The Guardian Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Tonight, while the world is asleep... an ancient evil is about to awaken.
Alan and Molly Sheridan have a baby boy named Jake. They hire a baby-sitter, Camilla, to look after Jake and she becomes part of the family. The Sheridan's friend and neighbour, Phil, takes a liking to Camilla and asks her out. She refuses, but Phil follows her and discovers that she is not quite human. Camilla discovers that she has been followed and Phil is pursued. He leaves a desperate message for Alan and Molly which reveals that Camilla has special plans for baby Jake.
| Jenny Seagrove | Camilla |
| Dwier Brown | Phil |
| Carey Lowell | Kate |
| Brad Hall | Ned Runcie |
| Miguel Ferrer | Ralph Hess |
| Natalia Nogulich | Molly Sheridan |
| Pamela Brull | Gail Krasno |
| Gary Swanson | Allan Sheridan |
| Frank Noon | Punk |
| Theresa Randle | Arlene Russell |
| Xander Berkeley | Detective |
| Ray Reinhardt | Dr. Klein |
| Jacob Gelman | Scotty |
| William Friedkin |
4.70 out of 10 (1091 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Decent entry, if not overtly spectacular
posted on 29 Apr 2009"The Guardian" is a really decent film that might become a guilty pleasure.**SPOILERS**Moving to Los Angeles, newlyweds Phil, (Dwier Brown) and Kate Sterlin, (Carey Lowell) buy a huge mansion and settle in. Announcing she's pregnant and later bringing home their newborn son, they eventually settle on Camilla Grandier, (Jenny Seagrove) to be the child's nanny. Staying with them to help raise their son, she ends up really liking her but he starts to have doubts, especially after a series of nightmares about her that he can't figure out their meaning. It seems that she's a Druidic ancestor who had sacrificed babies to trees as a way to appeal to it's spirits. As friends and neighbors wise up to what she really is, the couple finally realize her true intentions with their child and race to stop her before doing the same with their child.The Good News: This here wasn't that bad, and there are some good parts. One real good reason is that there's a lot of suspense and great scenery when it really wants to. The forest is one of the creepiest and most disturbing part. The long twigs that bounce wildly in the wind, the leaf-less branches, and the fact that this is never seen other than in the dead of night, where the fog-encased landscape and creepy shadows play a huge role in building up a wonderful atmosphere for the forest scenes. There is at least one genuinely uncanny sequence that comes as one victim finds the heroine in a tree-grove, lounging naked and being caressed and healed by the branches of the tree, while wolves docilely sit at its base. It's a great image that is just off enough to become creepy while not being dwelled upon, giving it a lasting impression. When it really gets down to it, there's some nice blood and gore in the film. There is a lot of dismemberment's, blood spattering everywhere, and if you don't blink, you get to see one unlucky guy's head burst like an apple under a sledgehammer when he gets whacked with a tree limb. It's quite bloody, and it comes along pretty much throughout, and goes on into the end as well. Things don't work out so hot for this one though because when the husband chainsaws up the tree, blood spews out of it everywhere, the heroine's leg falls off, and it's over. There's also some really nice sleaze in here, as the spirit chick got naked quite a bit, and it wasn't until the end when she was like half tree and all covered with mud that it really works for the film. This here was pretty good overall.The Bad News: This here really doesn't have all that much wrong with it. It's two main problems are quite easy to spot and go hand-in-hand with each other, the cheesiness and it's sheer ridiculousness. The ridiculousness of it might be it's worst offense. There's no way that any of this could happened, and the ability to keep it straight-faced and serious is a bit of a stretch to believe. Once it gets to the tree attack late in the film, then it gets too far out there to really become plausible. It just seems so out-of-place in a film about a psychotic nanny. The fact that the mystery surrounding her back-story is quite hard to get into all around and lacks just about any sense of cohesion also doesn't help. These here are the whole of the film's problems, though there are some that could be put off by the slow pace as well, as this doesn't move at the fastest point possible as well.The Final Verdict: While being downright cheesy and ridiculous, this is still a fun and entertaining film. For some, the ridiculousness and cheese may be too much and will result in automatic dismissal, but for those willing to give it a chance, it can be a guilty pleasure.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Nudity, Language and children in danger
Pretty bad adaptation of a pretty good book
posted on 17 Jan 2009Dan Greenburg's novel (originally title "The Nanny" is a sexy, creepy thriller with a remarkably original premise. The film is only remarkable for its irredeemable tediousness, notable only for the ever-radiant presence of Jenny Seagrove ("Local Hero", "A Woman Of Substance") in the title role. She was an excellent choice and does the best she can with a terrible script, which makes me wonder if Greenburg ever read his own book, as he co-wrote the screenplay.
