Genres

Visitors Review

Boba_Fett1138 2012-05-26 07:46:53

Haven't I seen this all somewhere else before?

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 anythingthat hasn't been handled before in any other similar genre movie. It'sof course not like this movie is horribly bad or anything but it justisn't anything new and therefore this is a pretty redundant andforgettable movie to watch.Also because the movie just isn't very original, it also doesn'texactly make this movie an exciting one to watch. The movie even is abit boring to watch to be honest and even though it's fast moving itstill is a slow going movie because it often takes too long betweensequences that any action or anything else good is happening.And then to think that people actually thought this was a serious Oscarcontender before its release. All because Kiefer Sutherland was in itand this movie featured an "24" type of main plot.It's a typical modern, fast going, slick looking movie, with stupidhigh tech gadgets. The way they all get used are far from realistic,which is typical for a political modern Hollywood thriller. It's alsothe sort of movie that tries to make us believe that the secret servicehas all knowing and all seeing agents and all oh so well magicallyblend in with the crowed, despite big sunglasses and tough way ofwalking and looking around. Just a couple of things which always annoyme in movies and unfortunately this movie is also filled with.Problem is that the movie features a really far fetched and unnecessarymade complicated plot. It's pretty stupid. At times you'll havedifficulties understanding what is going on exactly. It takes away alot of fun of the movie, which now takes itself far too seriousinstead. The fact that the story and approach of the movie is so farfetched makes this also a very unbelievable movie to watch.The movie focuses mainly on Michael Douglas and his view point, whichmeans that the Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria get pushed to thebackground. A shame cause they in essence showed more potential andseemed more interesting.A very unoriginal, unexciting movie, that also takes itself tooserious.4/10

2012-05-25 14:12:05

So-so

With all the talent involved -Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, Kim Basinger and Eva Longoria-- The Sentinel should have been a better movie. The idea is not a bad one: for the first time in history, there's a traitor inside the Secret Service, who's planning to kill the President of the United States. But screenplay has a lot of holes and flaws that not even this talented cast can overcome.

corndog92 2012-05-24 15:56:12

Wow, Do Not See This Movie, EVER

Wow. Where do I begin? Well first off, I slept through about half thething, it didn't hold my attention at all. This "thriller" didn'tthrill me at all. The plot was terrible. There were about a millionloopholes. SPOILER**They didn't even explain why the people were tryingto kill the president? **END I would not pay any money to see thismovie. I had very high expectation because I love "24" and KieferSutherland, but this might be worse than his movie "The Lost Boys" I'llbe very surprised to see this in theaters for much longer. It didn'tthrill me at all, and it left me with so many questions unanswered. Theaction scenes weren't very "actiony". And why in the world did theycast a President that looked EXACTLY like Michael Douglas? I couldn'teven tell them apart sometimes. Overall, it seems that this movie failsat being any good at all.

petekoolkid 2012-05-24 06:18:14

Cinema or DVD

I watch 4 or 5 films a week, at the cinema, on DVD or on cable TV. Iconstantly view the films reviews on IMDb and am amazed at the variancein the Ratings. I have just seen The Sentinel at the cinema in Kuwaitand was thoroughly absorbed through the whole film and the camera workwas excellent. Maybe the low ratings for films are from people who haveseen the film on DVD. I think you do not get the same impact whenwatching most films on a TV screen. Sitting in a cinema, watching theall the fine detail on a massive screen and the incredible surroundsound makes much more of an impact than sitting at home with all thedistractions. Maybe the voting should be accompanied by a note of theviewing medium. Most films are designed for the big screen. BBC dramasare designed for the little screen. Both are great when seen on therelevant format.

