The 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.

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

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.

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.