter, Deadly Outbreak, Cybervengence, The Outsider (which is basically a cheap straight to video remake of Westworld) When you hear the midi music that should really clue you in this is going to be a b-film. When you see certain actors that you know are considered washed up, TV movie or straight to video movie actors etc., when you even see chicks such as Shannon Tweed etc. you know you are about to watch a b-film.lol

Sent to prison on trumped up charges, an American Army officer named "Paul Ferguson" (Wings Hauser) is given a chance to receive a full pardon if he agrees to undertake a top-secret assignment. Essentially, a genetically engineered monster known as "the Outsider" (Carlos Gonzales) has gone on a killing spree in the jungles of South America and a squad of convicts are sent in to engage the creature. What they don't know is that they are nothing more than dispensable test subjects sent in to gauge the ability of the government's creation. Fortunately for them, a genetically enhanced Labrador retriever is also in this vicinity and it knows the Outsider better than anybody. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film is basically a low-budget clone of the movie "Predator" but with a few items incorporated from "Watchers" and "Watchers II" to preserve its integrity. Unfortunately, the melding of "Predator" and "Watchers" doesn't really work nearly as well as it should due in large part to the low budget and poor acting overall. Even so, I didn't think it was terribly bad and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Slightly below average.

What, it got no Oscars? I wonder why? Well, I guess Dean's Watchers will never be made into a good movie... which does not really matter in this case, because it has nothing to do with the novel. It's YAPR (Yet Another Predator Ripoff). You've seen one, you've seen them all. This one isn't as idiotic as some of them (X-Tro 3...), but certainly not 1/10 as good as the original. Simply another below-average flick. Watch it if you can't get anything else, and don't have to pay for this one. Or if you're curious about the Watchers line and you're wondering "what are they going to screw up this time?". They didn't screw up too much, but they just didn't come up with any ideas.

I saw this Sunday afternoon and thought that there must be something else better on... like bass fishing with no bass in the lake! Then I saw a commercial that announced that George Lucas remade the Poseiden Adventure (calling it simply Poseiden). I guess that was worth watching this unwatchable movie.

Hey wait a minute ... I just realized that there IS something worse than Tim Burton's destruction of "Planets of the Apes" - WATCHERS 3...

And what's up with 3??? Does that mean there were TWO OTHERS?!?! Wow...

1/10

-Zafoid

PS: I have always wondered who makes films like these. They are straight to video, and then not even worth watching by anyone - including the director! So why are these made? Is this a "learning experience" for the some of the crew? ... the director? ... the actors? I just don't get it. Then again, why do I watch them!? :)

-Z

There are few movie series more repetitive than Watchers, however this third entry in a franchise nobody asked for actually takes the closest stab at originality you're going to find under the Watchers banner.

When I say originality, I mean for the series, because there ain't nothing original about Watchers III. This is as cookie cutter a Predator ripoff as you're ever likely to find.

The plot concerns a military officer named Ferguson (Wings Hauser) currently wasting his days away in military prison. He's offered the chance to lead a team of convicts on a top secret mission into the a Peruvian jungle to find out why they've lost contact with a base there. Of course this is a smokescreen, and horror's most mediocre double act Einstein the super intelligent Golden Retriever and the Outsider, his psychic-bonded mutant monster brother are loose in the jungle and the reason all previous personnel are dead. It isn't long before the team have adopted Einstein and are battling for survival against the Outsider.

Now, in addition to not being EXACTLY the same plot as the other 3 movies in the series, you may also have picked up that this also boasts a series first in the form of a degree of continuity. A soldier named Ferguson in trouble with his superiors was the leading character in the previous instalment, and while it's never explicitly stated, he also references a history with the dynamic duo of dog and devil. There's also plenty of stock footage, but this is Roger Corman, that doesn't inherently imply continuity.

What's interesting though is that despite this, he doesn't seem remotely perturbed by the fact the Outsider has completely altered in appearance. In the previous movie it was a largely bald but for patches of hair thing with a vaguely reptilian head that was so badly designed I don't know how to describe it. Here it's an entirely hairless, kind of crusty, exoskeleton looking thing with a massive, triangular crest at the back of its head. It reminds me of a mixture of the thing from The Fly II, the crustacean from Deepstar Six & something Screamin' Mad George came up for in the Guyver movies. It does honestly look better than what you see on the cover, but still far from good, which makes the decision to keep showing it in daylight all the more questionable.

I suppose it's to try keep things exciting, because it is an otherwise entirely bland affair, ticking every box on the way to genetic Predator-ripoff heaven. Diversely presented but one dimensional soldiers it's impossible to like, corrupt officials, shooting into the rainforest while shouting, it's all here.

Wings Hauser gets a good rep online in B-Movie circles, and while I've never been a huge fan (ok to be fair I've only seen a handful of movies he's in) he's...workable here. Which is just as well cause he's the best of an utterly contemptible bunch. It is a bit of a stretch to think he's meant to be the same character as Marc Singer played, although he is a fellow Beastmaster series alumni so I'll permit it.

As I said with the previous entry, I feel like if you're looking up Watchers III you probably already have a rough idea if you're gonna like it, and while it's certainly nothing resembling good, I've also seen much worse. You could probably cobble together quite a compendium of bad low budget horror movies set in the jungle made in the early to mid 90s, and this will slot perfectly in there.

Watchers III (1994) is a movie I recently watched on YouTube. The storyline follows a group of convicts sent into the jungles of South America to retrieve an escaped science experiment. A golden retriever happens to be running through the same jungle that appears to be willing to help them...

This movie is directed by Jeremy Stanford (Trantasia) and stars Wings Hauser (Rubber), Gregory Scott Cummins (Cliffhanger), Daryl Keith Roach (Crocodile Dundee: Los Angeles), Frank Novak (Watchmen) and Christian Meier (Terminal).