info-9865 2012-05-20 14:46:07

Poor Desperate housewives meets 24 badly

This looks to have all the makings of a great film Top TV Series actorsand Michael Douglas thrown in for good measure. Looking a bit youngernow the plastic surgery has healed but still too old for the role heplays in this film. Its poor, next to no character development verylittle suspense. Kiether Sutherland does his best with a poor scriptbut you would be far better going and renting 24 if you have not seenit. If you want a assassination attempt film then 'In the line of fire'is better. This film was just not needed to be made, its a shameMichael Douglas has done some great stuff over the years and has hadthe pick of top scripts. Why did he choose this poor piece of work.

lemme_caution 2012-05-20 03:14:34

Bad Apple

It can be viewed that the story is the core of a movie from which therest of it grows. It then stands to reason that if the core of themovie is bad the rest of it will rot like a bad piece of fruit. And sothis movie is best viewed as a rotten apple.The main characters are all entirely forgettable, the dialog poor, andthe source of antagonism barely explained. In all the writing of thismovie is so bad that it at once instills a sense of enthusiasm in awould be screenwriter ("if this dreck can get on the screen maybe ihave a shot") as well as a sense of dread ("damn, I'm sure this writerthought he was as good as I think I am"). No one ever sets out to writeor make a bad movie. Well maybe Jay Craven. Keeping that in mind I'm,sure the script wasn't always as terrible as it ended up being. Thereare so many ways that a good idea or even a strong draft can be tornapart into a forgettable suck fest like this. For instance: Alien 3.However the story isn't the only bad thing in this movie. Towards thebeginning on the film Micheal Douglas' character walks in through thefront gates of the White House and we are treated to a gloriouslyCGI'ed shot (thankyou, Hollywood, for making CGI into a verb)thatbrings us from the front gate up around the face of the White House andon to the roof. My first thought when I saw this was "great...he's oneof those directors". Stuff like this is annoying even when Ridely Scottor David Fincher does it, its sure as hell far less then compellingwhen attempted by a novice. I didn't even bother looking at whodirected this mess which means I don't actually know if this is theirfirst movie or not but it certainly felt like a. this was their firsttime out and b. they have a background in either music videos and/orvideo games. i say this because the director frequently mistook jitterycamera movement and slick CSI grade graphics for tension and actualstory telling.perhaps calling this movie a mess is a bit overly harsh. the story(such as it is) was told and there was even a bit of lingeringpotential in the whole thing. whether this was revealed by whateverghosts of a good script that happened to make it to the screen or adirector who was generally more competent than outrightly annoying issomething only to be ferreted out by further viewings I have no desireto go through.My final word on this thing is to simply not see this movie unless youlike looking at a movie and thinking about how Brian DiPalma or MichealMann could have done it all much much better.

2012-05-14 02:42:36

The book far superior to the movie

I seem to be one of the few who have read the novel by Gerald Petievich that this movie is based on.Although many movie scripts differ from the book they are based on, the changes made here eliminated the most intriguing aspects of the original story.Among the most regretful changes are the motive and person responsible for the plot against the president.The revelation of the villian in the book took me by surprise and would have added a needed twist to the movie, which can only be described as conventional in every way.The other major change from book to film is the climactic attempt to kill the president. This scene in the book provided true tension with plot elements that seemed plausible.While it is unusual for a movie to be able to surpass the enjoyment of reading the book it is based on, (with the rare exception of something like "The Godfather"), it is most regrettable when the changes involve the unique elements of the book that make for a satisfying reading experience.

2012-05-13 16:37:26

Secret Service agent framed

Michael Douglas plays a long-time Secret Service agent who took a bullet in place of Ronald Reagan during his [...] attempt. Word has it that there is a plot to kill the current President and Douglas is supposed to be the man working on the inside to see that the [...] is successful. Investigators don't have to look far to uncover a motive, as Douglas has been carrying on an affair with the First Lady. Douglas has a tough job in eluding the investigators who are after him and trying to find the real Secret Service mole. This is a slick, fast-paced movie with plenty of star power in Douglas and Eva Longoria. It will provide you a good evening's entertainment.