Okay!
posted on 05 Jan 2009The movie was okay, but I have never seen such bad editing and the music really sucked! Acting was okay, especially Jenny Seagrove! She was insane and at the end when she came after Kate, even I got scared by the way she looks! And believe me, it takes a lot to scare me!!! I would definetely recommend it, but don't watch the movie intend on seeing another "The Exorcist"
It might not compare to "The Exorcist", but it's better than some of the horror films out there.
posted on 09 Nov 2007Promoted as Oscar-winning veteran director William Friedkin's first return to horror since that landmark 1973 genre effort (which the man himself doesn't actually think of as a "horror" film), this patently silly story - a throwback to Gothic / fantasy style horror given a contemporary suburban setting - provides for an entertaining if not memorable show.Upwardly mobile yuppie-type couple Phil (Dwier Brown) and Kate (Carey Lowell) hire strikingly attractive English nanny Camilla (the bewitching Jenny Seagrove) to take care of their newborn son, without knowing about her employment history - it seems that she has a bad habit of sacrificing her young charges to an ugly baby-eating tree conveniently located in the nearby woods.This probably would have made for a good story in the Hammer pictures of the 1950's and 1960's and the Amicus pictures of the 1970's, with its ancient-myth style premise. I'm not so sure that it works that well here, but Friedkin delivers some good scary moments throughout the film, especially in the extended eight-minute suspense sequence involving the terrorizing of friendly neighborhood architect Ned Runcie (Brad Hall). Seagrove plays her part so well (and Brown and Lowell are likable enough) to be able to sell the picture practically on her own.Familiar faces in the cast include Miguel Ferrer, Xander Berkely, and Theresa Randle, none of whom get to do much, which is unfortunate giving how often they've proved themselves great talents in more substantial roles.Friedkin indulges in some graphic mayhem here and there, which may provide some motivation for the more hardcore horror fan to seek it out. The picture moves fairly well, with an eerie and sometimes understated music score by Jack Hues of the 1980's rock group Wang Chung, as in "Everybody Wang Chung Tonight". That said, Friedkin actually uses sound as much as music to suggest suspense, letting the atmosphere and sound effects to sell the scares just as well.Overall, it's not a classic by any stretch of the imagination, but it's watchable and entertaining enough, with some good moments worth catching.If we can learn anything from a film like this, it's just this: it's wise to check your nanny's references *BEFORE* you hire her.6/10
stupid film (spoilers ahead!)
posted on 10 Apr 2007I host a short program on a local radiostation and this film was last week's topic as it was going to be aired on a Dutch network. I tore the film apart (with the emphasis on director william Friedkin's downward spiral), which wasn't really fair of me considering I had seen the film only once, more than four years ago. When the opening credits started to roll again last week, I sat down in front of the telly, hoping I hadn't been too harsh. No.The first thing that bothers me about this film is the lack of tension in the very thin story. Even more so than a Friday the 13th slasher flick, it's just killing time before the final showdown. The editing was very poor. A lot of times, the cuts back and forth didn't match (please notice the job interview with the black girl); the pacing was all bad (nanny runs away from a couple of rapists and apparently, it takes those thugs about five seconds to realize she's making a run for it); a lot of times, it was difficult to determine where people were standing.Then, the story. HA! Excuse me a sec while I try to pull myself together. Here we have an ancient druid in a hot sexy nanny disguise, sacrificing children to an ancient tree because she...well, to quote Johnny Depp in the excellent Sleepy Hollow: 'Because!' She moves from state to state (as more people pointed out: she carries the tree around in her luggage or something?) to do her nasty job. But, wait, that's not all. You see, there's a deadline involved. The child cannot be more than 