KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

KnotStronger This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

Melanie Bouvet The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Paul Andrews Guardian starts in 'Feburary 1991 Southern Iraq' where archaeologist Aaron Lichtmann (Todd McKee) uncovers an ancient artifact, however the Iraqi workers on the dig turn on Lichtmann fearing the artifact as an evil prophecy. Lichtmann is shot dead, US special forces agent John Kross (Mario Van Peebles) tries to save Lichtmann's wife (Phyllis Lyons) who has just given birth but is attacked by a mysterious woman who carves ancient symbols into his chest before he is rescued. Jump forward to 'Los Angeles 12 Years Later' where Kross is now a LAPD detective & is working on a drugs case trying to stop a new narcotic called 'Chaos' which turns users into killers. However a woman named Selene (Stacy Oversier) contacts him & says that a demon named Telal has is loose & is trying to kill the only person who can stop him, David (Steve Zad) the son of Aaron who Kross saved. She also tells Kross that he is the 'Guardian' of David & he must help defeat the demon Telal, understandably Kross is unconvinced at first...Co-written directed by John Terlesky I thought Guardian was yet another low budget totally forgettable horror film that ultimately didn't do much for me. The script by Terlesky, Gary J. Tunnicliffe & Jeff Yagher is as much a crime thriller as horror although the connection between the drugs & horror elements didn't gel for me, the film starts out heavy on the drugs side of the story but then that gets forgotten about as the demon possession story comes to the surface. It's a bit uneven to watch but at least it tries something a bit different which is to be applauded. The character's aren't anything special & the dialogue isn't any better. It's a little on the slow side apart from a few low key action scenes, to be honest it's not a great film although it's far from terrible. I mean I only watched it last night & I've already pretty much forgotten all about it, there isn't much more I can say about it except that it's average at best.Director Terlesky does OK, it's reasonably well made but it's nothing special. There's no style or visual flair & it's all rather flat & bland, it looks a bit like a cheap TV show. There are no traditional jumps or scares in a horror film sense & the action scenes were obviously hampered by the low budget as they aren't very good. Forget about any gore because there isn't any, apart from some shoot outs there isn't even any decent violence either.Technically the film is OK, it's not going to win any awards but at least it's competent. The acting isn't great although Van Peebles is alright, villain for hire Ice-T makes an appearance & he puts in his usual swear word filled performance.Guardian is an OK film, it's nothing special but at the same time it'll pass 90 odd minutes if your not to demanding. What else can I say? I can't recommend it but it's not as bad as some low budget horror films out there.

spoken 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.

dukevega *** 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.

dwpollar 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.