BA_Harrison 2012-05-13 07:46:51

An enjoyable formulaic thriller with solid performances from its leads.

Ageing secret agent Pete Garrison (Michael Douglas) is framed in a plotto assassinate the President of the US. To complicate matters further,ol' Pete, who has been secretly getting his jollies from the the 1stLady (Kim Basinger), is absolutely loathed by David Breckinridge(Kiefer Sutherland), the man in charge of investigating the case.Yes, The Sentinel is somewhat derivative of the superior In the Line ofFire. Yes, it offers very little new to the world of politicalthrillers. And yes, it has some major plot holes and unansweredquestions. I don't care, I found it to be an entertaining movie withsome great acting from the always reliable Michael Douglas and KieferSutherland, some nice action and an engaging script.The story flows well, despite the complicated plot, and never drags.The film perfectly captures the world of the secret agent and is packedwith plenty of fascinating details about their line of work and theextreme measures taken to protect the most powerful leader in theworld.The Sentinel won't change the face of modern cinema, but there are farworse films you could be wasting your time viewing (trust me, Iknow...I've watched loads of them).

Critical Eye UK 2012-05-13 01:41:16

Once upon a time, in a Hollywood all too near. . .

. . . there was a discussion of how to translate a quite acceptablelittle novel into a $60 million star-studded movie. It went somethinglike this (note: *EVERYTHING* that follows is a spoiler) Green Light Person (GLP): So. . . it's a movie about a plot to kill thePresident and the twist is, the assassins are being helped by aninsider in the Secret Service itself.Pitcher: Yup. It's a zinger. The bad guys set up the movie's hero asthe mole to deflect attention from the real mole.GLP: So after the assassination, the hero is on the run, trying toclear his name. Yes?P: Oh no. He's on the run before the assassination.GLP: So how does anyone know there's a mole if the assassination hasn'thappened? P: The assassins tell everyone.GLP: Er, right. OK. But why raise the very idea of a mole? P: Well, um.. . If they didn't, then the hero wouldn't be framed. Andthen he wouldn't be chased everywhere.GLP: Ah. OK. So. . . the assassins with a mole let it be known they'regoing to kill the President thanks to help from a mole who isn'tactually their mole but a different mole who isn't really a moleanyway. P: Exactly. Simple as that.GLP: Doesn't that strike you as, um. . . Odd? P: Ah, but. . . They're foreigners. The assassins. So they're bound tobe odd.GLP: As well as incredibly stupid.P: Stupid? Hardly. They're incredibly clever. They spend a lot of timefollowing our hero and use hi-tech surveillance to photograph him andthe First Lady getting it on. The pictures, you see, are to blackmailour hero.GLP: Into doing what? P: Er, well, we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: O-kay. . . So. They photograph our hero because they know of hisaffair with the President's missus. Who told them? P: Well, er, we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: Hmmm. Wouldn't they be better off spending their time onpreparations to kill the President rather than messing around withmoles? P: But they don't need to prepare very much, their mole is so wellplaced, he can organise anything. Like, shooting down the Presidentialhelicopter with a surface to air missile! GLP: So that's how they kill the President. P: Eh? No. He's not on board.GLP: Their mole screwed up?P: Oh no. He knew all right.GLP: So how come they blow up the helicopter when the target is knownNOT to be on board? P: Er. Ah. Well. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: Right. I see. . . Now then, how does our hero find out about theplot to kill the President? P: An informant tells him.GLP: The informant is one of the assassins? P: Heck no. He's a street bum. American as they come.GLP: So how does a street bum know that foreign assassins are going tokill the President with the help of a mole in the Secret Service? P: Well. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet --unless, unless. . . The assassins tell him!GLP: So these foreigners somehow know a Washington street bum and theyalso know this street bum is a paid informer working for the SecretService? D'you think that's, um. . . remotely credible? P: Well. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet. But,but: it's not just the informant. They murder another Secret Serviceagent to make it all the more. . . Credible.GLP: Why? Does he know of the assassination plan? P: No.GLP: Then why is he killed? P: I think, well, put it like this. . . we haven't quite figured outthat plot point yet.GLP: Right. OK. Perhaps we'd better move on. Who're you thinking ofcasting? P: Keifer Sutherland.GLP: Ah! Keifer, running here and there, like in 24, action man, allthat stuff. Yes, that'd work.P: Sorry, no. It's gonna be Michael. Michael Douglas who runseverywhere. Keifer's chasing him.GLP: Shouldn't it be the other way round -- I mean, Michael's a bit tooold now for this kind of stuff? P: I think, well, put it like this. . . we haven't quite figured outthat casting issue yet. But we can always shoot Michael long, convinceeveryone he's faster and fitter than Keifer who's 20 years younger.GLP: Ri-ii-ght. OK. That's the plot. That's the casting. What about theending? Big set-piece, yes? P: You bet. It all takes place on the back steps of a service stairwayinside some building or other in Canada.GLP: You're kidding me.P: No. It's definitely in Canada.GLP: Indoors. On some steps.P: You got it. GLP: OK. OK. Let me think about this. . . I don't understand thecasting, I don't understand the plot -- P: Hey. No problem. We don't either.GLP: -- and I can't think why anyone with a single functioning braincell would want to sit through it.P: Yeah, but, apart from that. . ?GLP: I'm not sure. P: Hey, did I say, we're casting Kim Basinger AND Eva Longoria?GLP: Wow! So what do they get to do in the movie?P: Absolutely nothing. GLP: OK. I'm sold. You're green-lit for $60 mill.

