The Sentinel (2006)

hyped garbage

Great Film overall

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

The opening scene of "The Sentinel", which shows the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, gives this movie a feeling of gravitas and importance. Sadly, the direction and overall general production value of the experience fails to live up to that opening scene and instead produces little more than stock fare for this genre.For a basic plot summary, "The Sentinel" focuses on the Secret Service for the U.S. President (David Rasche). When the head of the President's protection detail (Michael Douglas) is accused is being a mole, lead investigator Dave Breckenridge (Kiefer Sutherland) and his rookie partner (Eva Longoria) are called in to investigate.The simple reason this film was made was as a vehicle for the rising stars of Sutherland (who pretty much plays Jack Bauer of 24 in this film) and Longeria (sex symbol from Desperate Housewives trying to branch into more serious fare). Douglas is thrown in for his personal background in political flicks.Thus, while there is most definitely enough ensemble acting talent to carry the movie, the story doesn't come anywhere near to supporting them. The plot of "The Sentinel" is one that has been recycled time after time and adds nothing new into the mix. The build-up is decent, but the execution leaves one wondering "is that it...really?".One bright spot, as usual, is the acting performance from Kiefer. This genre suits him perfectly, and he could have been utilized even further (perhaps an interrogation scene?!). Unfortunately, Douglas is only decent and Longoria isn't given much to do. Perhaps, however, there just wasn't enough "meat" in the script to do anything with.Overall, then, "The Sentinel" is a stock political thriller and absolutely nothing more. If you haven't seen many of these movies, this one will appeal to you. If you are a veteran of the genre, though, please move along.

THE SENTINEL is one of those cookie-cutter thrillers that's already been made before. In this film's case, it's a virtual reprise of IN THE LINE OF DUTY, with Michael Douglas taking on the Eastwood role of the dedicated presidential bodyguard battling wits with an assassin.The film could almost write itself, and sadly it turns out to be an absolutely generic Hollywood outing. Douglas is as strong as ever in a 'wronged man' type role, but everything that happens - every sub-plot, every little twist and turn - is so familiar, so predictable, so well choreographed in advance - that the ensuing film is difficult to like.THE SENTINEL throws plenty of stuff into the mix in hopes to make it stick. The most blatant is an extraneous Eva Longoria, added in an attempt to sex things up. Next up is Kiefer Sutherland, straight off the set of 24 and playing a similarly dedicated character.There are a handful of decent action sequences but Clark Johnson (also responsible for the similarly generic S.W.A.T.) is a letdown as director and there just isn't enough in the way of verve or style to make this in the least bit memorable. At least VANTAGE POINT had more going for it with the attempts at multiple points of view...

I saw the trailer at the time of the release, I said to myself; it seems like good story with good actors. Then I heard it's a flop, I said to myself; is it ? And if it is, so why is that ? Now I watched the movie, and knew why !! It's originally a novel written by Gerald Petievich. Then it got written 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 writing scripts. Think not ? Then review with me the evidence, rather the evidences of that, based on this very movie.The list is truly endless : How Kiefer Sutherland thought that his wife is cheating on him with Michael Douglas ?? (one short scene for that wife, 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 whole thing later (the one which the killer does in the daylight amongst a neighborhood ?!), it seems like Mr. Nolfi forgot about it all later ! Why the president's wife cheats on him ? Why the movie's Russians (New intelligence ? Mafia ?) want to assassin the president ? Originally, what was the need to blackmail his wife's sentinel earlier ? Douglas shoots one of them in the chest 3 times then interrogates him ?!!!! How the secret service knew about the cottage of Douglas's snitch ? How Douglas connects with Sutherland by the dead Russian guy's cell ? (I didn't get to understand that ever !). And finally, the biggest of them all : What did the American president do when he knew about the affair of his wife with her sentinel ? (Most probably he asked him for a sexual advice since Douglas did numerous hot love scenes with Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, and even Glenn Close !). We didn't see how that "love story" ended; which – as a whole – aside from degrading the serious tie-in between us and the characters, any characters, by disposing of their emotions away, it also makes this movie as a cross between a hastily made TV episode and a forgettable "V" crap !In other cases I can say "shut down your brain, and enjoy it", but I can'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 the action wasn't that fine. Frankly, this time the too many unsolved hows and whys did hurt. Director Clark Johnson comes from TV. He did some episodes from shows I highly don't like (this is another word for : terrible !), such as (La Femme Nikita), (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit), (The West Wing), (NYPD Blue), and (The Shield)! Undoubtedly the man can make action, but not so special. Plus the editing was running so fast to push the heat up and to cover the script's holes up as well. Both ways the final product was hot on the outside, dead cold in the inside. I'm sure that in Hollywood, because of the always frantic industry, everything has to be rushed, yet with results range between professional and not bad, except for one factor named : the script, where the many mistakes have to be shameful !What really gets on your nerves is that the movie has some auspicious talents. Michael Douglas is the top instance. Every 62-year-old man has to be so proud with the way he looks and moves in here. However eventually, I was disappointed. He, as a producer, is so known as smart one. The die-hard commercial movies he produced the least thing can be said about them is "interesting". Now it doesn't need any comparison to know that (The Sentinel) will remain in the bottom of them !It's where we say "Good movie, but could have been very good". Now we have straight pure action thriller, with no in-betweens. The worst about it is being as emotionless as the real sentinels' looks, and mindless to bothering degree. I give it 6 out of 10 with a clear conscience. Still the last how and why this movie gives are : How haphazard some promising stories are made these days ?, and why their makers don't look any embarrassed after ?…Finally, if I have just one more thing to say, then I don't think that Eva Longoria has an attractive butt, that black guy must have been incredibly desperate !

Secret Service operative Michael Douglas uncovers a conspiracy within the Secret Service to murder the President. Unfortunately the fact that he is having an affair with the President's wife means that it is easy to frame him for the plot, especially as chief investigator Kiefer Sutherland is deeply resentful of him, believing that Douglas had an affair with his wife.The plot keeps moving, there are decent action sequences, there is a moderate amount of jeopardy as far as the President and Douglas' character, and there is a satisfactory resolution.But the main problem with this movie is that it is utterly unexceptional, and this is exemplified by the fact that every part could have been played by pretty much any reasonably well-known actor. None of them is written with any sense of individualism, and none of the actors in the movie stamps their character with anything exceptional.It passes the time adequately but leaves no aftertaste.