Movie Review: The Sentinel

Let me qualify this review by saying that I only rented this movie because I was curious to see Kiefer Sutherland fight his way out of a Jack Bauer typecast (thumbs down) and because the rental was free (thumbs up!)

I got the free rental because I'm taking advantage of Blockbuster's poorly-thought-out marketing strategy of enticing NetFlix members to their online/in-store rental program by offering free rentals for every NetFlix mailing slip you bring in. (I mentioned it here.) Why this would be a good marketing strategy is beyond me. Think: I'm already a happy NetFlix customer but I want a particular movie RIGHT NOW. I decide to trade in my mailing label for a free DVD at Blockbuster. I am satiated. I repeat this process until 12/21 when the promo ends. Now Blockbuster tells me I have to pay to get rentals from them and giving them my trash won't cut it anymore. "Pfft," I think to myself, "I'm so outta here." Congratulations, Blockbuster! You have gained zero new customers! Great work!

Anyway... back to the movie review.

The Sentinel is a fictional account of a tried-and-true Secret Service agent, Peter something-or-other (Michael Douglas) who gets framed for plotting the President's assassination. The man in charge of the investigation, Jack Bauer-something-or-other (Kiefer Sutherland), is Peter's protégé. The first act establishes Peter's commitment to the protection of the Presidency (the opening sequence implies that he was instrumental in the prevention of President Reagan's assassination. He, in fact, took a bullet for Reagan.) It also spends considerable time trying to show how protected the President is at all times.

The Second Act is spent trying to reveal Peter and Jack Bauer-whatever's past relationship as well as set the stage for the murder or a fellow agent and the subsequent investigation. A plot to kill the president is revealed, all the evidence points toward Peter, and the chase is on. The Third Act, where all the action happens, is of course, spent trying to wrap up the story and solve the problem at hand.

I have always really hated it when a movie's plot is inseparable from a piece of technology (like the rail gun in Schwarzenegger's 1996 action/thriller, Eraser, and the spy equipment used in the movie Enemy of the State) but the technology is either unbelievable or poorly utilized. For example, in the scene from Enemy of the State where a very unfunny Jack Black uses a clothing boutique's in-store security camera to examine the contents of a bag that Will Smith's character is holding. Somehow the government spooks' "super computers" are able to do a 3D rendering of the bag and its contents in real-time and miraculously extrapolate that, hidden in the brown shopping bag, there is a rectangular box similar to the item they are searching for.

In Eraser, the extremely dangerous, hand-held, magnetically-driven rail gun that can fire projectiles at near light speed with no recoil, might fall into enemy hands and tilt the balance of power in favor the ominous 'bad guys' for years to come. But when the bad guys fire no less than three individual rail guns at our hero, Schwarzenegger, not one villain is able to shoot him. How dangerous can these weapons be?

Movies always exaggerate technology in one way or another. But when it's integral to the storyline and they exaggerate too much, it renders the entire tale unbelievable.

Anyway, I was really afraid that this movie, The Sentinel, would have these types of story-telling problems. Thankfully, there are very few and none that can't be overlooked. Once or twice you have to suspend disbelief about things like how easy it is to use some cables and a Blackberry to steal out-going phone numbers from a telephone pole call box. Or why Secret Service agents, while in pursuit of a suspect of treason and attempted assassination of the President, would just stop chasing him because he crossed the water in a motorized rubber raft. Smoothing out these types of head-scratching moments is the responsibility of the director. One of the director's jobs is to make sure the audience can understand what is happening and the motives behind the characters' actions. This wasn't always the case in this movie. I had to do a lot of extrapolating and filling in the blanks as far as motives and timelines of events were concerned.

The story itself was pretty well written and thorough. The movie proved to be an interesting blend of political, action, and thriller motifs. And while I am normally pretty sensitive to the Anti-American agenda of many movies like this one, I'm happy to report that there was very little of that sentiment portrayed. Of course, the very idea that there could be a mole in the Secret Service and that that mole is attempting to aid in the President's assassination is undermining and not only a little grotesque, but the movie did try to show that the mole's heart had changed since 20-years ago when he brokered an undefined deal with the now non-existent KGB to give them the President's head, so to speak. The mole agent was now being blackmailed to fulfill his end of the bargain with the lives of his wife and daughters. So what is he to do, right? At least there was an attempt to show that he trying to be honorable.