Boba_Fett1138 2012-05-06 13:35:25

Haven't I seen this all somewhere else before?

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 anythingthat hasn't been handled before in any other similar genre movie. It'sof course not like this movie is horribly bad or anything but it justisn't anything new and therefore this is a pretty redundant andforgettable movie to watch.Also because the movie just isn't very original, it also doesn'texactly make this movie an exciting one to watch. The movie even is abit boring to watch to be honest and even though it's fast moving itstill is a slow going movie because it often takes too long betweensequences that any action or anything else good is happening.And then to think that people actually thought this was a serious Oscarcontender before its release. All because Kiefer Sutherland was in itand this movie featured an "24" type of main plot.It's a typical modern, fast going, slick looking movie, with stupidhigh tech gadgets. The way they all get used are far from realistic,which is typical for a political modern Hollywood thriller. It's alsothe sort of movie that tries to make us believe that the secret servicehas all knowing and all seeing agents and all oh so well magicallyblend in with the crowed, despite big sunglasses and tough way ofwalking and looking around. Just a couple of things which always annoyme in movies and unfortunately this movie is also filled with.Problem is that the movie features a really far fetched and unnecessarymade complicated plot. It's pretty stupid. At times you'll havedifficulties understanding what is going on exactly. It takes away alot of fun of the movie, which now takes itself far too seriousinstead. The fact that the story and approach of the movie is so farfetched makes this also a very unbelievable movie to watch.The movie focuses mainly on Michael Douglas and his view point, whichmeans that the Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria get pushed to thebackground. A shame cause they in essence showed more potential andseemed more interesting.A very unoriginal, unexciting movie, that also takes itself tooserious.4/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