30 days old because his bloodcells change and that won't do nanny and her tree any good. Why not? Well...because!After a while, the filmmakers realized that nothing was going on, so to kill time, nanny must kill someone. This time it's the couple's friendly architect neighbor. The poor bloke fell in love with nanny from hell and runs after her with a bunch of flowers when she disappears into the woods. He's witness to a rather weird scene (in a long shot, she seems to be masturbating on a treebranch). Hunted by wild coyotes, the poor lovesick prey runs back to his house, abandoning his semi. He calls the police, wisely shuts up about what he's seen, but reports the coyotes in his backyard. The police still dismisses it as a joke and hangs up on him, leaving the bloke screaming in his phone: hello?! Hello?!A strange woman contacts the baby's parents, claiming that a nanny kidnapped their young boy, whom they never saw again. Mom and Dad confront nanny with these accusations but baby gets sick and they rush to the hospital. Nanny shows up and Mom and Dad take their ill baby and flee from the hospital. Now why would they do that? At this point, they don't know that nanny is a supernatural being. A kidnapping bitch, probably, but a supernatural being, no. Arriving at their house, mom and dad are awaited by a bunch of coyotes. "They want the baby!", mom shouts. I guess we're supposed to chalk that up to motherly intuition, because, at this point, there's still no reason for them to assume that nanny is a supernatural being, let alone assuming that nanny controls the local wildlife. Nanny shows up, flying through the woods. That should be mom's and dad's first actual clue that something rather odd is going on. Nanny snuffs it, Carmageddon-style. Mom and Dad report what happened to the police. Unlike their late neighbor, they don't seem to realize that it might be smart to slightly alter or shorten the truth of what happened. After all, the police is now listening to two parents saying something like 'We took our very ill baby out of the hospital because the flying nanny wanted to sacrifice him to the ancient tree'. Hey, I don't know about you, but if I were the cop on duty, there would be three words running through my mind: infant welfare centre. And besides, the cops -of course- didn't find nanny's body, which further diminishes their story's credibility. Any-hoo, Dad somehow deduces that chain-sawing the ancient tree to bits will solve the problem and that leaving his wife and kid at home while the nanny is still around somewhere, is yet another winning idea.While dad is sawing firewood and ripping off Evil Dead 2, mom and baby are SURPRISE! I DIDN'T SEE THAT ONE COMING! attacked by nanny. Friedkin uses rather unusual editing techniques, probably wanting to scare the hell out of the audience, but this particular audience member was, by turns, laughing and feeling disoriented.Mom violently pushes the nanny onto the landing (never mind the baby who's lying there) and through the window, where she falls apart into a thousand matches. Dad, returning from the woods, joins his wife and son as they look out the window, where a mysterious owl leaves it open for a possible sequel. May the saints preserve us.* 1/2 out of ****
the tree from hell!
posted on 04 Dec 2005I remember seeing the edited version of this film years ago on cable and thinking. Gee, that was weird. Finally now though, the original version of William Friedkin's film is out. Frankly, given its ludicrous plot, the film isn't bad. There are some good scares here. The scene where Camilla's wolves stalk Runcie in his glass house is great. Scary, violent and real. Unfortunately, its the best scene by far.The cast is really good in this "nanny from hell" story. Jenny Seagrove is sexy, yet spooky. Cary Lowell and Dwier Brown are fine. The supporting work from Miguel Ferrer and Brad Hall is top-notch.The plot is just too silly to be true, so this doesn't work that well and too many scenes are just dumb. The punks at the park, the chainsaw versus bloody tree, etc. The music is bad and the photography sucks. So why give this a shot? Because its by a master film-maker and and, if your'e really into film, you can see about 3 or 4 different endings they could have used. Fun on a dark, rainy night.
