- Studio: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
- Release Date: Apr 21, 2006
User Score
6.0
out of 10
Mixed or average reviews- based on 33 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 21 out of 33
-
Mixed: 6 out of 33
-
Negative: 6 out of 33
Review this movie
-
Your Score10 out of 10
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
-
Characters remaining: 5000 out of 5000
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
TonyBJan 4, 20074Done before and done much better as well, "The Sentinel" is of little interest and even less importance. True, I wasn't bored, but probably because I was trying to fill in some of the plot's many holes.
-
-
EricC.Apr 22, 20069I give this film high marks because it was filmed over 90% in and around Toronto, Canada. Obviously, to appear as convincing as it does, is an accomplishment worthy of credit. Good job. I thoroughly enjoyed the film.
-
-
DerrickA.Apr 23, 20063This movie isn't that good. No academy award perofrmances here. Eva Longoria and Kiefer Sutherland are much better on their tv shows. The suspense leading up to the mole wasn't a shocker. I was disappointed.
-
-
MaseApr 26, 20064There is something refreshing about seeing Michael Douglas back on the big screen in a polished Secret Service thriller. However this is a thriller with no thrills. Michael Douglas gets bored quick and so will you. Should be lining blockbuster bargain bins in no time.
-
-
TiffanyV.May 3, 200610I am not sure about ya'll but I thought it was quite engaging. I like movies that can still captivate my attention with out all the nudity and gore.
-
-
BradCSep 7, 20062Bad movie. Went in thinking I would see something intelligent and all it was was Hollywood tripe.
-
-
PaulO.Oct 1, 20067I thought it was pretty good. The ending, on the other hand, was not so great. Just a mess of an ending. I don't know what JG is talking about. He must either be 8 years old or drunk because I understood the whole movie. Maybe rent it if you can't find anything else.
-
-
JakeApr 21, 20067Is Stephen Holden referring to the same Michael Douglas that made Basic Instinct and Don't Say a Word? If so, I think his career will be fine....
-
-
TonydApr 22, 20065A pretty boring, predictable movie. it covers the same territory of all those other political thriller, oh-no-they're-gonna-get-me-unless-i-get-the-secret-codes movies.
-
-
DianeJ.Apr 22, 20069I enjoyed the heck out of this movie! So what if I could predict the ending - getting there was all the fun. Put Sutherland in the lead role, however.
-
-
ChrisJ.Apr 24, 20066While the end of the movie could have been better, the first 3/4 of the movie pretty good. Kiefer Sutherland's performance out did Michael Douglas'. Would have been better had the mole character had been better developed at the end and explained how and why he was in that situation .
-
-
JamesB.Apr 28, 20068An excellent thriller; great cast, well-paced--maybe a little predictable, but so what? Very low boredom factor. Go and enjoy the movie.
-
-
MarkB.Apr 29, 20061
-
-
DanaM.May 15, 20068Entertaining. After all isn't that why we go to the movies? Still, some holes in the plot exist. Like, who took the incriminating photos, who killed the snitch, etc? But still fun.
-
-
KevinCMay 8, 20067I thought the interaction between Douglas & Sutherland was good. Although Sutherland came off like Jack Bauer NOT breaking the rules. Basinger was wasted. The first 2/3 of the movie were crisp. The Canada part is where it fell down. Still, entertaining.
-
-
MichaelO.Sep 2, 20068I actually thought it was a good movie! I was on the edge of my seat. Makes me want to join the secret service! I thought there was a little cliche because you could tell who the mole was in this movie about half way through! ;) There should have been more people suspect.
-
-
WilliamO.Apr 22, 20069Absolutely brilliant in its screenwriting and execution. A must see that seems to be overlooked and under rated.
-
-
JohnY.Apr 22, 20066Although predictable, especially towards the end, I found the film better than the average thriller because the characters are well drawn. Not Michael Douglas' worst film nor his best by far. There are a lot worse ways of spending a couple of hours.
-
-
ChadS.May 21, 20064An assasination plot against the president is exciting in theory but "The Sentinel" never really gets going. We never really learn why the commander-in-chief has to die, which might very well be the problem. Is President Ballentine(David Rasche) a democrat or republican? "The Sentinel" seems more concerned with rekindling our memories of Michael Douglas' past sex addiction problem.
-
-
JGJul 16, 20063It was pretty messy. About 3/4 of the way into the movie I said to myself "What just happened?". Everybody I was all over the place, the secret service agents pull the safety off there guns differently from the cops, the guy is good then bad, then good again. Just a pure mess with a few parts I understood.
-
prev
next
Page:
- 1
-
Looking back, 1993 was a golden age for thriller cinema. That was the year Hollywood hatched both "In the Line of Fire" and "The Fugitive," the two obvious and way superior antecedents for the very humdrum B-movie mash-up The Sentinel.
-
50Sentinel works overtime to suggest what a thrill-a-minute world its characters inhabit; but only during the last 20 minutes does the movie's pulse (or ours) raise above a flatline. The actors look uniformly unhappy to be there - except for Basinger, who seems lost in a lithium haze.
-
Amid the nervousness Douglas and Sutherland do what they can to enliven their warring stereotypes. And now and then, blessedly, The Sentinel nudges toward camp.