The Sentinel (2006) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
218 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
reasonably entertaining time-waster
Buddy-5121 May 2006
You'd think Michael Douglas would have learned his lesson by this time, but apparently he hasn't. For even after all the trouble he had with an adulterous romance in "Fatal Attraction," here he is in "The Sentinel" playing the role of Pete Garrison, a veteran secret service agent who's having an affair with none other than the First Lady of the United States. Even worse, when it is discovered that there may be a mole secretly operating in the service, the finger of suspicion begins to point directly at Mr. Garrison. Is he truly the undercover operative working to bring down the President, or is he merely a tool being set up as a convenient fall guy in a plot to rub out the nation's chief executive?

Based on the novel by Gerald Petievich, "The Sentinel" is a decent enough thriller set in the high stakes world of political assassination. Although it frequently strains credibility, gets lost in a maze of cyber/techno mumbo jumbo, and succumbs to a few too many man-on-the-run clichés, the movie still manages to generate enough mystery and suspense to see us through most of its many rough patches. Prime credit goes to Douglas, who after all these years, could clearly do these roles in his sleep, and to Keifer Sutherland, who plays a fellow agent with personal reasons for doubting Garrison's probity and loyalty to the institution. Kim Basinger also does a fine job as the beautiful First Lady torn between duty towards her husband and the man she loves.

You'll probably forget this movie the moment you walk out of the theater, but you should have a reasonably fun time while you're still in your seat.
59 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland go down a well worn road in a good movie that really should have gone straight to cable
dbborroughs30 April 2006
Michael Douglas is a secret service agent framed in a plot to kill the President of the US. Kiefer Sutherland is the agent on his tail.

Its not a bad movie its just been there done that with form over content film making. There is no real tension because the actors are in roles they've played a dozen or so times before (Sutherland in 24 each week)so you can pretty much walk them through whats happening.Thats the problem here, its all been done before, better.

The real question is: Do I really need to pay 10 bucks a head to see whats a essentially a big screen TV movie? I think not. As I said its not bad, its just not worth running out to the theater to see. Wait for cable where this movie really belongs.
148 out of 177 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Reasonable Idea, Terrible Screenplay
claudio_carvalho18 January 2007
The veteran agent of the American secret service Pete Garrison (Michael Douglas) saved the life of president Ronald Reagan in the past and became a legend. Presently he is responsible for the personal security of the American president Ballentine (David Rasche) and the first lady Sarah Ballentine (Kim Bassinger), with whom he is having a love affair. When his informer Walter discloses that there is a traitor in the secret service and a plot to kill the president, his former friend David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland) and the chief of the secret service William Montrose (Martin Donovan) are in charge of the investigation and all the agents are submitted to a polygraph test. Due to his situation with Sarah, he is compromised with the results and accused of treachery. He escapes, and in spite of chased by the secret service, he conducts his own investigation trying to find the responsible.

"The Sentinel" has a reasonable idea, of an agent failing in the polygraph test due to his love affair with the first lady, but the screenplay does not have any care for the characters. The running time should be longer and not waste in so many exaggerated details relative to the protection of the American president, and give more attention to the characters. In the end, the story is conventional, badly resolved and with bureaucratic performances of the good cast. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Sentinela" ("Sentinel")
33 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The director should stick with TV
dlevin-422 April 2006
This movie had all the potential in the world to be a modern-day "In The Line Of Fire", with great suspense, story, acting, action, etc... but the Director missed the ball. Every action and suspenseful scene was missing the added element that separates TV-movies from box-office blockbusters. It's hard to put into words, but watching all the action and suspense scenes felt like I was watching a mid-budget USA or TBS movie. The cast was great and them combined with a good screenplay and overall plot saves this movie from being a disaster. There was too little character building as well, especially for the 'bad guys'. The story was still good and the movie overall will still be entertaining, but needless to say, I was disappointed.
134 out of 170 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great potential ruined by terrible screenplay
TabareVazquez22 April 2006
"The Sentinel" is an average-at-best action drama that does not come remotely close to reaching its potential. The entire movie feels rushed, with random details about each character's past thrown at you in a poorly-written screenplay. The revelation of the true bad guy in conspiracy films normally elicits at least some form of surprise or intrigue; instead, in "The Sentinel" the character is far too obvious and the scene reveals a tangential and unexplained back story that should instead be much more central to the plot.

