सेंटीनल, द

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.

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.

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.

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.

Spoiler!!! Stop now if you don't know the ending. I hate Tom Cruise Mission Impossible bastardizations. In the old TV series that used to be one of my all time favorites, Mr. Phelps was the voice of God. He was the ultimate Good Guy. Cruise's updated version of MI (No. 1) turned Mr. Phelps into the Bad Guy. That's like making Tonto the Bad Guy who does in the Lone Ranger. I hate movies -- or novels -- that do that, where it turns out that the DA prosecuting the innocent accused killer turns out to have done the murder himself, or the Vice President turns out to be the mole from the whatever enemy who poisons the President -- or in the case of the Sentinel, the head of the Secret Service turns out to be the Bad Guy about to kill the Prez. I warned you, that's a huge spoiler. But to me, that kind of plot is already spoiled. As the main revelation of the movie, it stinks.

Besides that, even if you don't have any more trust in your leaders than to give credence to "Mr. Phelps" turnabouts, Sentinel has some other gaping holes just too big to let slide. Maybe, just maybe, you could buy that the First Lady is having an affair with her SS detail chief behind the Prez's back. That's not impossible. Presidents have affairs, why not First Ladies? But can you really believe a guy could rise to the top of the Service itself without ever having been fully screened? Really! You think? And what was that mystery terror organization behind the plot, and how did they get onto the SS head's entanglement with the now-defunct KGB? Hmmnh? Another poser: Can anyone explain how that Xavier loser guy got all that insider info about the First Lady's affair with Douglas to begin with -- if you tell me it was the Head of the Service feeding it to him, then why the whole rest of the movie? He would have just removed the Douglas character for cause from the outset, don't cha know? The cast was good and the acting was varsity level. I liked that Michael Douglas gets to act his age, and the plot doesn't let him get away with being a 60 year old superstud who can outrun the young agents under his charge. He is slow, and he gets winded quickly. I liked Keifer. I never watched 24, but now I think I'd like it. And it was good to see Kim Basinger again, after all those years when she dropped out.

If you ignore the plot holes and the revolting spoiler, you could really like the movie for what it shows you about the inner workings of the Secret Service, one of the all-time real success stories of government service. A Beltway insider who should know told me that that part of the film was A+, and I'll take his word for it.