Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

Python Hyena The Sentinel (2006): Dir: Clark Johnson / Cast: Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, Eva Langoria, Kim Basinger, Martin Donovan: Action thriller addresses flaws in organizations known for positive. Michael Douglas plays a top secret agent who is framed for treason. After a murder it is investigated of a possible assassination attempt on the President. Douglas however, destroyed a friendship due too an affair with his friend's wife and now he conceals the fact that he was romantically involved with the First Lady. Fine setup structured as a cat and mouse chase ending with the flight of bullets. Director Clark Johnson doesn't reveal the guilty until due time. Douglas holds strong as a man guilty of affairs but innocent of the crime for which he is being accused. He will conduct his own investigation while attempting peace with those whom he wronged. Kiefer Sutherland as another agent plays a former friend whose trust he broke. He doesn't fire upon Douglas but he does learn truths both within the crime and within his friendship. Eva Langoria as a rookie agent is basic eye candy. Kim Basinger as the First Lady conceals an affair and remains contact with Douglas until another assassination attempt. The screenplay concentrates on action, which should suffice die hard fans otherwise it is just another by-the-numbers thriller with little substance and a cast who should have been in a better project. Score: 5 ½ / 10

Leofwine_draca 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...

davidfurlotte I think this is the first time I've ever seen a dyslexic movie. I mean it was fun to watch but honestly, it would have needed to be three times as long as it was in order to try and plug up some of the plot holes.I like to think MOTIVE is a word that all writers should put on a sign in 6 inch letters and hang it just above the screen where they craft their work.************SPOILERS**************1. Why was the president being assassinated? 2. Why did the assassination attempt get leaked to an informant? 3. Why was Michael Douglas having an affair with the first lady? 4. Why would an obviously top notch assassination team shoot a Secret Service agent in broad daylight in front of his house? 5. Why go through an elaborate effort to frame Michael Douglas as the "mole?" 6. The pictures of Michael Douglas with Kim Bassinger were more than enough to "KILL" the president. Why not just leak those pictures to the media? And who took those pictures and why? 7. How did the informant get a COPY of the daily codes and from whom? 8. I almost forgot, with all the resources that the bad guys have at their disposal, (Mole inside, access to all the codes, etc.) WHY would they choose to try and take out the president at THE meeting which has the highest security protocols in the world? (Trust me, just because you have a uniform and a fake ID, you're NOT getting anywhere close to within a certain distance of anyone of importance, including back hallways.The movie lacked motivation but if you enjoy watching a movie that shows SOME of the "Hollywood" version of Secret Service Protocols, enjoy. However if you require motivation for the scenes and actors, you best give it a pass.

Critical Eye UK . . . there was a discussion of how to translate a quite acceptable little novel into a $60 million star-studded movie. It went something like this (note: *EVERYTHING* that follows is a spoiler) Green Light Person (GLP): So. . . it's a movie about a plot to kill the President and the twist is, the assassins are being helped by an insider in the Secret Service itself.Pitcher: Yup. It's a zinger. The bad guys set up the movie's hero as the mole to deflect attention from the real mole.GLP: So after the assassination, the hero is on the run, trying to clear his name. Yes?P: Oh no. He's on the run before the assassination.GLP: So how does anyone know there's a mole if the assassination hasn't happened? P: The assassins tell everyone.GLP: Er, right. OK. But why raise the very idea of a mole? P: Well, um.. . If they didn't, then the hero wouldn't be framed. And then he wouldn't be chased everywhere.GLP: Ah. OK. So. . . the assassins with a mole let it be known they're going to kill the President thanks to help from a mole who isn't actually their mole but a different mole who isn't really a mole anyway. P: Exactly. Simple as that.GLP: Doesn't that strike you as, um. . . Odd? P: Ah, but. . . They're foreigners. The assassins. So they're bound to be odd.GLP: As well as incredibly stupid.P: Stupid? Hardly. They're incredibly clever. They spend a lot of time following our hero and use hi-tech surveillance to photograph him and the First Lady getting it on. The pictures, you see, are to blackmail our hero.GLP: Into doing what? P: Er, well, we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: O-kay. . . So. They photograph our hero because they know of his affair with the President's missus. Who told them? P: Well, er, we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: Hmmm. Wouldn't they be better off spending their time on preparations to kill the President rather than messing around with moles? P: But they don't need to prepare very much, their mole is so well placed, he can organise anything. Like, shooting down the Presidential helicopter with a surface to air missile! GLP: So that's how they kill the President. P: Eh? No. He's not on board.GLP: Their mole screwed up?P: Oh no. He knew all right.GLP: So how come they blow up the helicopter when the target is known NOT to be on board? P: Er. Ah. Well. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: Right. I see. . . Now then, how does our hero find out about the plot to kill the President? P: An informant tells him.GLP: The informant is one of the assassins? P: Heck no. He's a street bum. American as they come.GLP: So how does a street bum know that foreign assassins are going to kill the President with the help of a mole in the Secret Service? P: Well. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet -- unless, unless. . . The assassins tell him!GLP: So these foreigners somehow know a Washington street bum and they also know this street bum is a paid informer working for the Secret Service? D'you think that's, um. . . remotely credible? P: Well. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet. But, but: it's not just the informant. They murder another Secret Service agent to make it all the more. . . Credible.GLP: Why? Does he know of the assassination plan? P: No.GLP: Then why is he killed? P: I think, well, put it like this. . . we haven't quite figured out that plot point yet.GLP: Right. OK. Perhaps we'd better move on. Who're you thinking of casting? P: Keifer Sutherland.GLP: Ah! Keifer, running here and there, like in 24, action man, all that stuff. Yes, that'd work.P: Sorry, no. It's gonna be Michael. Michael Douglas who runs everywhere. Keifer's chasing him.GLP: Shouldn't it be the other way round -- I mean, Michael's a bit too old now for this kind of stuff? P: I think, well, put it like this. . . we haven't quite figured out that casting issue yet. But we can always shoot Michael long, convince everyone he's faster and fitter than Keifer who's 20 years younger.GLP: Ri-ii-ght. OK. That's the plot. That's the casting. What about the ending? Big set-piece, yes? P: You bet. It all takes place on the back steps of a service stairway inside some building or other in Canada.GLP: You're kidding me.P: No. It's definitely in Canada.GLP: Indoors. On some steps.P: You got it. GLP: OK. OK. Let me think about this. . . I don't understand the casting, I don't understand the plot -- P: Hey. No problem. We don't either.GLP: -- and I can't think why anyone with a single functioning brain cell would want to sit through it.P: Yeah, but, apart from that. . ?GLP: I'm not sure. P: Hey, did I say, we're casting Kim Basinger AND Eva Longoria?GLP: Wow! So what do they get to do in the movie?P: Absolutely nothing. GLP: OK. I'm sold. You're green-lit for $60 mill.