2012-05-05 22:34:48

passable predictable thriller with little texture

The first half of "The Sentinel" is engaging, if unexceptional. Michael Douglas does a competent job as the aging experienced Secret Service agent, Garrison, who's framed by Russian agents seeking to kill the President, he portrays the "aging" part especially well. Kiefer Sutherland portrays his former protege and detail commander pursuing Garrison with authority and Eva Longoria is better than expected as the requisite rookie Secret Service agent. The last half dissolves in predictable denouements and is sloppy, leaving several loose ends,and is very unsatisfactory overall. I can understand why used copies of this DVD are available for $0.01 from sellers under "fulfillment by Amazon".Several professional reviewers indicated this movie was mediocre, but one reason I watched it was it was directed by Clark Johnson, whom I have a soft spot for from his long-standing role as Detective Meldrick Lewis in the seminal TV series Homicide: Life on the Streets. He did a reasonable directing job with the 2003 remake of "S.W.A.T.", as well as several episodes of "The Wire". This movie is definitely not a credit to his directing skills. The characters are shallow and undeveloped, especially Michael Douglas and Kim Basinger, but also Kiefer Sutherland. The assassins remain mysterious, as do their motives for assassinating the President. The action sequences are unimaginative and pedestrian. I did enjoy one bit of trivia: in the midst of the movie, a Secret Service agent is heard telling his colleagues the punchline to a joke, "The bear says, 'Now you really didn't come here to hunt.'" Clark Johnson, the director and actor portraying the Secret Service agent who is assassinated early in the film, told the same punchline as Detective Lewis in Homicide: Life on the Streets. "The Sentinel" is overall not worth purchasing or even renting. It is not a credit to its actors or director and I hope Clark Johnson can redeem his directing career with much better movies or quality TV shows.

ciribiribin 2012-05-05 01:14:38

Next for Michael Douglas: Playing the lead in "Batman?"

The Sentinel is a run-of-the-mill, political intrigue-action-typemovie. That is to say, this is NOT The American President. It's noteven In The Line Of Fire. Nevertheless, the script borrows plot fromboth those superior films.So Michael Douglas is married to Catherine Zeta Jones. Does this meanhe gets a pass to play a secret agent until he's 95 years old? WatchingDouglas freezer door-chop the bad guys and outrun them in a comicalfaux chase scene stretches credulity and is kind of sad as well. Maybehe's not a good enough actor to pull off a Michael Caine and agegracefully in appropriate roles.Douglas has a secret, torrid affair with Kim Basinger and we'resupposed to believe no one in the White House or Secret Service has aclue? And what's the big attraction between them? Supposedly, KeiferSutherland hates Douglas' guts (he even lectures his agents to coldlypull the trigger even if Douglas is in their sights), but doesn't havethe courage to shoot himself? Obviously, if we enjoy these kind ofmovies we're not supposed to seek answers to these types of stickyquestions. Just smile and watch. Character development is all butnon-existent. The story depends on a formulaic plot to carry the actionforward.On the bright side, there's a significant part in the movie for EvaLongoria. As one of the cops in the film says: "She can breathe down myneck (anytime)..." Mine too. Face it, ladies, this is a guys' film.Five stars.

2012-05-04 14:13:52

It was OK

Well it started out good, but as the movie went on it just started to get more and more overdramatic. At times I was laughing just because some of the lines and acting were so over the top, and so overdramatic, it just wasn't the right tone for each situation the actors were in.Although Michael Dougles and Eva Longoria did have their good acting moments, but that other guy, I can't remember his name, he had a stick up his ass the entire movie. He was so anal, and so overdramatic, he reminded me of a school girl throwing a temper tantrum.The visuals were sub-par but the gun fights were exceptional. Very cold blooded and they seemed to be realistic.But other than that it did give the audience a look at how much work goes into just moving the president from the White House to across town. I found the movie very interesting for the first 30 to 45 minutes but it just began to feel rushed and way to dramatic.

ahmed elshikh 2012-05-04 06:06:08

Too Many Hows and Whys !

