VividSimon Simply Perfect

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

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

stock-1 Someone reviewed with 'Director should stick with TV movies'. Well guess what he's come up with later .. one of the best rated TV-movies ever, Homeland. What makes a film different from a TV-movie? The time spent on details, sets, castings etc.. Apart from telling a Pulitzer price story The Sentinel has just done that. The casting is superb. At the end of the movie the Presidents reaction when finding out the First Lady is having an affair with the sentinel is not shown, which many find a big miss in the ending. It then indeed drops The Sentinel back to a TV movie, for the average viewer. Clark Johnson could have added a bullshit reason as to why Pete Garrison was sent on his premature retirement. The ending is displayed from the viewpoint of a mid-level security agent, who might never find out in the rest of his career that the Presidents wife was actually having an affair, while being under siege from a couple of Russian terrorists , apparently ex-KGB types who after their organization was disbanded have gone rogue. Again the reason for trying to assassinate the President is not given. Some then claim that because of this the sentinel is a poor movie. I disagree, as the sentinel actually tells a very realistic story, when Walter Xavier is warning Garrison about an upcoming attempt to assassinate the President. What happened is that the Russian terrorists, knowing he's Garrison best informant, started their whole game by approaching Xavier as their first move, which is exactly how these types operate. Again the details of this are not in the movie itself. Does that make it a bad movie ? I disagree.

SnoopyStyle Pete Garrison (Michael Douglas) is a secret service agent assigned to protect the First Lady. David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland) is a former protégé investigating an assassination of an agent. Jill Marin (Eva Longoria) is the rookie working under Breckinridge. Garrison receives intel of a plot to assassinate the President.In White House thrillers these days, the White House usually gets blown up. I'm glad this isn't that kind of a movie. This is a thriller of characters not theatrical explosions. Just to extend the point, the climax happens in Toronto. Seriously, flashy Toronto...After the twist, the movie does have some believability problems. The movie turns into an unlikely 'The Fugitive'. For a thriller attempting to be more cerebral, this is a little speed bump for them.

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.