La nurse

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.

Phil and Kate are a young yuppie couple just on the verge of having a child of their own. As both parents are too busy to take care of the baby,they decide to enlist the services of a nanny,and after screening many candidates,they eventually welcome Camilla.It turns out that Camilla isn't quite all she claims to be,as the baby is being groomed for an ultimate union with the tree she is beholden to."The Guardian" is William Friedkin's return to the horror genre.The film itself is well-made and offers some suspense and a decent amount of gore.However the plot is cheesy and predictable and the main performances are rather bland.Sadly neglected English actress Jenny Seagrove is the definitive highlight of the film.Despite some flaws "The Guardian" is worth checking out for serious genre fans.7 out of 10.

I've seen this film now 3 or 4 times over the last 14 years or so, and everytime I'm amazed how bad it is and embarrassed that I'd forgotten and watched it again. It's bad filmmaking from start to finish, very sad when you consider who the director is. I can't for the life of me understand why Friedkin made this film, must've payed nicely but it's got "TV-movie" written all over it. The script is utterly bad, I'm sure Friedkin must've known because he doesn't seem to invest anything in the direction, it's completely flat and uninvolving save for the (thankfully) lack of music. The lovely Seagrove (ooo', British accent, scaaary villain) seems uninterested as Camilla while ex-Bond girl Lowell (sporting a terrible haircut) just stands around doing absolutely nothing pretty much throughout the entire film. Brown is probably best, giving it his all with a character as dumb as they come. Some other fine actors are wasted; Ferrer and Randle are seen in two short scenes, and Berkley in one - alright, so he was a bit-part player back then but still. The different babies playing the todler are given a rough-and-tumble time, snatched out of hands, pushed, and thrown around. This film is just a mess, it's boring, no sense of timing, badly paced and constructed. It's supposed to be a horror film, but it lacks the two all important ingredients - atmosphere and suspense.

I remember seeing the edited version of this film years ago on cable and thinking. Gee, that was weird. Finally now though, the original version of William Friedkin's film is out. Frankly, given its ludicrous plot, the film isn't bad. There are some good scares here. The scene where Camilla's wolves stalk Runcie in his glass house is great. Scary, violent and real. Unfortunately, its the best scene by far.

The cast is really good in this "nanny from hell" story. Jenny Seagrove is sexy, yet spooky. Cary Lowell and Dwier Brown are fine. The supporting work from Miguel Ferrer and Brad Hall is top-notch.

The plot is just too silly to be true, so this doesn't work that well and too many scenes are just dumb. The punks at the park, the chainsaw versus bloody tree, etc. The music is bad and the photography sucks. So why give this a shot? Because its by a master film-maker and and, if your'e really into film, you can see about 3 or 4 different endings they could have used. Fun on a dark, rainy night.

To all those who gave this a 4 or less--you wouldn't know a good piece of film-making if it bit you in the ass.Granted,it's one of Friedkin's lesser efforts,but it blows away 95% percent of the horror films out there,in my opinion.There's some cornball stuff in it,but there's a well-executed kind of tension in the way it's filmed-great cinematography,a mood to some of the scenes that is creepy & effective.Also,I think the distributors made a mistake pumping the fact it was from "the director of the Exorcist".Big mistake.Anyhow,most people would think "The Hand that Rocks The Cradle" was a better movie(it scores a 6.2)than "The Guardian",but there's no accounting for taste,as the man said.