I saw the trailer at the time of the release, I said to myself; itseems like good story with good actors. Then I heard it's a flop, Isaid to myself; is it ? And if it is, so why is that ? Now I watchedthe movie, and knew why !! It's originally a novel written by Gerald Petievich. Then it gotwritten for cinema by George Nolfi; or the one who wrote before(Timeline – 2003) and (Ocean's Twelve – 2004). I don't know (Nolfi)personally, but I bet, this guy must have used to sleep while writingscripts. Think not? Then review with me the evidence, rather theevidences of that, based on this very movie.The list is truly endless : how Kiefer Sutherland thought that his wifeis cheating on him with Michael Douglas ?? (one short scene for thatwife, to clear the matter up, which begins and ends in nanosecond !).What the murder of the friend, at the start, got to do with the wholething later (the one which the killer does in the daylight amongst aneighborhood ?!), it seems like Mr. Nolfi forgot about it all later !Why the president's wife cheats on him? Why the movie's Russians (newintelligence? Mafia?) want to assassin the president ? Originally, whatwas the need to blackmail his wife's sentinel earlier ? Douglas shootsone of them in the chest 3 times then interrogates him?!!!! How thesecret service knew about the cottage of Douglas's snitch ? How Douglasconnects with Sutherland by the dead Russian guy's cell ? (I didn't getto understand that ever !). And finally, the biggest of them all : whatdid the American president do when he knew about the affair of his wifewith her sentinel ? (Most probably he asked him for a sexual advicesince Douglas did numerous hot love scenes with Demi Moore, SharonStone, and even Glenn Close!). We didn't see how that "love story"ended; which – as a whole – aside from degrading the serious tie-inbetween us and the characters, any characters, by disposing of theiremotions away, it also makes this movie as a cross between a hastilymade TV episode and a forgettable "V" crap !In other cases I can say "shut down your brain, and enjoy it", but Ican't shut down my brain to that extent. In other cases I can say "Hey,the action was fine, so take it easy, and forget about it", but theaction wasn't that fine. Frankly, this time the too many unsolved howsand whys did hurt. Director Clark Johnson comes from TV. He did some episodes from shows Ihighly don't like (this is another word for : terrible !), such as (LaFemme Nikita), (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), (The West Wing),(NYPD Blue), and (The Shield)! Undoubtedly the man can make action, butnot so special. Plus the editing was running so fast to push the heatup and to cover the script's holes up as well. Both ways the finalproduct was hot on the outside, dead cold in the inside. I'm sure thatin Hollywood, because of the always frantic industry, everything has tobe rushed, yet with results range between professional and not bad,except for one factor named : the script, where the many mistakes haveto be shameful !What really gets on your nerves is that the movie has some auspicioustalents. Michael Douglas is the top instance. Every 62-year-old man hasto be so proud with the way he looks and moves in here. Howevereventually, I was disappointed. He, as a producer, is so known as smartone. The die-hard commercial movies he produced the least thing can besaid about them is "interesting". Now it doesn't need any comparison toknow that (The Sentinel) will remain in the bottom of them !It's where we say "Good movie, but could have been very good". Now wehave straight pure action thriller, with no in-betweens. The worstabout it is being as emotionless as the real sentinels' looks, andmindless to bothering degree. I give it 6 out of 10 with a clearconscience. Still the last how and why this movie gives are : Howhaphazard some promising stories are made these days ?, and why theirmakers don't look any embarrassed after?…Finally, if I have just one more thing to say, then I don't think thatEva Longoria has an attractive butt, that black guy must have beenincredibly desperate !

christian123 2012-05-03 10:56:11

The textbook example of an old fashioned time waster.