The storyline and execution for this movie felt like a Predator ripoff...plus a dog. The opening kill in the jungle was fun; but unfortunately, probably the best part of the movie. The creature in this looks terrible and I'm surprised they put it on the cover of the film (they must have thought it looked good). Most of the horror scenes were a poorly executed man in costume sequence with limited gore but some good blood splatter here and there.

Overall, this is bad and not really worth your time. I would score this a 2/10 and recommend skipping it.

Here's another Corman produced adaptation of Dean R Koontz's novel. Was it impressive… well let's ask the intelligent canine for an answer. One bark for No. Two for yes. Three barks for you got to be kidding me. Really you don't need to be super smart to figure it out. While using the same background story as its predecessors (a top secret experiment spawning a super intelligent dog is used as a beacon for a monster known as the outsider in what is a combat weapon), "Watchers III" felt like an odd one out even though its focus was on the experiment at work being test on some expendable ex-military convicts in a South American jungle and the Ferguson character from the last sequel making an reappearance (although under a different actor). The premise had a lot to work off, but instead it decides to be an extra ordinary wannabe second rate predator rip-off with many sequences, actions and dialogues lifted from that film, but without the aplomb. I couldn't believe how hackneyed it was, as you could probably start drinking game from it. Wings Hauser is a sight for sore eyes, as it is his awesomeness that makes it bearable. Stereotypical characters come and go, to only be scratched up or decapitated by its hideously wonky looking man in a creature suit. It's a different design compared to the previous entries and it doesn't look all that great. Think of "Xtro 2" and there you go. Hell it even gets its own sort of vision ala "Predator". There are moments of violence and gore, but they are boringly staged with its clunky execution and its derivatively lacklustre climax paints that well enough. While the film is short-lived, it can't finish any sooner because of how soporific the plan in motion just happens to be. Feeble, low-rent monster-on-the-loose nonsense.

"I like to know what the hell is going on?"

wings hauser carrys this film.

he takes over the character that marc singer played in the second film.

basicly if you liked the first 2 films you will like this one.

i consider this film to be a cheap version of predator.

Yet another attempt to remake Dean Koontz's novel into a feature length film is yet another failure. This so called sequel adds some elements of Predator into another tired entry lacking in decent special effects and suspense. This time around a group of soldiers fall prey to a monster that is linked to a super intelligent dog and kills off everyone in its way.

Rated R; Violence.

this is like predator, and if you look in the dictionary the word "adaptation" you will see that the movies are a very ver exaggerated adaptation of the novel, as a matter of fact the first movie only retained some of the original names of the novel, but their background where too far from being the same, i know that to adapt something, means changing the product so its suits better the intended public (i.e a french movie trying to take it to the American market, its changed so it fits the American viewer) but the adapatations of the novel are far from being relevant, anyway it only sucks story-wise, but it has good action,and the telenovela actor Christian meier played the role of the outsider (who would had imagined that)

I finally got to see this movie after about 8 years of research (when I started, Internet was something off-limits for most of the people), just because I've been obsessed with Koontz'novel (and related movies) for quiet a while. I'm pretty disappointed for what I saw, but I also have to admit I enjoyed the experience: this is one of those so-bad-is-so-good cases. The fun begins as the movie starts, when you see WATCHERS 2 footage re-used as new material (a voice-over and a detail of two boxes and you've your prologue - this is the real and pure Corman spirit) and proceeds through the entire movie, with blue-screen as sky for helicopter insides and a gummy suit with toy-eyes for the "monster". As Notz, Stanford decides to show the Outsider pretty early, giving away any chance of suspense: it doesn't matter if you insist with shadows and POV after, since you have spoiled it before. This time, the creature design is really horrible, in a bad way: even its shadow is ridiculous. A furry thing like the Oxcom in WATCHERS would have been better (and scarier). This is the first real sequel to a previous entry in the series: it takes the character of Ferguson from the previous movie, even though the two story lines are a little bit in contrast (again, other WATCHERS 2 footage: doesn't matter if the creatures are totally different). The screenplay adds some other elements from the original novel (the cave, for instance - even if it was switched to the sewers in the previous film) but most importantly completely rips off the PREDATOR storyline and settings, so we get a squad of soldiers (all convicted) against the "evil menace". Actually, the plot wants to be a little bit more dramatic than the previous entries, but you can't take seriously a movie with a bad Halloween costume as the monster. It's a little pity, since Wings Hauser tries to but has the entire feature against himself. On a first sight, this flick looks gorier than the previous, but actually it is not: after a mutilated body, we don't see very much - in fact, another funny element it's the way the characters die. The action sequences are pretty cheesy too (like the end). Again, the real and only impressive thing is the dog's performances. The first WATCHERS remains the best (and we're not talking about a masterpiece!), for now.

Horror novelist Dean R. Koontz has expressed unhappiness about several cinematic adaptations of his novels (like with HIDEAWAY). Though I haven't heard what he thinks of what Roger Corman did with WATCHERS, I think it's pretty safe to assume that he's appalled, especially since Corman has used the rights to the novel to make several awful movies, including this one. Where to begin? Well, even though the end credits reveal this was filmed in South America, it sure doesn't look spectacular. The various jungle locations look bland and all alike. The story is pretty slow, with not that much jungle action and gore for the first half of the movie. When we *do* see the monster, it's a shockingly bad creation - just imagine the monsters you have seen in 1950s Corman movies, and you'll have a good idea as to how this unconvincing creation looks like. I guess some of the gore effects aren't bad, and it's always good to see Wings Hauser, but the movie ends up being overall a bad and boring imitation of PREDATOR. With PREDATOR freely available for rent or purchase, there's no reason to see this third-rate imitation.