The rush to cram details in every fleeting moment ruins this movie. For example, without spoiling the film, the culminating chase of the movie is ruined by a ridiculous proclamation of certain password to get by people; the ridiculousness of the situation takes away from what should be a tense finish.

This review is not meant to be overly disparaging; the film received 5/10 because it is a moderately entertaining summer movie and I did not regret going to see it. However, the skeleton plot seemed to be trying too hard and the characters were not well-utilized. Eva Longoria is very attractive though.
119 out of 160 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Plot That Resembles Swiss Cheese
fwomp30 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.

Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who "took one" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).

As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service?

The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere?

And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?

There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the "What the...?" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exciting and Intelligent... Most of the Time
aharmas25 April 2006
There was some hesitation from my part about what this movie had to offer. For starters, the casting didn't seem right. Kiefer Sutherland had already done very well in "24" and the preview didn't seem to offer anything challenging to him or the audience. Eva Longoria appeared out of place, and the rest didn't seem very interesting.

When the film finally ended, I was not completely displeased for I had seen a decent thriller that could have been much better, had the responsible parties taken a little more care to watch for the narrative gaps and given a little more care to character development. We have seen threats of this type before, and that made the main conflict much more challenging to the writers. As an audience, we don't want to sit through the same old story again. We want to see something different, be thrilled and entertained.

There is nothing wrong with the casting. From Kim Basinger's delicious first lady. She carries herself with enough grace and sex appeal to make the part memorable. Michael Douglas has been and done that before. Unfortunately, the president is much of a non entity to even care about his fate. Sutherland rehashes his "24" tough guy approach with enough power to make it big enough for the big screen, and Eva does a passable job, as the newcomer.

Don't expect as many twists and fireworks as some of the established classics ("North by Northwest" and "The Fugitive" come to mind). Leave your expectations outside and enjoy the ride for whatever it might be. It's o.k.
85 out of 120 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Nutshell Review: The Sentinel
DICK STEEL22 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
At first glance, this film looks like the Keifer Sutherland series 24 for the big screen. With the focus on a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, a race against time, and plenty of Secret Service agents, the agency under the spotlight in The Sentinel.

But wait, the protagonist turns out to be Michael Douglas' character Pete Garrison instead, a veteran Secret Service agent famed for taking the bullet for Reagan in 1981. The SS agents are specially trained to "take the bullet", which is what makes them special - who in the right mind will put themselves in the line of a bullet and a target? But Garrison gets implicated in the assassination plot, and has to run for his life while at the same time doing his bit of investigations into the plot. All this because of his failure in a polygraph test, due to his adulterous banging of the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Tsk.

There are shades of Clint Eastwood's In the Line of Fire. Both featured aging actors, and aging veteran has-been heroes with a bit of a historical reference, who took the bullet in their respective tours of duty. While Eastwood's movie has a more enigmatic villain in John Malkovich, The Sentinel suffered from its lack of a central strong villain, preferring to share the assassination responsibility amongst many forgettable ex-KGB villains, and the mole within the Presidential Detail. With Douglas on the run from the law, he becomes similar to Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive, hunting the proverbial one-armed man while at the same time, relying on his smarts to outwit fellow agents, which turned out to be quite interesting to watch - despite slick processes, it still boils down to the performance and gullibility of individual agents.

Keifer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, top TV stars of today from 24 and Desperate Housewives, get relegated into support roles as the Secret Service investigators who are looking into Garrison's probable involvement in the assassination plot, and at times seem to have lept off the pages of CSI with their forensics skills. The beautiful couple had chemistry that could have resembled X-Files' Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, but alas these two had very little to do here. We know the reason why they're in the movie, and that is to get their fans into the theatres. Also, Longoria's role seemed unable to shake off her sexy-mama Gabrielle, and here, has her in fairly low cut blouses (Sutherland actually tells her to cover up) and tight pants (ogle-fest for fellow agents).