Veteran Secret Service agent Pete Garrison (Michael Douglas) learns ofa plot to kill the president, but as he begins working with an FBIagent (Kiefer Sutherland) on the case, he finds himself beingblackmailed because of an affair he had with the first lady, making himthe prime suspect of the assassination. On the run, Garrison must tryto prove his innocence. The premise is pretty generic and it could have easily been used for aTV film. However, The Sentinel is still an entertaining movie. It won'tchallenge the viewer at all but it will serve as a satisfying timewaster as long as the audience doesn't take it too seriously. Thescreenplay was pretty weak. For instance, there was no characterdevelopment at all. Sure, some random tidbits about the charactershistory but nothing that can really make them stand out. Also, the badguy's motive is never really explained and this made the ending lameand not very exciting. A reason for the assassination attempt is neverexplained. It seemed like the screenwriter was trying not to mix toomuch politics into the films and he left that part alone. Despite the writing, the film does manage to produce many entertainingscenes. The action was good with plenty of gun fights. I was surprisedthat the dialog was actually pretty good. There was no lame one-linersor anything. Director Clark Johnson did a decent job behind the camera.He kept the film at a nice pace and it never became dull. The musicworked for the most part even if it was pretty generic. Michael Douglas was surprisingly good as Pete Garrison. I thought hisage would show too much and it wouldn't look realistic but he managedto do the role well. Kiefer Sutherland just gave a routine performance.All of his actions were predictable and he seemed to be reading hislines at times. Eva Longoria was okay although she wasn't used a lot.Her character really didn't have much of a purpose. Kim Basinger wasincredibly dull and unconvincing. Overall, The Sentinel should make fora decent rental. I wouldn't want to see it again but I didn't mindwatching it once. In the end, The Sentinel is a decent action film,nothing more or less. Rating 6/10

2012-04-30 17:09:02

US Marshals Meets 24

THE SENTINEL is a film that leads with strong performances by Michael Douglas and Kiefer Southerland, both of whom are Secret Service agents who face the daunting prospect of uncovering an assassin mole in their midst. The film partially succeeds to the extant that director Clark Johnson tries mightily to engage the viewer in the day to day minutia of how the Service protects the President. The major problem here is that the assassin mole plot is presented in a manner that guarantees to choke off that interest due to poor scripting. First, we have Douglas as Agent Pete Garrison who is having an affair with the First Lady (Kim Basinger). It strains credulity that any agent would compromise his position as bodyguard let alone that the First Lady would do likewise. There is simply no need for this romance since its reverberations are not permitted to flesh themselves out in a manner that impacts on the plot. It is there solely for the titillation. Next, there is the ill-defined plot to frame Garrison as the mole. Nowhere does anyone bother to explain why he was chosen to be the mole. If the true mole wanted anonymity, he would not have called attention to himself with a red herring. Then there is Kiefer Southerland as Agent Breckinridge, who is no more than Jack Bauer reborn from 24. The mid portion of the film reminded me of the chase scenes from US MARSHALS in which one cop tracks another. Yet, it was these scenes which carried the movie. There is never any doubt that the chase will end with one agent catching another. The crux of the film dissolves into a mess in which we are asked to believe that the extraordinary efforts of the Secret Service to protect the President are so easily thwarted by a renegade who, believe it or not, began his career as a spy for the KGB. And just as Douglas and Southerland take the high road in their cat and mouse game, so do Basinger and Eva Longoria as Agent Marin take the low road in their collective inability to be little more than eye candy who take their cues from powerful men. THE SENTINEL had the potential to be another DAY OF THE JACKAL, but it wound up as a ineptly paced non-thriller that forces the viewer to try to assume a logic that is just not there.

etbartley 2012-04-30 05:50:44

What a horrible movie!

