2hotFeature
one of my absolute favorites!
Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Roxie
The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;
Michael_Elliott
The Guardian (1990)* 1/2 (out of 4) A text at the start of the movie tells us how Druids used to scarifies humans to trees. Flash forward to couple Phil (Dwier Brown) and Kate (Carey Lowell) who find themselves to proud parents to a new baby boy. They end up hiring a nanny named Camilla (Jenny Seagrove) not realizing that she's previously stolen babies and fed them to a tree in the woods.William Friedkin finally returned to the horror genre nearly two decades after his ground-breaking film THE EXORCIST. If you're going to watch this movie then it's best that you don't go in expecting another movie at the level of that one because THE GUARDIAN is pretty bad on many different levels. I think the idea of a woman giving babies to a tree for a scarifies is actually a pretty interesting idea but sadly the screenplay here just offers up predictable scene after another and in the end there's just nothing too thrilling here.The biggest problem is the screenplay because it's all quite predictable and I can honestly say that there's not a single thing that happens here that you don't expect. Take the sex scene between the husband and the wife. Don't you just know he's going to open his eyes and see the nanny as the one he's having sex with? There's the fact that the police don't believe the couple after they find out what's going on. These are just two examples of the predictable things that happen throughout.There are a few good moments that keep this from being a complete stinker. I thought Seagrove was very good in the role of the deadly woman. She's very believable as the "good" nanny but she's also quite seductive in the evil parts. Both Brown and Lowell are also good in their parts as is Brad Hall. I'd also say that the music score was quite effective and Friedkin did manage to create one very good sequence dealing with a man trapped inside his house with evil coming to him.The gore effects are also another major plus as they actually managed to get quite a bit past the MPAA. There are a couple memorable death scenes and I would add that the living tree was a very good effect and the scenes of it eating people were effective. Still, THE GUARDIAN just has too many issues with the story and the lack of any real scares really brings it down.
movieman_kev
Busy career-oriented, Phil and Kate decide to get a nanny for their two-week old newborn, however unbeknownst to them the one they pick, Carmilla, is a Hamadryad (google it) who feeds newborn babies to her favorite tree who happens to love her back, so that's mutual. Yea it's as ridicules as it sounds.What is, for all intents, simply a watchable gory b-movie schlock fest, would be an enjoyable enough time-killer if not for the mere fact that I hold William Friedkin of a higher caliber than that. With the sheer amount of brilliant films that he's made, I can't really help but think of this one as a misstep, one that turned out as a guilty pleasure, but a misstep nonetheless.My Grade: CEye Candy: Jenny Seagrove shows T&A multiple times. . Carey Lowell gets topless (might be a body double though)
BA_Harrison
When professional couple Phil and Kate (Dwier Brown and Bond-babe Carey Lowell) appoint pretty Camilla (Jenny Seagrove) as live-in nanny to their newborn son Jake, little do they realise that the hired help is actually the guardian spirit of an ancient, evil tree that feeds on month-old babies.Precisely how an English wood spirit came to care for a malevolent tree in California is never really addressed (I'm guessing that she would need a Green Card); neither is the small matter of how Camilla continually manages to find victims within walking distance of her wooden ward without rousing suspicion (no-one seems to 'twig' her strange behaviour). Indeed, there are many questions thrown up by the rather preposterous script.Thankfully, such posers did little to diminish my enjoyment of William Friedkin's freakish fairy-tale, the director's slick, straight-faced approach to his material providing firm enough roots from which to grow an effective and fun-packed fear-flick. With plenty of atmosphere, one or two well-crafted moments of tension, an eerie central performance from Seagrove (who also provides the film with plenty of welcome nudity), the occasional spot of OTT gory mayhem, and an enjoyably silly finalé that sees Phil getting chainsaw-happy with the baby-eating tree, I found it easy to forgive The Guardian's obvious flaws.
Ricky Haas (saahdrahcir)
Great movie; an excellent follow up to "The Exorcist." If you're into horrors that are tense and not just about blood and guts (while still including it), this is the film for you-- if you can get your hands on it. It's been over four years since I first heard of this movie, and ever since I saw the climax scene featured on "Boogeymen: The Ultimate Killer Compilation," I have wanted to see it. So, I went down to rent it. Not available. I tried renting it online. Not available. I tried purchasing it, waiting for it to appear on television or On Demand… but no. I asked people if they've heard of it and only my father said he remembered it. And it was good. A couple days ago, I purchased and downloaded the digital copy online, and saw it.It was everything I expected, yet nothing I expected. Absolute brilliance is the only way to describe this film. Believe me, it has everything: a druid, rabid coyotes, sex, and a tree that harvests the souls of babies. I know what your thinking (Isn't that a Pink Floyd CD cover?), but this was a really great flick. Sure it wasn't as scary as "The Exorcist," or as dramatic as "The French Connection," or even as cringe-making as "Bug," but gosh darn it the film was enjoyable.I'm not sure if it's because 37 minutes and 12 seconds into the movie, the shadow of Phil's (Dwier Brown) chin looked like Jay Leno's or the subtle nuances that hinted Camilla's intentions for Baby Jake (He "slept like a log"), I nonetheless found myself smiling and thinking to myself that it was worth the wait.The scene where Ned (Brad Hall) got home after seeing Camilla's druid powers is quite possible the most suspenseful scene in film history. As he's dialing a number on the phone, you see the coyotes grouping by the window and thereby creating an eerie and effective dramatic irony. What I loved about this was that it didn't just try to have the animals trying to rip apart the house, director William Friedkin decided to play it slow. And boy did it pay off. Never could a death scene be so elegant while still containing blood splatter.However, this is a strong juxtaposition as to the previous death scene of the Punks (or, as I like to call them, the Potential Picnic Rapists). Gore went as much as it could without ruining the film… but, whose going to argue killing criminals like them in the most violent way possible? Essentially, the same goes with the climax, featuring beautiful visuals of the Bark Babies crying.My only criticism would be in the scene where Phil meets Molly Sheridan (Natalia Nogulich). The acting wasn't too convincing. The best performance in that scene just so happened to be the little kid.Get this movie. You will not be disappointed. Actually, you can even play: Guess that familiar actor! I bet you'll finding a familiar face in both this film and the television show "Nikita."
