Guardian (2001)

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

I just saw this on the WB, and I can see why the previous comments weren't favorable. "Guardian" (2000) is put together like any of a number of books I've read over the years; important information is handed out at the beginning, then the story/action distracts and pulls the viewer or reader into another scenario, then the two are blended and brought to an end that refers back to the beginning info. I think the reason the end isn't fulfilling to some is that they aren't catching the hint given part way through the movie: "She'll take good care of him". And some perfectly good innocents get zapped along the way, which is a bummer. But that's all I'll say about that stuff.As for comparing "Guardian" to "Fallen", well, I think the movies have only one element in common, and I disliked "Fallen" so much it sits on my shelf collecting dust.Relatively formulaic, "Guardian" (2000) starts with an archaeologist digging up something he shouldn't, then the world as we know it is in danger unless a very human "chosen one" succeeds in saving the day. Mix that up with some modern cops-against-drugs scenes, a mysterious new drug, a couple protectors of a god's prophet-to-be, some supernatural goings on, and you have yourself a pretty good movie with several main characters portrayed by people you'll recognize even if you don't know their names. On the down side, if you don't read a lot, or if you read only non-fiction, you might not be able to follow the story.I thought the effects were great in that nothing was *obviously* computer-assisted, and the movie contained a healthy mix of stunts and other effects opportunities for variety. I didn't get bored at all. By the way, the "Matrix" reference made by another user is half correct; the woman's coat makes me think of "The Matrix" but the woman's stunts (IMO) are better compared to Alice's of "Resident Evil" fame, and very well done at that.I can recommend "Guardian" (2000) to anyone who might like the mix of detective story with supernatural and hero elements. And I'd like to mention that I didn't see anything I would call Sci-Fi; I'd label this Action/Supernatural/Thriller, or just a Supernatural Thriller.

SLIGHT SPOILERS This could have been a very good film.It is the kind of film where somebody came up with a fairly good plot, and a decent cast, then the accountants got at it, and ripped the guts out of it.The plot is simple, an archeaologist in Iraq, inadvertantly releases a demon, a soldier who is there to guide a smart bomb onto the dig site gets involved with Sumerian legend without his knowledge, gets shot and we jump 12 years into the future, LA 2003.I was halfway through the film before I got a grip on it, kept on watching, waiting for the big ending, and it never happened.There is a slight similarity to Denzil Washingtons Fallen, and this would seem to be an attempt at suspense and betrayal, it works a bit, but is too easily seen through. It is watchable, but with a bit of work it could have been much better. If you know the way when you eat a big Chinese meal, and you are stuffed full, then two hours later you are hungry again, then you will know what I mean.It wasn't a bad film, it just seems like it because it falls so short of what it could and should have been. 5/10

*** SPOILER ALERT ****** SPOILER ALERT ****** SPOILER ALERT ***I caught this late night on cable because it sounded interesting and there was nothing else on. It started out okay with a sequence set during Desert Storm and then moving to 2003 LA, which is where it went downhill.The first major plot point, an LA cop being told he had been chosen to be the protector of some kind of messiah, didn't happen until 40 minutes into the movie. And given that the movie is 89 minutes long, that's way too late.Now, with only 49 minutes to really tell the story, there were a lot of jumps--a lot of big jumps--in the plot which I could barely follow and believe even less. I'm no stranger to weird plot twists. I've watched a lot of Asian cinema, where plot twists and holes are commonplace, but there's a difference somehow. You watch enough of it, you come to expect it.But with Western cinema, you expect a logical path which leads from one scene to the next. That barely existed in this movie, which is all too bad, because it really seemed like an idea that could've worked if there had been some more meat to it.

1st watched 8/12/2001 - 5 out of 10(Dir-John Terlesky): Interesting yet unfulfilling strange action/sci fi yarn with good performance by Mario Van Peebles. This was an enjoyable movie until the tel-al demon seemed invincible and although I won't give away the ending, it really took the movie from "thumbs up" to "thumbs down" status for me. I was routing for this picture because of the variety of bad-movies that Van Peebles has been involved with, but despite Van Peebles well-done performance the movie didn't quite make it.