Another childhood memory exposed to the cynical eyes of adulthood
posted on 16 Jul 2005I very distinctively remember seeing "The Guardian" as a child and being scared to death by it. Like so many things that you remember fondly from your childhood, this movie also turns out to be far less interesting than you imagined. By 1990 William Friedkin, who recently redeemed himself with "Bug", had come to a dead end in his career. Still best known for "The Exorcist", the man was given another shot at the horror genre. Apparently producers hoped that his name would attract a few fans. Well, just like you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, you shouldn't judge a movie by its director. "The Guardian" turns out to be a real turkey.Just by looking at the plot summary one should be able to make out that this isn't going to be a landmark film in horror history. Apparently someone thought that the tree scenes in "Poltergeist" and "The Evil Dead" were rather rad and decided to make a horror movie that centered solely around trees. Add to that a nice little "evil nanny"-story ("The Hand That Rocks The Cradle" actually wasn't released until two years after this movie) and you got yourself an original horror flick, right? Wrong. That premise just doesn't make for much of a motion picture. All throughout the movie you could feel how much the writers had to stretch the story, so this wouldn't turn into a short film. To increase the body count bullies are thrown in randomly who get their asses kicked by the evil tree (which looks scary as hell, as you can imagine, branches moving and all!).Of course, a tree doesn't make for a very good killer since it's not really all that mobile, so we get a bunch of flesh-craving coyotes to serve the nanny's evil purposes. COYOTES! What a great idea! We've never seen those in a horror movie before, have we? At one point they chase a victim to his house and another one of those drawn out sequences follows. The chase just won't stop. Some reviewers here call it suspense, I call it a poor excuse to extend the movie's running time."The Guardian"'s low point, however, is a scene in the hospital after the couple begins to suspect that there's something wrong with their nanny. For some reason their baby doesn't feel well, so it is attached to all sorts of medical machinery. All of a sudden the nanny appears and tries to take the baby away. Then the father comes in, takes the kid out of the nanny's arms and knocks her out WITH THE BABY IN HANDS only to run away from the hospital. Why not call the police and put the baby back on the hospital bed? No, better just run.The movie is full of such awkward moments that only a child would believe. We never get explanations for anything. The script is so huddled that even the basic premise of druids sacrificing people to trees is never mentioned in the actual film but spelt out at the begging before the opening credits in true "Star Wars"-fashion.Well, with a script like that, you can't blame Friedkin for not coming up with a masterpiece, but his tepid direction sure doesn't help matters much. Unfortunately, I only saw a cut version of this, so I didn't get to see much of the supposed gore that can be found here and there. I just hope it's good enough to justify the rest of this mess, but I doubt it."The Guardian" has virtually been forgotten about and not without reason. Lovers of the obscure may get a kick out of this, everyone else may be well-advised to rather watch the Kevin Costner-flick of the same name.
Bummer.
posted on 14 May 2005Director Friedkin has made some wildly overrated films ("The French Connection", "The Exorcist"), but he didn't fool anyone this time; this 1990 bummer was (deservedly) neglected by everyone. An obvious and tiresome story is hampered even further by flat and uninspired direction and padded out to a full-length running time, even though I doubt it could sustain more than half an hour. The cast is competent enough, there are some good effects, but nothing can overcome the film's extreme OBVIOUSNESS.
EYES OF FIRE PART 2
posted on 11 May 2005Whether you like THE GUARDIAN or not, make sure to watch EYES OF FIRE, an independent horror film made in the early 1980s about a tree trying to get the kids from a wandering group of colonists. This big budgeted William Friedkin horror film was based on a book, which the author, Dan Greenburg, definitely "borrowed" heavily from the indie horror movie.The idea of sacrificial offerings for a sentient tree is actually pretty good but in this case, no one, including the director, had their hearts in this project and the whole thing just feels like they filmed it because they were paid to do it, nothing else.There are some interesting moments here and there. And the cast is attractive. But the film never creates any foreboding atmosphere, which it clearly needed from the get go. In the end, THE GUARDIAN just looks like a a silly TV movie of the week about some yuppies not being able to live their perfect lives because they're being tormented by something "out there."
A tree with a horrible attitude! Don't judge the movie for it's plot.
posted on 26 Apr 2005This is an entertaining horror movie that tries to cover fairytale and occult aspects with the aid of splatter and some tension. The beginning of the movie is actually very creepy and sets the mood for the rest of the movie although it gets dull at some points. The plot is very interesting and truly makes you worry about the lead character and her baby (you can clearly notice the baby is a dummy in the climatic scene). Really, the plot is macabre and very well done executed. The direction is pretty stylish for a low budgeter like this. The man who brought us "The Exorcist" still got the touch when creating tense scenes with bits of macabre. I can say that the direction was eerie and that early 90's feeling adds some tension to the picture. The husband , who looks somehow like Ash from "EviL Dead II" sawing the tree is the highlight of the movie and offers some glorious gore. Talking about gore, the ending is memorable. Gorehounds will be very pleased with all the splatter and tree massacre sequences.Overall, this is an entertaining movie that should be more enjoyed by b-enthusiasts. The creepy scenes and direction make it an interesting option.
Disappointing Jenny vehicle
posted on 26 Jan 2005THE GUARDIAN seems like one of the more average achievements of master Friedkin–an urban Gothic tale, a grim fairy tale fostering the audiences' fear of the woods.Jenny Seagrove was a fine beauty and an average but interesting actress; here she gets to play 'Camilla', name of LeFanuesque resonance, and at least she offers something to glimpse at in her few nude scenes. The action keeps linear, the treatment will appear like quite unsubtle. A young and not very likable couple has a newborn son and hires a babysitter to look after him—the babysitter is Mrs. Seagrove. Very quickly Friedkin reveals that Jenny is a freak.
