The Guardian (1990)

Powerful

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Brilliant and touching

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

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.

A solid enough horror from Friedkin but he is let down by some rather mundane performances and general lack of charisma. Jenny Seagrove is the exception here, not someone who I know much of, apart from her relationship with the late Michael Winner, but she is very strong here. Indeed, the only actor who is consistently believable throughout. She does well as the sweet girl who may not be so sweet, deals well with the nudity and lets it all hang out in the tumultuous finale. Overall though the film lapses occasionally into silliness now and again and this detracts from the fact that it is an original film that tries to do something different and if it is not quite as disturbing as it wants to be, it certainly contains plenty of gore and violence.

(Credit IMDb) Phil and Kate 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 neighbor, Ned, takes a liking to Camilla and asks her out. She refuses, but Ned 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 Phil and Kate which reveals that Camilla has special plans for baby Jake. I hated this movie. Not only is it a chore to sit through with the tedious pace, it's inexplicably stupid as well. We are given no proper explanation as to why all these events are transpiring, nor do they bother to tell us why a damn tree is wreaking all this havoc. It's a tree!!!! Granted, they pulled it off in Evil Dead by making a tree look creepy, but not here. We also get no proper character development. I had no background on Phil & Kate, nor did it make me care, either. I had no idea why babies were suddenly being taken to this tree, or anything of that nature. The only good thing about this movie is the excellent performance of Jenny Seagrove as Camilla. She was downright creepy and very sexy as well. I relished every chance I got to see her on screen. You may recognize Carey Lowell as the Bond girl from License to Kill. But neither her, nor her partner Dwier Brown (Phil) managed to make me care about their fate. It has some gore, but not tons. We get a grisly impaling with a spike through the chest, a body burned alive, ripped off skin, severed limbs, blood splashes and more. Too bad I was too bored to care. I was confused throughout this movieFinal Thoughts: The guy who directed this, directed The Exorcist? Say it ain't so! It's rare to find these days, and you should keep it that way 3/10

THE 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.