when a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab and two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in washington state. one is a dog with unusual intelligence. the other is an outside experimental combat mammal and or oxcom. because of reasons divulged further into the film and the oxcom hates the dog and and so is trying to kill it. watchers concerns the accidental involvement of travis cornell (corey haim) and his mom nora (barbara williams) and his girlfriend tracey (lala sloatman) with the dog and oxcom and as two national security organization agents and lem johnson (michael ironside) and cliff (blu mankuma) and track them down. many comments are made about watchers being very different than the dean koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. this is true. but it should not affect your rating. if you want the book and read the book. judge the film on its own merits and not how closely it matches the book. bill freed and damian lee and who wrote the screenplay and are just as much artists as koontz is (that not a quality comparison and just a statement that theyre all artists). so is director jon hess. their job as filmmakers isn not to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. theyre adapting the book and as artists and to make a unique artwork. it based on the book. not identical to it. you have to loosen your preconceptions or expectations when you watch the film and because youre going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with and even if you have read koontz novel. so and is watchers a good film. it pretty good and not excellent. good enough to earn a b and or an 8. hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions i have seen in awhile. unfortunately and he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick and jargonistic exposition. after that scene watchers threatens to become a clichéd 1980s film as we first meet travis and tracey. veering towards cliché is a tendency continually threatened. but it is only a skew. more often than not and hess is able to transcend well trodden territory with a number of interesting twists represent both travis and tracey are from single parent homes and with their genders flipped. both have unique and mature relationships with their parents. although this is a horror film and a major focus is a cute and intelligent canine and and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror and a thriller and or sci fi and which are all genres it touches upon. hess introduces a large cast of characters and some not entering until late in the game and yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. the structure is also complex in that there are two major villains and the second becoming less obviously ill intentioned as the film progresses and until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. soon after and hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist. the biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded and common one with horror films since at least the 1980s the attack scenes are shot too darkly and too close and too out of focus and and theyre edited too choppily. it makes it extremely difficult to tell what going on and which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. surely and part of hess motivation for the style and and this is the typical justification for this problem and was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and or or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. in my view and presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn not a satisfactory solution. we only get to see the creature costume or makeup clearly towards the end of the film. it was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9. regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film and watchers presents a gripping story using smart and alluring characters. it is frequently a nail biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect and if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature do not pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception. 
when a saboteur blows up a controversial government research lab and two experimental animals are loosed in a small community in washington state. one is a dog with unusual intelligence. the other is an outside experimental combat mammal and or oxcom. because of reasons divulged further into the film and the oxcom hates the dog and and so is trying to kill it. watchers concerns the accidental involvement of travis cornell (corey haim) and his mom nora (barbara williams) and his girlfriend tracey (lala sloatman) with the dog and oxcom and as two national security organization agents and lem johnson (michael ironside) and cliff (blu mankuma) and track them down. many comments are made about watchers being very different than the dean koontz book that serves as the launching pad for the film. this is true. but it should not affect your rating. if you want the book and read the book. judge the film on its own merits and not how closely it matches the book. bill freed and damian lee and who wrote the screenplay and are just as much artists as koontz is (that not a quality comparison and just a statement that theyre all artists). so is director jon hess. their job as filmmakers isn not to slavishly follow the book as if it were a script. theyre adapting the book and as artists and to make a unique artwork. it based on the book. not identical to it. you have to loosen your preconceptions or expectations when you watch the film and because youre going to be experiencing an artwork that you are not already familiar with and even if you have read koontz novel. so and is watchers a good film. it pretty good and not excellent. good enough to earn a b and or an 8. hess begins things on the right foot with one of the most beautifully filmed explosions i have seen in awhile. unfortunately and he trips a bit immediately afterward as we listen to some very thick and jargonistic exposition. after that scene watchers threatens to become a clichéd 1980s film as we first meet travis and tracey. veering towards cliché is a tendency continually threatened. but it is only a skew. more often than not and hess is able to transcend well trodden territory with a number of interesting twists represent both travis and tracey are from single parent homes and with their genders flipped. both have unique and mature relationships with their parents. although this is a horror film and a major focus is a cute and intelligent canine and and it often feels as much like an adventure film as it does horror and a thriller and or sci fi and which are all genres it touches upon. hess introduces a large cast of characters and some not entering until late in the game and yet the film is never confusing and no characters feel as if they are left in the dust all of the threads are nicely tied up in the end. the structure is also complex in that there are two major villains and the second becoming less obviously ill intentioned as the film progresses and until a twist accompanied by brutal violence makes one antagonist clearer. soon after and hess gives us a nice moment of doubt with the other antagonist. the biggest flaw in my eyes is a dreaded and common one with horror films since at least the 1980s the attack scenes are shot too darkly and too close and too out of focus and and theyre edited too choppily. it makes it extremely difficult to tell what going on and which saps most of the tension from scenes that should be a highlight. surely and part of hess motivation for the style and and this is the typical justification for this problem and was worry that the creature would come across as humorous and or or fake rather than frightening and suspenseful. in my view and presenting the audience with a dizzying blur isn not a satisfactory solution. we only get to see the creature costume or makeup clearly towards the end of the film. it was well done enough that better shot and edited attack scenes would have brought the film up to at least a 9. regardless of the degree of correspondence between the novel and the film and watchers presents a gripping story using smart and alluring characters. it is frequently a nail biter and the horror scenes are more feral than you might expect and if not exactly gory (although there is a fair amount of blood in a couple scenes). watchers tends to be underrated because of misconceptions about the role of film when it comes to adapting literature do not pass it up or summarily dismiss it based on a misconception. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