Nice Celtic theme
posted on 02 Jan 2005This film is not bad at all. It has the delicious Jenny Seagrove (from "A Woman Of Substance" fame), and some themes that come from the Celtic world, like living trees and baby-napping. Read all about The Green Man legend (Kingsley Amis wrote a novel about it, BBC did a very good documentary on it, Robin Hood and wood god Pan are one and the same according to it, some British Christian churches have him above their pillars). THE GUARDIAN is not as even as another Celtic themed film, THE WICKER MAN, and sometimes it is too Hollowoodish for its own good, but Friedkin's directing style is still superior to many others.Try looking at this film with a burning white candle and some incense, and maybe some Clannad before and after. :-)
b movie lacking
posted on 22 Oct 2004I wonder what the underlying logic behind making this movie was. I guess it's trying to be a supernatural rip-off of The Hand that Rocks the Cradle. The Guardian does have two cool gore scenes but the rest of the movie is a serious snore. Now I like killer nanny movies as much as the next guy, but this movie was lacking in both suspense and b movie fun. There is no sense of humor in the movie.
Silly, but quite enjoyable horror/thriller.
posted on 17 Aug 2003** 1/2 out of ****I always enjoy a good splatter flick and while I wouldn't necessarily call The Guardian a "good" film, it sure as hell is an entertaining one. The plot's pretty silly, with Jenny Seagrove as Camilla, a newly hired caretaker of a young couple's (Dwier Brown and Cary Lowell) infant son. Camilla appears to be the perfect nanny, sweet and loving, but actually, she's a Druid who needs the baby to prolong her immortal life, or something to that effect (the movie really didn't explain too much, and if you think I gave anything away by mentioning her as a Druid, the opening subtitles already state that info). She's also got a weird relationship with a big tree in the forest.The film's got a lot of stupidity here and there, especially the young couple, who don't bother checking Camilla's references before hiring her, or the fact that this caretaker happens to be able to move around so many residences freely without too much suspicion (okay, for a while, at least). And considering the fact Camilla's a Druid, where'd she get this tree? This is set in L.A., not Europe. As I said before, not much is answered, and I guess I should be grateful because I can't imagine any answers that wouldn't delve the material into further silliness.But I credit director William Friedkin for handling all this with a straight face. Some of this stuff (particularly the scenes with the tree) could have been played as camp, but I'm rather glad Friedkin plays this seriously and, as he did with The Exorcist, he manages to craft some truly suspenseful and frightening moments. Still, the film does slide into scenes that are too silly to be taken very seriously; you'll know what I mean when you see the chainsaw scene near the end of the movie.Unlike The Exorcist, he shows no restraint with violence, preferring to give us several enjoyably gory death scenes and a LOT of blood spattering everywhere. There's also a decent amount of nudity present, courtesy of the rather lovely Jenny Seagrove. She's not quite as effective a horror villainess as, say, Mathilda May in Lifeforce, but gets the job done. Dwier Brown and Cary Lowell are okay, a little flat during some scenes and certainly not aided by a script that makes them act like idiots, but are convincing enough as caring and concerned parents.Surprisingly very little music is used, with Friedkin trying to use the sounds of the wind and other such natural elements to create goosebumps. It's a good attempt, and while it works during two very lengthy, suspenseful sequences, he's still no M. Night Shyamalan. Considering the rather negative critical response The Guardian received, it's easy to see why Friedkin hasn't made a genre film since. But I enjoyed almost every minute of it would recommend it to horror fans seeking a quick-paced, gory thriller.
Whatever you do, avoid watching the edited version of this movie.
posted on 05 Aug 2003Somewhat creepy horror movie with a supernatural edge to it, kind of a more horror oriented "Hand that Rocks the Cradle". Basically, a couple with their first child hires a nanny with a very dark and disturbing secret. She has chosen this baby for a reason and it is not to simply make it hers. As far as horror movies it is somewhat good, it has some gore, a couple of tense scenes and some nudity. However, if you watch the cut version of this movie the whole thing changes to the point almost all the scares and creepy stuff is taken out. They seem to completely edit over the first scene involving the baby taken to the tree, a scene later with the mother makes it out that the child survived and is safe and sound. The regular version is not so chipper. The ending is screwed up to as it ends earlier and they basically cut out the final scene. I realize that you want to cut out some stuff so you can show your movie on the happy time family network, but in the end you should not edit a movie to the point its plot and meaning change. So for an okay horror movie with some creepy scenes and such give this movie a shot, for a pedestrian movie with basically no scares and all creepiness removed try and find the cut version of the film.