Eva Longoria was also in the movie. I thought I should mention that since her name is on the poster. Why she was cast, I have no idea. Her character was so totally inconsequential that not only did it not have to be played by Longoria, she didn't even have to be in the story. The screenwriter could have totally taken her out of the movie and it would have been just as complete. Maybe more so because her history with Pete was undefined and only served to cloud Pete's relationship with Jack Bauer-whatever when she became Bauer-whatever's new partner just before the murder was committed and investigation began. Also, why she was considered 'number two in her class' was not apparent either. She did nothing but draw stares from her fellow Service Agents.

Sometimes you get a pretty-young-thing that the Old Boy's Club likes to harass only for that PYT to turn around and kick someone in the 'nads or show them up with her intellect or wit, putting them in their place. But this movie didn't even bother with that cliché. She just drew stares and whistles, snickers and sideways comments throughout the movie without any response. It's almost as if the message was, "all men are pigs and all women should just take it." Weird.

There was, however, one glaring moral of the story that was probably not what the writer intended: Be above reproach.

The reason that Pete was jammed up and framed the way he was is because he had an extramarital affair with the president's (played by the Sledgehammer dude) wife (played by the kidnapped chick from Cellular.) Now, if only he kept his Little Pete in his pants, there would have been no way of blackmailing or framing him. Even when stuff hit the fan, it would have been better if he had simply confessed his indiscretions and let the Secret Service agents do their work in tracking down the bad guys.

One last note: it was completely unclear why the bad guys wanted the President dead. Obviously it's a very popular stance to have for foreigners and citizens alike, but I think leaving the assassination plot a matter of fact rather than a matter of consequence leaves a certain dispassionate indifference that crept through the whole movie.

OK, one more note… the last last note… how come Michael Douglas is always playing roles where he either has an affair or is involved in some sordid sexual affair? (Remember: Basic Instinct; Fatal Attraction; Disclosure; A Perfect Murder; etc?)

So, on to the ratings:
Legs 2/10. Without the element of suspense, there is nothing to keep you interested in this movie – no quippy quotes, no interesting characters, no snazzy special effects. Nothing.
Mission 6/10. As a suspense thriller, it did maintain my interest in wanting to find out who the Secret Service mole was. As it turned out, the old Scooby Doo styled "all evidence points at one guy but in the end it's the other guy" formula didn't ring true, believe it or not. That was refreshing.

Agenda 7/10. The Sentinel - though ripe with liberal, America-hating possibilities - was rather tame as far as that goes. It actually did a good job of representing the Secret Service and the Presidency as good guys. There was only one bad egg and he was deeply remorseful about what he had to do. And he only had to do it because his family was in grave danger otherwise. One gripe I did have was that the bad guys, yet again, are white males. How come there aren't North Koreans or Iranian guys behind the plot to assassinate the President instead? Wouldn’t that make more sense than old, retired KGB guys who, in reality, would have nothing to do with the current administration? ut low in the "agenda" category on my scale.

Script 5/10. I can't remember a single memorable line but neither can I remember a single bad line. I think the script was rather neutral and was just smart enough to carry the story, but not smart enough to wow the sophisticated movie-goer.

Acting/Directing 6/10. Make no mistake, there will be no awards handed out for the performances in this flick. I did notice that the director tried to infuse a certain amount of 'coolness' into the movie. I will cover that in the next category…

Production 6/10. Tony Scott, one of my favorite directors, has a terrific sense for color filters and editing fast cuts and speed ramping in his movies. His movies have this terrific MTV-meets-documentary feel that I quite like and have been slowly incorporating into the event videos that I produce. (Scott, incidentally, also directed Enemy of the State which I mentioned early as a bad movie. It was. Scott's gotten much better since 1998's State.) But the director, Clark Johnson, who has directed several episodes of my favorite shows of all time (The Shield, NYPD Blue, The Wire, and Sleeper Cell) did this weird thing with that "Tony Scott" effect. For the first half of the movie, it was all 'straight-up'. Then all of a sudden in the second half, the color tints turned into that signature cyan that Tony Scott uses for outdoor shots and everything became increasingly saturated. It was a weird switch. It's possible that Johnson wanted to create a different feel for the 'chase' portion of the movie that separated itself from the first half's 'setting the stage' portion. At any rate, it was rather disconcerting for me.

Overall 6/10. This movie was "OK." It entertained well enough that I didn't mutter under my breath about it's duration or pacing and I didn't gripe about any of the plot points (except for two, but I could explain those parts away relatively convincingly). Would I recommend it? Well, I think there are some of my friends that would enjoy it, but are there other movies I would recommend ahead of this one? Absolutely.