This movie was so awful, I wanted to apologize to my roommate forinviting him. This is my first time posting a comment about a movie,that's how strongly I despised this film. I admire Michael Douglas,he's one of my favorite actors, and I was expecting a performancestraight out of "The Game" or one of his other box office hits, butthis was the wrong film for him! Sutherland I remember from "24" and Iliked it's face paced action, so I was expecting more of the same fromhis character, but all I got was a loud and angry Secret Service agentfrom an actor who does a very poor job at acting - it was verydisappointing. The trailer set this up as an agent on the run afterbeing accused of treason, but Douglas' character easily slips away,communicates while on the run, and then merrily joins the fray againfor the climactic ending. Trite and boring! The affair between Basingerand Douglas' characters was not explained in anyway, and I find ithighly improbably the first lady would be having an affair with anagent, but none of that is ever explained. You get an inkling of thehate between Sutherland and Douglas' characters, but it is only touchedsuperficially. There is little to no character development and you endup not giving a damn whether anyone is shot or not, you just begging tothink "when's this damn movie going to be over?". You get the ideasomeone wants to kill the president, you find out there's an informantgiving the secret service information, a mole in the secret service,but they never really get tied together. Even when they discover themole the motive behind his treachery, which has something to do withhis family and the defunct KGB, is still unclear. Storyline - is theresuch a thing? The president delivers speeches and waves to the cameras- you get that idea. You see the stress in his marriage, which is neverfully explained. You know there's an affair going on. The final G8summit is so silly it reminds me of a Leslie Nielson playing thepresident flick - the president, running through the recesses of abuilding getting shot at, trying to get to his motorcade as assassinswho have somehow circumvented G8 security try to mow him down - YEAHRIGHT, OK. He makes it to his car and, in an oh-so-typical "unHollywood" fashion, there are no reporters or cameras there to mob thepresident who, in front of the entire G8, has been ushered off stageand out of the building. You know the press would be all over thatstory and him like flies on the horse crap this movie is. One morething that annoyed me about this movie - the terrorists. They must havehired the ugliest group of actors they could find, but they also hiredsome of the gayest. I've never seen a gayer group of thugs! I also havenever heard people speak accents so broadly and unclear - they're fromRussia but they occasionally slip into some Irish accent and at othertimes straight into a British accent. Take some lessons from HarrisonFord in K-9 and, believe me, that would be an IMPROVEMENT over theseshoddy accents. I'm so glad the movie ended when it did. I can assureyou, before I see another flick with Douglas I'm reading my reviewsahead of time and still going during bargain matinée, just to makesure. He has to re-win me over with his stellar acting, this movie shotit all to hell.

Double BENetration 2012-04-27 01:09:19

Not What I Was Expecting

The Sentinel is a thriller about a name Pete Garrison (Michael Douglas) that works for the Secret Service protecting the President of the United States. Later there is a rumor that suspects Pete Garrison as an enemy which is conspires an assassination against the President. Characters such as David Breckenridge (Kiefer Sutherland) and Kill Marin (Eva Longoria) are friends of the protagonist of the story which are pondering about the possibility of Pete being an enemy.The Sentinel is predictable with lots of dialogue because trying to uncover the truth with the main character does involve a lot of talking. This movie is not recommended for audiences that are believed that this movie is a big action packed movie with loads of destruction and mayhem. Although The Sentinel is not action packed, it revolves around characters that are expected to talk well mannered and react much more appropriately in situations that are very tense.The acting in the story was well created but as for the story goes, trying to find out who really came up with the rumor about an assassination to prove that the main character is innocent. Kiefer Sutherland plays a well mannered secret service agent which in personality wise is different from his role in the show 24. In the role in 24 Kiefer plays as a secret agent that acts very aggressive and is simpler minded.I give this movie a C because the story had some flaws that it could have fixed on and the directors might have assumed that this thriller might have been unpredictable. Though the movie really was predictable because after the climax the movie piled on more unexciting events that would bore most viewers. The casting of the movie would attract many viewers because of the hit cast members that are seen in popular television shows.

MadeOfScars 2012-04-26 13:24:22

Good for a little entertainment

This was a pretty decent movie. This movie is good to just sit down andwatch and be entertained. Just a typical Hollywood film. This moviewill never win an Oscar or anything and definitely doesn't deserve one,but I thought it was pretty good. It's kind of like the show 24 but setinto movie format. If you like the whole we've got to stop theterrorist from killing the president kind of movie then you will enjoythis flick. I personally think that storyline has been done WAY toomuch, but The Sentinel does add a little twist with the mole in theSecret Service. All in all, this movie won't leave your jaw to thefloor or change your life, but who says every single movie has to belike that to be good?