Had a made for TV feel
posted on 03 Jul 2003I kinda liked this movie. The special effects were slightly bloodier than "Friday the 13th" (sorry F13 fans!). The lead actress Jenny Seagrove was attractive and so was the scenery. Despite this review, I thought the movie had a made for TV feel and the actors were somewhat amateurish. I give it 2/4 stars **/****. SPOILER ALERT SPOILER ALERT: the owl at the end of the movie looked like it knew what was going to happen next. Maybe a sequel, perhaps?...
Hail the eee-villl sacrificial tree god.
posted on 24 Jun 2003A young couple Alan and Molly Sheridan have just conceived a newborn baby boy and to help them to juggle work and their home life they hire a nanny, Camilla. Their neighbour, Phil, takes a real shining to Camilla and follows her one night into the nearby woods. In doing so he discovers something unnatural about her and he does his best to warn the Sheridan's of her true nature, but Camilla can't let that happen. But Alan gets the message that Phil left on the phone, and he decides to check out Camilla's background.When watching this, the first thing you'll be asking… "Are you sure this guy really directed 'The Exorcist'?" But you know what - I didn't think the film was too bad. Sure it got ridiculous, but it entertained in a simple-minded way. I wouldn't call it better then 'The Exorcist', but wait a minute… don't lampoon me, but I enjoyed this outing far more. William Friedkin's "The Guardian" (adapted from Dan Greenberg's novel "The Nanny") is his second shot at the horror genre and honestly I wasn't expecting a great deal from it. While, I'm not much of a fan of The Exorcist (although I respect its influence), I didn't have any high hopes of being disappointed and after reading the reviews I was expecting a whole lot worst. Its not grand entertainment that's for sure, but come on - it's not that appalling. Well maybe so if you're looking for another "The Exorcist".If you're looking to be scared here, you better look elsewhere as this very sleek looking film is all about the style and the premise is extremely ludicrous and transparent. This didn't stop the film from being fun and actually at times quite suspenseful, as Friedkin's highly atmospheric handling paints a brooding setting with striking lighting composition, swirling air and clicking sounds. He also goes out of his way to provide some horrifically surreal imagery with explicitly grisly deaths that are audaciously bloody and a touch of gratuitous nudity. There's even a gusty and quite kinky tone of "The Evil Dead" amongst certain scenes too. The special effects are commandingly done and the tree is one ugly looking creation.The performances from the main leads - Dwier Brown and Carey Lowell can be described as belated, but still there's a genuine feel about them. But the real star here is the seductively charming English actress Jenny Seagrove, as the enigmatically dour Camilla. She's very good in her not-who-she-seems part. Miguel Ferrer and Xander Berkeley show up, but they were sorely underused in bit parts. The uneven material is filled with plenty of wretched and shallow plot details and it does take itself far too seriously, but that didn't hamper the enthralling idea and made it's silly attitude and execution even more amusing.In all, I found this attempt to have a fast-pace, strong effects, exciting build-ups and I can see this undemanding horror flick becoming a guilty pleasure of mine.
Turkey about a Druid nanny
posted on 14 Mar 2003William Friedkin, a director always more interested in the visceral aspects of his films rather than emotions or performances, still manages to get good casts for his movies and usually some very memorable work from his actors. This time, he sets his camera on nude Jenny Seagrove and doesn't seem to care about much else. The others here are colorless and listless; worse, Friedkin seems to have lost his Midas touch. There's not a believable moment to be had, only frustrations that lead to melodrama, and a plot--hazy to begin with--that never involves us enough to become scary. Towards the end, I felt Friedkin's presence with a stylish throwaway or two, but that doesn't excuse "The Guardian" from being so vacuous and dim. * from ****
- 1
- 2
Better than expected
posted on 22 Jun 2009This was the first William Friedkin film I had seen. Knowing that he had directed the Exorcist, I was expecting a 'scary' film and unfortunately it wasn't. Oh well, the film however was exciting and creepy and Jenny Seagrove played the part of the nanny with ease, presenting a brooding yet somehow likeable character, until of course, the end. Those looking for a gore film may be slightly disappointed, although there are a few good gore scenes but they are few and far between as the film contains a low body count. However, those looking for a horror thriller will revel in the films delights as it achieves this substantially and the film's last moments will have you on the edge of your seat. Oh and she keeps getting naked for those of you who like that sort of thing, i wasn't complaining!