Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Stephen Abell When Phil (Brown) and Kate (Lowell) fall pregnant after buying a new house they decide to hire a nanny for when the baby is born. Unfortunately, their first choice is killed by a hit and run driver while she's on a bike ride. Though, luckily for them, the agency send round a replacement. Camilla (Seagrove) is a stunning English nanny who is only too happy to look after baby Jake... any time... all the time... As time goes by Phil starts to feel as though there's something out of place with Camilla, who isn't above using her sexuality to get her way... This, in turn, turns Kate's investigation mode on, only to learn some dark and chilling, hard to believe, truths about their son's guardian...I've never been a great fan of Friedkin's work, though I have to admit he has a magnificent eye for composition and iconic shots (the only thing which kept me awake through the yawn-fest that was The Exorcist - oh controversial). In this film, he has extended his eye for composition into entire scene's and employed some effective lighting techniques, especially in the night time forest sequences. This actually brings it out of the horror genre and into dark fantasy, which seems to fit the story and direction much better. There is a lack of tension, suspense, and fear which are required to make a good horror film. Even the gruesome effects are shot in such a way that they aren't exactly horrific or fear-inducing. They are good and well done. though Friedkin opts to quickly snap between the gore shots. He even adds strange angles to them, which adds more to the fantasy genre and detracts from the horror.This is a tale of old mythologies and tells of evil tree spirits who like nothing better than to eat the souls of newborns. This could easily have been another run of the mill horror flick of the time but it is something more. I just wish that Camilla's drive and reasoning behind her actions had been explained more. This could only have made her character stronger and darker. However, Seagrove adds a nice sensuality and slyness to her... if this woman were an animal she would be the snake that tempted Adam and Eve. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is pretty average, especially the two lead characters, who are verging on two-dimensional stereotypicalness. Even Miguel Ferrer, who I've always rated as a "one-to-watch" actor, appears underused and a tad flat. Only Brad Hall as Ned Runcie comes across as a more rounded character. This may be because his character has lots to do in the story; he's built the house they live in; he becomes their friend; he has a romantic interest in Camilla; he's the first to realise there's something not-quite-right with Camilla. This gives him more depth and scope than the rest of the characters in the story.The special effects are still viable today, the killings of the gang members, though filmed in a strange manner, is well done and looks realistic - given the circumstances. Even the tree bark images and figures are chilling to see and reasonably lifelike, adding to the strength of the fantasy elements.This doesn't work as a horror, though, if you're a fantasy fan and you prefer them with a darker edge then this will probably be up your street. It's at least worth one viewing... but I'd wait until you've not got anything interesting to watch.

Stephanie Lilitu Blackthorne I remember being in high school my senior year and "The Guardian" was released to home video in 1990 but the year I saw it was 1992. I think also around that time "The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" was also released after it's run in theaters. It was the usual weekend ritual, two movies and a Nintendo/Super Nintendo game from Movie Warehouse and nothing else to do but veg out.So I rented both "Guardian" and "Hand" as my movies for that "Evil Nanny" themed weekend and watched "The Guardian" first. I must say that the movie is one of the most underrated horror films ever made. Friedkin's first horror film since "Exorcist" 17 years after. At first the eerie score let's the viewer know it is a scary film with a brief story about druids worshiping trees and offering sacrifices to them, an obvious mutilation of the druid's customs of nature worship as the antagonists is rather a forest demon or possible succubus.Now, some what of a spoiler warning: We see what transpires at the beginning while a boy reads "Hansel & Gretel", giving the viewer an idea of the nanny's intentions after his parents leave him and his sister with her, as "Hansel & Gretel" is a classic Brothers Grimm story about children abandoned and taken in by a stranger with intentions of sacrifice.Jenny Seagrove's portrayal of Camilla shows that she keeps her maternal instincts to herself while caring for the child but hides her true intent and anyone who discovers her true form will not live long or be heard from again, let alone anyone who crosses her path like the witch in "Hansel & Gretel" (Of course, this is the classic horror concept of a witch and not modern day pagans or wiccans... or druids).This film is hated by the critics but loved by many a film nut. I like it but not enough for a full score because it moves kind of quickly. It wasn't a slasher or a big sfx filled film but it holds up because it is scary and at one point you are routing for Camilla and then routing for the parents.I can see one reason why the critics hated it, the story is easy to follow. And another reason they hate it is because Friedkin knew he couldn't give us another "Exorcist" and horror was not really his specialty when it came to previous works like "The French Connection", "Sorcerer" and "Crusing". It is still a movie I enjoy watching every now and then and I think you would like it too, but don't take my word for it as other users have their opinions.And I thought the Kite Eating tree in the peanuts comics gave me nightmares.

