Guy

i just saw Guy on Sundance and I was completely flatten by it. That someone can make a movie of such impact with just one camera is amazing. Guy also succeeds because Vincent D'Onofrio puts out one Awesome performance as the subject of Hope Davis's camera. I cannot recall any actor putting it all out there like he does in this film. He gets striped of any artifact. You know you are not watching a real person, yet it is really fascinating to watch him, because as the camera follows you know that the ante is going to be raised with each passing hour. The movie is quite visionary in what was yet to come (reality TV). But this is more than that, Guy explores the subject of voyeurism from a complete different angle because this is not just an image of a person, you get the full character with all his pathos, and it pulls you right in as you start analyzing the need to be watched and the value of being watched. The movie is very clever in the interaction between the subject and the film maker. You really want to know more of the woman behind the camera, she speaks very few words and yet the few she says are very revealing. The urgency of certain statements reveals that this is not just a camera rolling, but that the cameraman is fulfilling some deep needs within her. This is not a movie for everyone, it will also get very polarizing opinions, you either love it by its rawness and its power to engage you and suck you into it, or you will find it as boring as following a pedestrian, but if your taste is a bit out of the ordinary watch it.

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.

Others here have commented enough on the plot, so rather than be repetitious I will focus on some of the themes. I was fortunate enough to catch 'Guy' the other night on the Sundance Channel. Having been inundated with commentary on reality television for some many years, I was not expecting to glean any new insights into the medium from this film. Much to my surprise and pleasure it seemed to really have something to say about the concept of "the gaze."

It is interesting to examine the film through the psychological lens of Lacan and also consider the gendered "politics of looking" so often spoken of in feminist theory. These concepts, I believe, are heavily present in the film. The reverse of the power dynamic alone (the female subject and the male object) in is truly fascinating and definitely makes it worth a viewing for those of you versed in feminist theory. It makes me wish I was still in college, so I could write a paper about it.

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 :-((((

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.