Disclaimer: This site does not store any files on its server.

Watch Les gardiennes

Les gardiennes is a movie starring Nathalie Baye, Laura Smet, and Iris Bry. Women are left behind to work a family farm during the Great War.

War, Drama
Xavier Beauvois
Nathalie Baye, Iris Bry, Laura Smet, Cyril Descours

All Systems Operational

Product details

Genres War, Drama
Director Xavier Beauvois
Writer Marie-Julie Maille, Xavier Beauvois, Frédérique Moreau, Ernest Pérochon
Stars Nathalie Baye, Iris Bry, Laura Smet, Cyril Descours
Country Belgium, Switzerland, France
Also Known As Los guardianes, Suojelijat, Čuvarke, 田園の守り人たち, Vokterskene, Vogterne, Den'en no mamoribito-tachi, As Guardiãs, Beskyddarna, The Guardians, Las guardianas
Runtime 2 h 18 min
Audio Português  English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles Português  日本語  Čeština  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Description 1915. Life at the Paridier farm has changed dramatically since the men of the family (Constant, Georges and Clovis) left home to go and fight on the front line. Hortense Sandrail, Henri and Constant's mother and Clovis' mother-in-law, has taken over courageously but, although helped by her daughter Solange, she finds it hard to get by with all the workload. When harvest time comes, she makes up her mind to hire a farmhand but she is too late and no man is available. The mayor then recommends her an orphan named Francine Riant, who could do. Hortense agrees and the choice soon appears a blessing, as the girl proves perfect: well-mannered and respectful, she is also a hard worker who does not balk at any task. Hortense, Solange and her form an effective trio, who make the most of the situation. One day, Georges comes back to the farm on leave and he falls in love with Francine.

Top reviews

Friday, 23 Oct 2020 09:08

This is a truly fascinating film. The only problem is that the critics of this film are totally biased towards critical scenes. In the beginning we see an interview with a journalist who is worried about the current situation in France and has an obsession about the American news. This has to do with the fact that this film was based on a book, but the journalist has always been a good friend of the President. The journalist spends the rest of the film interviewing various politicians who all talk about American news. The reporter has the right to ask questions, but the president of France has the right to answer them. And then we have the President himself. He has to tell us how his plan will work in the first 100 days, and he tells us how he's going to make sure that this plan will work. That's a great deal of information, because this is supposed to be a documentary and so he can't have the time to answer the questions. But he tells us so much, that we feel like he's just not able to answer them. So, finally, we're left with an interview with a President who knows that we're watching a documentary and not a documentary. The only man in the world who can say something positive about the American news is his "best friend". How can this be possible? I've always felt that in documentaries, people usually see something positive that will not be seen by most people, so there is a lot of hype about these people. This film is different. We get to see people who are just unhappy with their lot in life and they talk about it, but we don't get to hear their opinions. The film doesn't say that the Americans are the bad guys, but it's still clear that they are the problem. That's why I think that this film has a lot of potential, but it doesn't do that well.
Wednesday, 09 Sep 2020 00:28

As with all I watch I really do like to try and be objective. This film is certainly not for all tastes. If you can't stand it, this is not a film for you. If you are, though, I suggest you sit down and watch it. I have not watched a film with more good than bad reviews before. I will not go into details. What I will say is that this film made me think. As in the old "Titanic" and "Aguirre" movies. I can't help but wonder how real people reacted to the war. To each other and to the war itself. What would they have done if they had been faced with the choice between a life of pleasure and a life of danger. What would they have thought? What would they have done? Is it possible to be objective about such things. To this day I don't know the answer. But I do know that it is a difficult thing to watch a movie about the war and not to be swayed by it. In a way this is a film about life in general. The love for your fellow man, the desire for peace, the desire to live your life to the fullest and to work for a better tomorrow. These are the things that I enjoyed about this film and the things that I thought were real and interesting to watch. I am afraid that I will be losing some of my own realism after watching this film. I think a lot of people like to believe that they are seeing the truth. Well this film shows the truth. It shows what war really is. It shows the horror of war. It shows the triumphs and the tragedies. It shows the madness and the joy and the love. You can tell that the crew and crew of the movie are trying to tell the truth. They are trying to say that the human race should not be in the same situation that we are in. They are trying to say that we should not fight for the right of any one country or group of people to have their own way of life. I think that they are showing this truth. It's a difficult film to watch, I admit, but in the end I really think it's a very good film and one that should not be missed. I rate this film 9/10.
Thursday, 20 Aug 2020 09:28

The first half of the film is made up of dialogue, which is often graphic and unpleasant, to be sure. But in this first part, the subjects are rather important. The dialogue serves as an exchange between the two soldiers about the horrors of war, and the feelings these experiences leave in them. I'm not sure, and it's probably not my place to say so, but I don't think the first part of the film should have been made the same way. It's not a bad film, but it's not for everyone. For me, the first part is just a beginning, and the second half is about the fallout, both physically and mentally. The conflict seems to start when the army of a neighboring country, by way of the border, comes to help the soldier, who had been shot. As a result of this, he believes he will not be killed, and will be able to fight for the next two weeks. But as the crisis grows, the soldiers begin to realize that there are more pressing issues that have to be addressed, both as a nation and as a people. And as the events of the first half roll on, more soldiers are killed, the nature of this conflict shifts from a local, international to an international one, and the final confrontation and the moral issues it raises are never less than intriguing. It's a must see for anyone who's interested in WWI, war films, or any other period movie. As the title suggests, the main star of the film is the soldier who was shot and killed. From here on, the events are depicted through the eyes of the soldier, and it's not easy to watch, but it's very good. He is hard-boiled, almost to the point of self-destruction, and he's driven by a need for revenge, which he gives up eventually. As he continues to move from one disaster to another, he begins to see, sometimes with his own eyes, how horrible it is to be a victim. There are a lot of things I'm not sure about. The film is uneven, with very little continuity between the first half and the second. This is in no way a criticism, as this kind of film is always uneven, and in some cases, totally different films can be made in a single day. I believe the pacing was good, and the first half, while not too long, was very important. The second half, while it's uneven, is very well done, and it's very important to keep this second half in your mind as you watch the first half. In a way, the second half of the film was the only part of the film I found to be entirely satisfactory. But this isn't a problem for the film. There is something here, something about the characters, and about war, that I really didn't know. It's almost too personal to talk about. It's not a bad film, but it is not the film I would call "great". It's a good film, and I'll recommend it to anyone who has a strong interest in World War I.
Wednesday, 17 Jun 2020 22:36

I agree with a previous reviewer who said this is a movie for everyone, but I am a bit wary of its poster. What is it really about? The movie is about soldiers returning home after the war, and has many different themes. The movie is about the life of a young man who was a conscientious objector in WW2, and how he had to get the hell out of the country when the war was over. His father was a war hero, and they were really happy with the change in their lives, but his father left for France. What he didn't realize was that his father was a German soldier who came back to find his son having been lost in the war. That was probably the last straw for him. The film is about the German soldier who was sent back to Germany after the war, and is now a farmer, and he is able to speak German, and even read books. He is a very likable character, and I actually like him. He is one of the more interesting characters in the movie, and I do think that the movie is not for the younger generation, but rather for the older. However, I do think that the themes of the movie are not for everyone, so I would suggest that you see it with an open mind. Also, I am not a huge fan of War films, so I am not going to try to explain to anyone what this movie is really about. I will just say that this is a film you will enjoy. The acting was good, and the directing was good, especially for a first film. I give it a 9 out of 10, and I can't wait to see the director's next film.

Write a review