Guy

Two years before "Truman Show" hit the screen, this small, little-known production examined similar issues of voyeurism and viewer obsession. Call this the flip side of "Truman Show" -- he KNOWS he's being filmed, and eventually starts to enjoy it in a twisted fashion. Far from the feel-good dynamic of "TS," this is rough, mean, sometimes brutal and perverse storytelling, but it is no less deeply profound because of it.

D'Onofrio is brilliant, as always. Director Lindsey-Hogg makes the fantastic choice of having "Camera" actor Hope Davis be present for the whole shoot, and the story's dynamic is immeasurably enhanced. Highly, highly recommended for adventurous viewers.

A fantastic comment on voyeurism and the media in modern times. A pioneer to the truman show this film echo's society's vicarious nature exemplified through the real life TV shows such as 'The real world' and big brother, but hints at the dangers of our own obsessions with others lives.

Vincent D'Onfrio is amazing as Guy, an initally reluctant victim of a female filmaker's camera who begins to enjoy her attention.....which provokes consequences on his own sanity.

A brilliant film.

This is a great movie, it gave me so much to think about. It provides an insight about feeling safe while you are being watched, in this film it's a movie producer but although it doesn't directly tell it, or maybe it doesn't tell it at all, it could have referring to your parents watching you or why some people believe in god and feel safe with the thought of god watching over them. And the best part is that it doesn't dictate anything, this movie is nearly like a poem, you can understand it in many different ways, and everyone watching it can understand or see something different from it. And the best part is that it has an open ending and you ask yourself what may have happened. I believe the writer knows the human psychology very well.

Experimental films are praiseworthy for being just that. In the present instance, however, there is little else to recommend this one.

Since most films are by nature dramatic, going beyond the commonplace by way of revealing truths requiring vivid action or language, one important measure to be kept in mind is that they are also selective of this or that bit of new or unique presentation allowing us to appreciate the art of the author, the director, or the actors themselves. Just aiming the camera and saying "action" and then allowing the thing to develop sans editing defeats any purpose intended.

Guy is an example of home video run amok. Moreover it denigrates women in general by featuring a main character whose sole reason for existing seems to be draping his doughy body over every female in sight before vanishing into the mist. It just begs the question to try to justify this cinematic gambit by claiming how "true to life" or deeply introspective it might, as if by accident, be. Second-guessing the experiment, however novel it may at first seem, is not my idea of fun at the movies.

I strongly recomend that you don't even give this movie a chance. Just the camera shots alone are enough to make me sea sick. I think I know where UPN got the idea for "HOME MOVIES" and that is GUY. I think Brandon from "HOME MOVIES" could of done a lot better job than the woman behind the camera.

If you rent the movie fast forward the movie at least an hour's worth and then play. There's at least 3 minutes of interesting film if youre a guy.

2 thumbs down :-((((