Nonetheless, it's still a pretty interesting look into the lives of probably the most highly charged and tense protection detail in the world, and the typical threats that they face daily, including the following up on every nutcase's threat on the life of the most powerful man in the world. It's a decent suspense and investigative thriller, with enough subplots to keep you entertained. But one thing though, like most ending action sequences, this one has a big enough loophole for you to fly a jumbo jet through.
31 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It is too much like 'In the Line of Fire' only not as good.
Movieguy_blogs_com21 April 2006
In 'The Sentinel' Michael Douglas plays Pete Garrison, a veteran Secret Service agent. He is being investigated by David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland) when it comes to light that there may be a traitor in the Secret Service who might be involved in an assassination plot. But David takes his investigation rather personal because he also feels Pete had an affair with his ex-wife. Agent Garrison must now prove his innocence and protect a President that everyone else believes he is trying to kill.

This film was rather disappointing. It is too much like 'In the Line of Fire' only not as good. There are several plot lines that go unexplained and few circumstances that are too unbelievable. It was not a convincing film.

Neither Michael Douglas nor Kim Basinger did that good of a job. Kiefer Sutherland seemed to be reprising his role from '24'.

I just hope the novel was a little better.
64 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why did Keifer and Douglas do this?
fatmaninatrenchcoat6 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously, can't they read? Keifer's character, besides being very cookie cutter was OK, But Douglas' character was just plain dumb. And I found it impossible to sympathize with him. He WAS a traitor, to his job anyway, because he was sleeping with the first lady. Not only it that unprofessional, but it means that he cant do his job while he's boinkin her, putting everyone around him at risk. And when he ran from his apartment, it just seemed like a petty, save my own ass move. Not to mention the "plot." I can't even begin to count all of the stupid things this movie did. And how, with seriously limited resources Douglas was able to basically solve the entire nefarious scheme by him self with very little effort. It is a shame to see two of my favorite actors working with such drivel. Every relationship within the film seemed forced, just like the plot "twists". I mean, was there ever any question who the bad guy was? And if you are not able to make your audience believe the president blew up on the helicopter, why waste time on such a crappy explosion? Don't get me wrong, I like a good silly action movie. I expected this to be very by the numbers and obvious. But you gotta be able to surprise me with somthin, or at least give me a good bad guy, or some gratuitous violence. Hell, I'd even take a sex scene. But this movie thinks that it is a well crafted thriller. For your money your better off with Eastwood's "In the line of Fire." Or even better, just go get the first season of "24". Now there's an assassination plot for ya!
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
When someone remakes MST3000 in ten years, this film will be on it!
chp_mn22 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Slow, Slow, Slow... There is no mystery or excitement in this film. If you don't figure out who the "mole" is in the first ten minutes you must be brain dead. The secret service must have been too, because it took them the whole film to put it together. There are no compelling characters in the movie (not film). The pace of the movie is slow there is no tension. The hired killer is an excellent shot unless he is aiming at Michael Douglas than all he seems to be able to hit is large panes of glass. The funniest scene in the movie is when the presidents wife says the code word at the anticlimactic ending. It is laugh out loud ridiculous. At least six people got up and left the movie early. I would have joined them if I were not sitting in the middle of the row. I would not recommend this film to anyone.
23 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gordon Gekko goes Secret Service
vanofam25 April 2006
It's been 19 years since Gordon Gekko used "Wall Street" to let us know that greed is good. Now, Michael Douglas takes the GG persona and morphs it into a Secret Service agent, Pete Garrison. Guess what? It works! This is a solid political thriller that kept me guessing. The detail work in showing the security precautions taken by the SS on behalf of the President and First Lady was likewise intriguing. All the leads were pretty good but, try as I might, I could not accept Eva Longoria as a Secret Service agent. Whereas Jodie Foster just made you suspend belief and really think she was FBI agent Starling in "Silence of the Lambs", you do not get the same feeling with Longoria. Nevertheless, this is a fun film, escapist entertainment with the Beltway as the backdrop.
59 out of 88 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Made for a quick buck
ernestorocks27 November 2006
I rented this movie hoping it would be a clever action/thriller film. It started out strong with an interesting introduction that gave a great feel for the complexity of the Secret Service's job. Also, it presents a controversial plot point. However, from then on, it's a poorly written, predictable movie. The characters in the movie are not developed at all, they are all very single-sided and do not come off as complex individual. This results in very predictable actions by all characters. Also, many of the characters seem like they have no place in the movie at all, it seems as if Eva Longoria's character is only there to put her on the movie poster and attract a male audience. She serves absolutely no purpose in the movie. Also, the main plot in the movie is never explained thoroughly, and some major side plots are left unresolved. It really seems like the writer of this movie was just trying to meet a deadline, and the studio realized that as long as they had some A-listers they could still make money off this film. Overall, it was just another Hollywood, message-less moneymaker.
8 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Waste of time and money
LawLess3823 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......

Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.

There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.

The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.

The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.

I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.

Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.

This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.
32 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Pointless, Z-movie garbage
CuriosityKilledShawn29 January 2007
The Sentinel represents everything about the soul-lessness of Hollywood and the saddening lack of imagination present in so many movies these days. I cannot possibly think of one good thing about it, it's all so generic, so factory-made and so lazy assembled that it really only exists as an infomercial on how to make money from the unsuspecting, undeserving public.

A plot about a Secret Service Agent planning to assassinate the Prez could well be entertaining. If handled by a good director or caring cast that is. Douglas is the one who is framed. Basinger is the First Lady, with whom he is having an affair (an undeveloped, unresolved plot contrivance). Sutherland is the best pal who believes his guilty because there would be no movie if he didn't. And Longoria is nothing. A woman with a fortune of Maybelline and...that's it. I guess there are less requirements for women when entering the Secret Service. As usual in a film like this the role of the Prez himself is nothing more than a tool, a token and is very badly written.

Clark Johnson's, he who gave us the equally as pathetic SWAT back in 2003, mechanical direction lacks any kind of signature and has all the visual sophistication of a cheap TV-movie. Douglas, Basinger and Sutherland look incredibly bored and phone-in their performances from afar. Eva Longoria, the most over-exposed woman of the 21st Century, is basically only in this to attract to the Desperate Housewives audience. Her role is 100% pointless and she does absolutely nothing to further the plot or add to character development. She barely has 2 lines to rub together. A truly shameless marketing ploy.

If you're a glutton for punishment then don't let me stop you. But it IS time and money you won't be getting back.
45 out of 73 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An Entertaining Political Thriller.....Period!
ccthemovieman-14 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed this film. I thought it was an excellent political thriller about something that's never happened before - a Secret Service agent going bad and involved in an assassination plot. Unfortunately, for Michael Douglas' character, "Pete Garrison," they think HE's the mole but he isn't.

He's just a morally-flawed agent having an affair with the First Lady! Since he's doing that, he's unable to give an acceptable polygraph exam and that makes him suspect number one when it's revealed there is a plot to kill the President.

"Garrison" is forced to go on the lam but at the same time he's still trying to do the right thing by protecting the President. Douglas does a fine job in this role. I don't always care the people he plays but he's an excellent actor. Keifer Sutherland ("David Breckinridge") is equally as good (at least in here) as the fellow SS boss who hunts down Douglas until convinced he has been telling the truth. When he does the two of them work together in the finale to discover and then stop, if they can, the plot. The crooks are interesting, too, by the way. Also, I have never - and never will, unfortunately - see a First Lady who looks as good as Kim Basinger

This is simply a slick action flick that entertains start-to-finish. Are there holes in it? Of course; probably a number of them, and a reason you see so many critical comments. However, it is unfairly bashed here. It just isn't intelligent enough for the geniuses here on this website. My advice: chill, just go along for the ride and enjoy all the action and intrigue. Yes, it gets a little Rambo-ish at the end but otherwise it gets high marks for entertainment.....which is what movies are all about.
15 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
zombie movie
abe197227 December 2006
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bar none, hands down the biggest load of tripe I've ever endured.
silver12dp22 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.

Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see.

However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Great Potential....Ruined.
filmfan9231 July 2006
There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political "thriller" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed "edginess" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Its what happens when the Fugitive and the Interpreter load up on Steroids
luthygirl92724 April 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Mind you, there were some good parts, lots of good chases and beautiful camera shots, but come on....Kiefer Sutherland chasing Michael Douglas on a boat, its Michael Douglas an actor capable of such good roles, what ever,did he see in this part!For the first part it was good and intriguing, then the whole thing went BOOM, and exploded into something not even worth the beginning.Come to this movie if you want to make fun of something. Because that is exactly what you will do. The icing on the cake is, at the end, Michael Douglas's character decides to RETIRE! After having an affair with the first lady, I'd retire too, shortly after that the lines also get extremely corny, its like the writer got tired while writing the middle to end of the movie. The song at the end, what were they thinking, they could have made it a bit more go see this movie...IF YOU DAAARE!!!
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Haven't I seen this all somewhere else before?
Boba_Fett113815 February 2008
This is your pretty standard average run of the mill thriller, involving a plot to assassinate the president of the United States. Sounds familiar? Of course it does. This movie doesn't handle anything that hasn't been handled before in any other similar genre movie. It's of course not like this movie is horribly bad or anything but it just isn't anything new and therefore this is a pretty redundant and forgettable movie to watch.

Also because the movie just isn't very original, it also doesn't exactly make this movie an exciting one to watch. The movie even is a bit boring to watch to be honest and even though it's fast moving it still is a slow going movie because it often takes too long between sequences that any action or anything else good is happening.

And then to think that people actually thought this was a serious Oscar contender before its release. All because Kiefer Sutherland was in it and this movie featured an "24" type of main plot.

It's a typical modern, fast going, slick looking movie, with stupid high tech gadgets. The way they all get used are far from realistic, which is typical for a political modern Hollywood thriller. It's also the sort of movie that tries to make us believe that the secret service has all knowing and all seeing agents and all oh so well magically blend in with the crowed, despite big sunglasses and tough way of walking and looking around. Just a couple of things which always annoy me in movies and unfortunately this movie is also filled with.

Problem is that the movie features a really far fetched and unnecessary made complicated plot. It's pretty stupid. At times you'll have difficulties understanding what is going on exactly. It takes away a lot of fun of the movie, which now takes itself far too serious instead. The fact that the story and approach of the movie is so far fetched makes this also a very unbelievable movie to watch.

The movie focuses mainly on Michael Douglas and his view point, which means that the Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria get pushed to the background. A shame cause they in essence showed more potential and seemed more interesting.

A very unoriginal, unexciting movie, that also takes itself too serious.

3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Nothing New Here.
rmax30482315 March 2007
Warning: Spoilers
It practically defines the words "routine thriller." Pieces of the plot are taken from "In The Line of Fire" and "The Fugitive" and probably others. It's about a Secret Service agent (Douglas) who is framed as part of a very real plot to assassinate the president of the United States. It's hard to imagine why Michael Douglas, who has both talent and a high salary, should be chosen for this undemanding role. The producers had a good chance to hire some talented but lesser-known figure, saved money without sacrificing quality, and wind up with the same results. And the director doesn't add much. The camera seems always to be moving. It jerks and spins jiggles and racks and zip pans and goes unexpectedly and unnecessarily into step motion. Now a real novelty would be if they held the damned thing still.

