Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Hulkeasexo it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Paul Andrews Watchers III starts over the harsh isolated jungles of Central America where a military plane drops two boxes which parachute down to the ground, one of the boxes opens & a large slimy clawed hand emerges... Nearby a young native boy (Ider Cifuentes Martin) is surprised to see a cute golden retriever just sitting there so the boy befriends him. Cut to a rebel camp & a genetically created killing machine does what it does best, it kills everyone in sight. Now cut to 'Leavenworth Military Prison, Kansas' where Major Ferguson (Wings Hauser) is being detained on false charges after he was involved with 'Project Aesop', the project that created the ultra intelligent golden retriever Einstein & the psychically linked genetically created creature known as the Outsider who were supposed to be the future of warfare. Colonel Sratten (Frank Novak) tells Ferguson that he needs him to head a team of marines into the jungle for a clean up operation & if he accepts all charges will be dropped & he will be free, Ferguson agrees & it's not long before he & his team, Benetti (Gregory Scott Cummins), Nat (Daryl Keith Roach), MacCready (John Linton) & their guide Gomez (Lolita Ronalds) are in the middle of the jungle & being systematically stalked & killed by the Outsider in a deadly experiment. Major Ferguson realises himself & his team have been set up & decides the best form of defence is attack...This Peruvian American co-production was directed by Jeremy Stanford & was the third entry in the Watchers series of films which at the moment total four, Watchers III is watchable but hardly outstanding. The script by Michael Palmer was supposedly based on the novel by Dean R. Koontz but I'd say it was based more on the film Predator (1987) which Watchers III is a complete total & utter rip-off of. Everythings here, the Central American jungle, the fake mission, the team of marines, lots of shooting, the monstrous creature hunting the marines, the climax where the hunter becomes the hunted complete with exploding arrows & bobby traps, the native & even a scene when the creature tries to mend a wound & screams out in pain which echos around the jungle, it's all here including some very familiar character's & situations as well. It's generally considered that Predator is a damn fine horror/action/sci-fi film with a decent cast, good special effects, a cool monster, top-notch action scenes, a big budget & great entertainment value. Unfortunately Watchers III has none of those things, it has a cast of nobodies, it has horrendous special effects, one of the lamest monsters I've ever seen, cheap action scenes, a really low budget & it isn't going to have anyone on the edge of their seats. No, what Watchers III has is an ultra intelligent golden retriever, thanks a lot guys. Having said that I thought it was an OK film, it's not particularly bad but it's not particularly good either. It moves along at a fair pace & some fun can be had if you have low enough expectations.Director Stanford does an OK job, the jungle location looks nice & lush & it gives it a certain atmosphere. He doesn't fair too well with the action scenes & they are far from exciting. Now onto the Outsider, this has to be one of the worst looking monsters I've ever seen, it has over-sized hands & fingers which just droop down & bend, it has huge feet, a normal body & a huge head which resembles a triangle of mud. It comes as no surprise that Gabriel Bartalos was the man responsible. There are a few decent gore scenes, a couple of cool decapitations, some mangled corpses, the skin is torn from someones chest & a fair amount of blood spilled in various ways.Technically Watchers III is alright apart from that truly awful monster suit which has to be seen to be believed just how bad it is. Otherwise it's generally quite well made & competent throughout. The acting isn't up to much & my vote for best performance goes to Einstein the dog.Watchers III is an OK way to pass 90 odd minutes, it's nothing new or original but it's watchable & I've seen a lot worse. To add to his seemingly infinite list of credits Roger Corman executive produced. The other Watchers films are, Watchers (1988), Watchers II (1990) & Watchers Reborn (1998).

eer85 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.

pauly27uk 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.

brandonsites1981 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.