videorama-759-859391 William Friedkin has made a string of good movies. The Guardian, sorrily doesn't join that list. This is one of a couple of films, I couldn't understand why he made. But when saying that, I don't mean that the others in that short list were all badM like this one. Friedkin just demeans himself with this one, and it isn't the actor's fault. They can only do so much with what they got. Jenny Seagrove who has a powerful if mesmerizing presence, plays a nanny to a new couple, where she becomes quite close with their baby. But Seagrove isn't all she seems, killing off one of her competition in the Nanny department, a surprise of a rising black actress, to pop up in this. She's a supernatural evil spirit, who sacrifices infants to the trees, where they're nothing more than in bred shapes. And guess whose her latest victim? (some instances of familiarity here too, to that 87' grizzly and religious horror flick, The Believers) Other movies, that have familiar or very familiar themes to The Guardian, have been done much better. The story here, isn't really well plotted, and that's an understatement. On first viewing, if ignoring that little line of prologue, you will really find it hard to figure it's story. It takes a while for the very low quota of scares to happen, and the over use of blood splillage, all that blood gushing from the trees, had me thinking, that this had to make up for the lack of shocks and thrills, especially right near the end, where the film goes crazy, where I felt I was watching a Texas Chainsaw Massacre flick. But I did like the gore, though. The scary part of the film, was when that neighbor was entrapped by those wolves clawing at the windows of his pad, and a juicy revenge moment involving three robber/rapists, getting their just desserts, out there in the woods. Seagrove is a sight to behold, an interesting choice of casting, in a quite good and menacing (I didn't say scary) performance, wasted in this misfire. The only other movie I ever saw her in, was Savage Islands from the 80's. The actor who boasted about being in the movie, I guessed right, before going to the contribute page: He had a bit part: Chunky robber 2. Honestly with this one, I wouldn't brag. Not without interest to Friedkin fans, to give their verdict on this.

Mr_Ectoplasma "The Guardian" centers on a young bourgeois couple who move to the Los Angeles suburbs upon the arrival of their newborn son; seeking a nanny, as both husband and wife plan on continuing to work, they hire the mysterious Camilla (Jenny Seagrove), a polite Engliish woman who very quickly becomes part of the family— that is, until they discover she's actually a druid Hamadryad who sacrifices newborns to a sacred tree in the woods near their house.When discussing this film, William Friedkin has been quoted as saying that he wanted to "make a fairytale for adults," and I think that's the most appropriate lens under which to view this film— anyone trying to take issue with the film's whimsical nature or its lack of "seriousness" is missing the point here. While "The Guardian" is a flawed film in multiple ways, it seems to get the most flack for its relatively absurdist plot. There's an evil nanny sacrificing babies to a tree, and the tree periodically comes to life to ward off and kill anyone who means harm— I get it, it's a bit out of the realm of reality. At the same time, Friedkin's horror landmark "The Exorcist", filmed seventeen years before, concerns a twelve-year-old possessed girl who vomits green slime, whose head spins around, and who masturbates with a crucifix; granted, I don't know what your daily life is like, but for me, that's just about equally outside the realm of what I call "reality". It's not that I'm equating Friedkin's work on "The Guardian" with that on "The Exorcist"— "The Exorcist" is clearly the better film— but criticizing this film on the grounds of its fantastical plot is not only fallacious— it's hypocritical. Despite what you may or may not make of its plot, the greatest strength that "The Guardian" has is its classy cinematography and striking visuals. There are amazing shots in this film; shadows of the trees on the bedroom ceiling come to life, and Camilla's ventures into the atmospheric forest are beautifully and hauntingly photographed. For what it's worth, "The Guardian" also boasts some impressive "Evil Dead"-esque special effects that still hold up today even, and take center stage at the end of the film. For a film made in 1989, the special effects behind the anthropomorphic tree are especially impressive, and also quite sinister; the faces of infants embossed in tree bark are nothing short of chilling.There are flaws here, however, the most prominent (and surprisingly least discussed) being the underdevelopment of Dwier Brown and Carey Lowell's characters; granted, they are secondary to Camilla, but their vitality to the plot begs for something more, as both of them feel pretty hollow. Jenny Seagrove is the film's highlight as the mysterious and sensuous Camilla— this is her film more than anyone else's, and her turn as a tree-morphing villainess makes the film worth a watch alone. Another obtrusive issue here is the film's sloppy editing, which makes for a somewhat jarring viewing experience at times. The choppiness that seems to arise throughout the film isn't a deliberate stylistic touch either, but rather just a side effect of poor editing. It certainly doesn't kill the film, but it does make it appear a bit unnecessarily rough around the edges.Overall, "The Guardian" is, I think, an unjustly hated film— perhaps even misunderstood in some regard. It's no masterpiece, and is arguably one of Friedkin's weakest films to date, but when you take into consideration its unusual fairytale tinges and the sophisticated cinematography on display, there is something legitimately worthwhile here for genre fans. People call absurdism on this film, but I say nay. Like Friedkin said, it's a fairytale for adults— an uneven, shoddily edited, and perhaps half-baked fairytale, but a fairytale no less. Most memorable moments: the architect neighbor following Camilla to the tree, and the high-speed levitation chase through the forest at the end. 7/10.