It's always interesting these days to see Hollywood floundering around in an attempt to find a suitable ethnicity for the heavies. Hippy radicals and black liberationists are as extinct as the passenger pigeon. Germans are showing up less often as World War II fades from memory, except that they do put in their occasional appearances still, as in "Die Hard." Like "Air Force One," this film opts for our old Cold War adversary, the Russians, "ex-KGB", but who are now identified as coming from someplace with a name like Samovaristan. Where and when will we see a new enemy on the Hollywood screen? The Arabs are waiting tensely in the wings for their introduction. Oh, sure, they'll have to come from another fictional country -- too much oil in the Middle East to rub anyone's fur the wrong way -- but the audience will be able to decipher the code. They may be from The Monarchy of Ramada but to us they'll always be "Arabs". Probably a radical sect of Moslems. Actually the chief hood in this film happens to have a working-class British accent but what the heck -- one foreign accent is as good as another.

The first half hour is filled with intrigue. Douglas is hated by one of his colleagues, Agent Javert or whatever his name is, played by Kiefer Sutherland, because of an imagined affair with Sutherland's wife. The fact is though that Douglas has been having an affair with the president's wife, Kim Basinger, so when Douglas is asked during a polygraph whether he's done anything to break the code of the Secret Service, well -- he flunks it. And the chase is on. Shootouts in malls, hotel basements, ships, in mid-air, on rooftops, and in seedy rooms. The bad guys all die. The good guys all live.

You've seen better.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It passes the time, but 'In the line of Fire' it ain't
shelfyowen10 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is not a really bad film and it does role along at a reasonable pace but compared to the similar themed Clint Eastwood film 'In The Line of Fire' it does fall well short of the mark. Michael Douglas does look good for his age but you can never suspend disbelief long enough to think anything other, than that he is just way too old to be doing this kinda shite. The first half was OK, however when the action scenes start you just cant help thinking; he might be OK to get a job at B&Q but wrestling foreign hit-men to the ground may be a little to taxing even for this sprightly old pensioner...

The plot was a little bit like painting with numbers and the way in which he finds the terrorists was far too obvious to be credible, but all in all, if you have an hour and a half to kill and are looking for some easy entertainment then its worth a punt.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
If you think this will be like "24" - forget about it...
bob-basanti19 January 2007
Based on the star power of the cast and the success of Kiefer Sutherland's TV series "24", I was intrigued about the potential of this story. However, I quickly found myself debating about the merits of going to bed early or staying with the movie to the ending. This story had too many holes concerning the background of the various characters involved, especially the people who are conspiring to assassinate the President. No explanation is provided as to their motives. Further, the personal dynamics of the 2 principal Secret Service agents concerns something that happened in their past. Again, no substance is provided as to why this became an issue. Other romantic relationships that are playing out in the background do not unfold in any manner to show why they are even woven in to the situation or where they are going. This movie certainly had potential, considering the climate of current world politics. But, the creation of a number of sub-plots all taking their turn as the focal point of the story, will only create a number of hanging unanswered questions if you are a thinker. If you want a mindless, quasi-action story, then you may like this one! On a positive note, I found Eva Longoria's performance to be quite good and a departure from the notorios "Gabrielle" on Desperate Housewives.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
No Secrets .......
Cate195618 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I will do you a service with this movie...there are no secrets when it comes to Plot when watching "The Sentinel." In fact, the plot is as old and tired as Michael Douglas.

But if you buy an aging denture wearing, toupee sporting, prune juice drinking government agent with the charisma to charm the underpants off the first lady and Eva Longoria, the guile to elude the entire Washington Police force, then "The Sentinel" is the movie for you.

For the rest of us non-believers, "The Sentinel" is just one more visit to the every familiar celluloid land of the predictable. A celluloid land where good guys live, bad guys die, tough guys kick a dying man while he is down, and First Ladies call the governmental shots, and everyone lives happily ever after, except the first lady, of course, whose pants will always be hot for the studly aging agent, who sets her soul on fire but ends the affair for the good of the country.


That Michael Douglas is completely invested in his own PR shines through in this humdrum, run of mill movie that isn't even worth the watch or the money you may have to pay to rent.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed