Dir. Clark Johnson, US, 2006, 108 mins
Cast: Michael Douglas, Kiefer Sutherland, Eva Longoria and Kim Basinger
Review by Hemanth Kissoon
Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood): “What to do you see when you're in the dark, and the demons come?”
Mitch Leary (John Malkovich): “I see you, Frank. I see you standing over the grave of another dead president.”
Frank Horrigan: “That's not going to happen. I'm onto you.”
Mitch Leary: “Forget it, Frank. I am willing to trade my life for his. I am smart, and I am willing, and that is all it takes. That president is coming home from California in a box.”
- In the Line of Fire (1993)
The Sentinel and In the Line of Fire both have as their premise a presidential assassination attempt with the job of the Secret Service to both protect the incumbent and uncover the plot. Douglas’s Pete Garrison and Eastwood’s Horrigan were involved in previous attempts – Reagan and Kennedy respectively – the latter tragically successful. The difference lies in that In the Line of Fire is a superb thriller and The Sentinel is not.
The first half of The Sentinel is gripping, as a great cast is brought together to uncover an internal threat within the Secret Service to kill POTUS (as The West Wing call him - President of the United States). The poster tagline states, “In 141 years, there's never been a traitor in the Secret Service... until now.” However, the script, plot and direction let down an intriguing premise.
There is not enough in the dialogue for this cast to chew on, which you know they can: Douglas in Wall Street, Basinger in L.A. Confidential, Sutherland in a certain TV show and Longoria in Desperate Housewives. It is not especially bad, just lacklustre. Sutherland’s Secret Service investigator David Breckinridge even has a clunky Tommy Lee Jones-The Fugitive-“Dog-house, out-house” call-to-arms moment. The plot, though, is what is what really lets the side down. The film is set-up as a detective story with clues and red-herrings clumsily presented: Is it really Douglas? Could it be the President’s wife Basinger? Or someone not even introduced? There are chase sequences, where people seem to be running for the sake of it, and a hastily explained plot that is not clear as to its motivations.
Why does director Clark Johnson keep getting hired? He acted (very well) in the greatest cop show of all time Homicide: Life on the Street, and directed a few episodes after the template had been set for it. He then went on to be involved as director with cracking modern police dramas The Shield and The Wire. His direction works on TV. SWAT and The Sentinel on the other hand are so mediocre. They look sub-pseudo-documentary, where handheld camera and fast editing is his idea of atmosphere and style. The climax is also poorly executed with the feeling of – "Is that it?"
Credibility is also questionable. It is hard at times to believe that Desperate Housewives’ Gabrielle Solis (Longoria) can be firing guns as a hard-nosed Secret Service rookie. However, the biggest mouthful to swallow is Douglas. He’s an impressive actor, with some great movies to his credit: Wonder Boys, The Game, Black Rain, Wall Street, Romancing the Stone and Traffic, as well as those pop cultural phenomena that we all know. He understands how to play the flawed American male, and does it well here too but he looks ropey during the action scenes. The cult of youth is worrying; I am all for there being no ceilings for actors and actresses. Eastwood was 63 when In the Line of Fire was released, Sean Connery was 65 with The Rock, and Harrison Ford 63 for Firewall. Douglas is 61, but does not look as sprightly or comfortable as the above.
The nail in the coffin is the miscasting of Kiefer Sutherland. Whenever he is on screen it is a reminder that 24 is the best action series conceived and The Sentinel, which also has similar themes, cannot help but suffer in the comparison.
The President should have brought in Jack Bauer - he would have sorted it all out a lot quicker.
Discuss this film here
|
