Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

James Hitchcock Like the Clint Eastwood vehicle "In the Line of Fire" from the nineties, "The Sentinel" is a crime thriller about a veteran Secret Service bodyguard who has to foil a plot to assassinate the President of the United States. There are, however, two particular twists in the storyline. One is that the hero, Pete Garrison, is having an affair with the First Lady. The second twist is that intelligence provided by an informant has revealed that a traitor within the Service is providing secret information to the assassins. Garrison himself is suspected of being the mole, so he is forced to go on the run in order to clear his name, to unmask the real traitor and to save the President's life. "In the Line of Fire" was able to rise above the level of the mundane because of the quality of the acting, not only from Eastwood himself as the Secret Service agent Frank Horrigan but also from John Malkovich as the assassin. Here, although Michael Douglas as Garrison performs capably enough, he is not really in the same class as Eastwood. There is a decent performance from Kiefer Sutherland as Garrison's colleague David Breckinridge, but Eva Longoria as another colleague has little to do except to serve as the film's Official Eye Candy. (Kim Basinger, who here plays the First Lady, presumably retired from the role of Official Eye Candy upon hitting fifty). As for the assassins they are a pretty anonymous bunch and it is never really made clear why they want to kill the President. (Malkovich, by contrast, gives us a detailed psychological portrait of his character). About the only explanation given is that they are Russian, and in the alternative universe inhabited by the scriptwriters of Hollywood thrillers, a universe where the Cold War never ended, the words "Russian" and "villain" are still assumed to be virtually synonymous. (See also "Salt", "Goldeneye", "The Peacemaker", "Air Force One", "Crimson Tide", "Fair Game", "The Sum of All Fears" and others). The film has something in common with some of Douglas's other films from the latter part of his career, such as "Don't Say a Word" or "A Perfect Murder". All three are effective, well-directed thrillers- indeed, I preferred "A Perfect Murder" to Hitchcock's "Dial M for Murder", of which it is a remake- but none of them display any real originality and are made to a standard Hollywood thriller formula. (His recent thriller "Haywire" is made to the same formula, but it is dreadful third-rate nonsense and it is one I certainly would not describe as effective or well-made). In the earlier part of his career Douglas, who is an actor of some talent, did occasionally appear in ground-breaking films ("Wall Street" being a good example) so it seems unfortunate that he now seems to rely more upon the tried and trusted. 6/10

tieman64 Put Michael Douglas in a film and it's only a matter of time before his character's sexual urges lead to mayhem. Here he plays a Secret Service bodyguard tasked with protecting the President. Problem is, Douglas is also having an illicit affair with the First Lady. Cue much confusion.The film adheres to the "running man" formula ("The Fugitive", "Chain Reaction", "The Incredible Hulk", "Minority Report", "The Bourne Identity", "Enemy of the State" etc), which Hitchcock refined in such films as "Saboteur", "Foreign Correspondent", "The 39 Steps" and "North By Northwest". In each case the film's hero is on the run, falsely accused of a crime which he must solve whilst being pursued. The entire "running man" plot is itself a MacGuffin, our hero jumping from set piece to set piece as he attempts to piece together his puzzle.The good thing about this formula is that you don't need expensive set pieces. The plot itself generates tension; the actors need only ride the wave and look confused. In this regard Douglas does well. One minute he's on top the President's wife, the other minute the whole world wants him dead. Poor guy.7.5/10 – Fast paced and pleasantly old school. Watch "The Bodyguard" and "In The Line Of Fire", the latter which features a scenery chewing Clint Eastwood, to see this kind of thing done marginally better.

TI Irwin I personally love films like this. As a young aspiring filmmaker, movies such as The Sentinel provide me with two things. 1.) An example of how NOT to make a film. 2.) Hope for my own career. If writing as poor as this gets the studio green light, well, I believe I have a chance.PROS Now, first let me address the strong points of the film.The A-list actors of course! - With names such as Michael Douglass, Keifer Sutherland, and Eva Longoria, on the DVD case we expect a strong performance. And for the most part, they deliver.The audio. - The score could have been better, but every gunshot sounds great, every tire screech is in the right place. There isn't much to be said about the audio as this is an important, but thankless part of a movie. That considered, the sound design was fine.The concept. - What bothers me the most about The Sentinel is that it potentially COULD HAVE been a good film. At it's core, the concept is excellent. A mole within the secret service? An assassination attempt on the President? A love affair with dire consequences? Surely an amazing cinematic experience could come from such a film, right? WRONG.CONS Now for the weak points. And there are several.Directing. - One name we don't see on the front of the box is Clark Johnson: the film's director. Why? Because he's no Ridley Scott that's why. The filmmaking just didn't draw me into the story. It was the same boring action sequences we've seen since childhood. And the camera shots failed to depict the gravity and urgency of the situations in the story. The pacing was S...L...O...W. "Nonstop action around every turn"? Please. This film took 30 min to get past the exposition and good look finding any interest in the climax because at that point you've probably fallen asleep already. Furthermore, I believe the actors should have been granted more creative freedom. I want to see some improv from talent such as Douglas and Sutherland! Every word that left their mouths felt scripted. Shame.Writing. - This is perhaps the most abhorrent part of the whole film in my opinion. Let me be the first to say that plot holes are in every film. That realism is not always considered for the sake of dramatic impact. Nobody wants to see the hero get killed so of course he is often triumphant. BUT this is a thriller. This is a genre and subject matter that isn't fairy tale. I cannot be thrilled by a film that is so unrealistic. Here's just a few of the major plot holes/realism issues that I noticed. *SPOILERS*1.) A secret service agent is executed. And what happens? They look at the crime scene for a day and then leave? I'd expect a much more thorough investigation post 911. 2.) After her husband was killed on the front porch, the wife of said agent sticks around in the house alone? Come on. 3.) If Garrison is so smart and can evade the entire Untied States after being exposed as a threat to the President, why does he keep a cell phone? EVERY cell phone has a GPS signal in it that the authorities can use to track it. 4.) If Garrison is so smart, why leave all the evidence of the REAL assassins where they can get to it and destroy it? At the very least, why not put the camera on that blackberry to use. 5.) You think the Presidential helicopter can be taken down with a lousy Surface to Air Missle (SAM)? That helicopter likely could survive a nuclear strike. 6.) Polygraph tests are given under pressure. I've taken one. You don't get to sit calmly in a room and answer questions. The POINT is to stress you so that you're nervous and you can't control the results. 7.) One old agent is able to disarm and evade a team of younger agents? Right. There's a reason they switch actors for James Bond every few years.I haven't even finished with the writing. Character development. So we know from the start that our protagonist Garrison isn't the bad guy. So why do we not hear anything from the real bad guy until 10 minuets from the resolution? You don't even have to reveal who the mole is or his sponsors. Leave something to the imagination but at least remind us that there's more going on that Garrison trying to clear his name.And what lame cliché bad guys... they spend years trying to infiltrate the Secret Service and the best they can do is send a couple of guys with guns to whack the President? Oh yeah, and Russians is cilche as well. Especially since they've been friendly with the US since 2002.BOTTOM LINE This movie sucks. Eva Longoria is hot. THE END.

Neil Welch 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.