The Sentinel

I was enthusiastic about this film being the '24' fan that I am and I knew it was going to be a bad movie but had to see it for myself.

The story line is crud, Michael Douglas has done much better and there have been hundreds of films such as this in the past before.

The only remotely interesting part of this film was the parts at the beginning when they go into detail as to how the President is protected.

Kiefer Sutherland was probably paid a barrel load for this movie and it will certainly be one he wont be remembered for.

Script - Poor Beginning - Average Ending - Poor

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")

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.

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.

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.