The Guardian (1990)

The Guardian: Lesser known William Friedkin film which he co-wrote and directed, he was none too happy with the result but I would classify it as good Folk Horror. There are references to Druidic Tree Worship and human sacrifuces A nanny who is really a Hamadryad has a penchant for sacrificing infants to her Mother Tree seeing as there are no druids around to do the job.Great horror action as people are devoured by the tree, roots strangle and crush them, spikes burst up through the ground impaling unfortunates. Not having wolves to hand (it's in LA), a pack of coyotes also take care of troublesome oiks who discover not all is right about the nanny. Outdoes a lot of Nasty Nanny films. 7/10. On Horror Channel.

Following the birth of their son, a yuppie couple hires a mysterious nanny to care for him only for a series of strange incidents around them eventually causes them to believe that she's sacrificing babies to a spirit being and must race to stop her before she finishes.This was an overall decent effort without too much to really like here. One of the film's few positives here is the way this manages to really make the cult she's a part of seem like a creepy, mysterious entity. The first half here mainly comes off like a series of strange incidents around the house that don't really amount to much, yet all come together to build up a rather chilling concept here of the sacrificial cult. From the constant needling of the breastfeeding onto others, the way she always manages to wind up in the baby's care whenever something happens around them that could endanger them and the slow-burn way it leads into the revelation of her actual identity, so although there's not a whole lot of action here these scenes build up his feeling rather nicely. As well, there are some solid action scenes here featuring the group of thugs encountering her out in the woods and being drawn back to the killer trees which pick them off in rapid succession, the wolves stalking the one witness back to his house and forcing him back through all the different rooms before trapping him in a thrilling sequence and the finale in the woods is a lot of fun with the wolves ambushing them leading into the battle at the tree that gives this one a really frantic and exciting finish. Alongside the great and somewhat gorier kills than expected here, these here are what make this one enjoyable over the film's few flaws. It's two main problems are quite easy to spot and go hand-in-hand with each other, the cheesiness and its sheer ridiculousness. The ridiculousness of it might be its worst offense. There's no way that any of this could happened and the ability to keep it straight-faced and serious is a bit of a stretch to believe. Once it gets to the tree attack late in the film, then it gets too far out there to really become plausible. It just seems so out-of-place in a film about a psychotic nanny. The fact that the mystery surrounding her backstory is quite hard to get into all around and lacks just about any sense of cohesion also doesn't help since the entire concept of the cult is never given here and the only thing we get is their inherent creepiness to sustain us which doesn't last all that long. Though there are some that could be put off by the slow pace as well, as this doesn't move at the fastest point possible as well, these here are the whole of the film's problems.Rated R: Graphic Violence, Nudity, Language, a mild sex scene and children-in-jeopardy.

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.

Phil and Kate Sterling have moved into one of the remote canyon areas of Los Angeles. Within the year, Kate gives birth to their first baby, who they name Jake. Within a few weeks of the delivery, they make the decision for Kate to return to work as a designer immediately, which means hiring a full-time, live-in nanny.The development of "The Guardian" is a story in itself. Starting off as a book called "The Nanny", it was handed off to Sam Raimi. In retrospect, this seems to make sense given his history with chainsaws and killer trees. But he dropped out to make "Darkman" (a wise choice) and the directing duties were passed to William Friedkin.In Friedkin's hands, two things happen. First, you go from a fun director (Raimi) to a much more serious, award-winning visionary. That is a good thing. And second, you start a series of rewrites, with Friedkin himself writing much of the new material, and you go from a story ostensibly about druids to some sort of adult Grimm's fairy tale that never quite comes across on screen. This is probably bad.The film was disliked in its own time, notoriously making Roger Ebert's hate list alongside everything in Rob Schneider's career. It seems to have been profitable, but poor audience reaction overall doomed it to relative obscurity. (For a director as lauded as Friedkin is, it is surprising how many of his films seem to be completely forgotten.) What really makes this film fail is the pacing. Scenes are drawn out much too long, and where this should be a time to create tension and suspense, we end up just waiting impatiently for the next kill. For what it's worth, the kills are pretty good -- plenty of blood and gore for the horror fanatics who like that sort of thing. But you will be waiting far too long for the payoff, which is disappointing. This all has to be blamed on Friedkin, not the editor, as you can only trim so much.The rest of the crew is notable. Even if the names are not familiar, their work probably is. Cinematographer John Alonzo had done "Chinatown" and "Scarface", and Denise Cronenberg provided the wardrobe. Yes, Denise is a member of that well-known Canadian horror family (she is David's sister).Although not everyone will love this film, for those who have given it a ult following, you might appreciate the Scream Factory blu-ray release. The sound is alright. The picture is less than you might expect from blu, but this is probably due to the original source material. Much of it is no better than what you would expect from VHS, unfortunately. But where Scream shines is with the extras. There are several interviews with the cast and crew, most of which are new. Friedkin himself has more than 15 minutes on camera talking about his work. If you ever wanted to know anything, certainly your question is answered.Most disappointing (and I hate to bash Scream) is the lack of an audio commentary. The earlier Anchor Bay DVD had one (with Friedkin), and you would expect it to be ported over. There must have been an issue with the rights, but regardless of the explanation it is a huge loss and knocks this down from a "must-have" or "day one" purchase to something for serious fans only. (Sorry, Scream, but not every disc can be perfect.)