*** Official S.W.A.T. Review Thread

Discussion in 'Movies' started by John Warner, Aug 7, 2003.

  1. John Warner

    John Warner Extra

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just watched S.W.A.T. a few hours ago, was only a few minutes late into a preview showing for Theater Employees. Though I'd like to hear comments about it and see if anyone else agrees that it was a little bit too fast paced, or maybe a little too short. Maybe I missed something but I left kinda dissapointed.
     
  2. Robert Crawford

    Robert Crawford Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 1998
    Messages:
    29,696
    Likes Received:
    5,020
    Location:
    Michigan
    Real Name:
    Robert
    This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "S.W.A.T.". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

    Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

    If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



    Crawdaddy
     
  3. Tim Glover

    Tim Glover Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 1999
    Messages:
    8,005
    Likes Received:
    268
    Location:
    Monroe, LA
    Real Name:
    Tim Glover
    [​IMG] [​IMG] out of [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]

    At times it was interesting, but most of the time I had trouble caring about what happened. Some dumbed down dialogue didn't help either.
     
  4. James T

    James T Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 1999
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish I came late into this movie. The previews lasted close to a half hour and none of the previews really interested me other than Once Upon a Time in Mexico.

    The movie was just okay. It's nothing special, but you won't feel like you've wasted your time watching this movie. And did I hear right or did Sam Jackson not cuss in this movie?
     
  5. Patrick Sun

    Patrick Sun Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    38,680
    Likes Received:
    452
    Nothing all that compelling in this film, which is really just 2 acts, so it felt a bit abrupt in how it shifted gears from the beginning until it gets to the last half of the film. The character development is pretty thin, but with 6 SWAT team members, that would have been hard to pull off in under 2 hours. There wasn't as much tension as I'd hoped, and I never got pulled into the world of SWAT in a convincing manner.

    I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
     
  6. Scott Weinberg

    Scott Weinberg Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    7,477
    Likes Received:
    0
    S.W.A.T. [​IMG][​IMG] out of 5

    The movie reads like the back of a conditioner bottle: apply stereotype, massage into cliche, lather, rinse, repeat.

    Hey have I got a movie for you...if you don't own a TV and have never seen one Cop Flick in your entire life. Based on the semi-admired TV series of the same name, the new ensemble police procedural S.W.A.T. offers a whole lot of boys-in-blue schpiel that we've seen a thousand times before - and very little else.

    The plot is an overstuffed and undercooked collection of cop conventions all wrapped around a frankly boring tale of one sneering and villainous Frenchman. We have the "wrongly blackballed Good Cop who's looking for redemption", the "ornery sergeant who plays by his own rules", the preening beefcake, the shifty-eyed Golden Boy, and the aggravated Lady Cop Who Gets No Respect. Toss in the aforementioned French guy, and apparently that's all you need to get a flick made these days.

    Director Clark Johnson (TV's "The Shield") acquits himself moderately well in the film's extended action sequences. It's just a crying shame that the endlessly familiar screenplay only affords him the chance to break out the fireworks every 40-some minutes. And the pauses between the adrenaline jolts are long and consistently tiresome.

    See, it's a delicate balance: offer too little action and you're then dependent on a compelling screenplay - and the dialogue and plot devices on constant display throughout S.W.A.T. are not exactly the trademarks of a winning script. So in between the few & far between moments of kinetic mayhem, we're subjected to ponderous scenes of half-baked character development, the introduction of numerous instantly-recognizable plot gimmicks, and the sort of forced Cop Banter that one generally finds in weaker episodes of "Hill Street Blues" and "NYPD Blue".

    The cast is surprisingly strong, which makes how little they're given to do even more of a shame. Colin Farrell (Phone Booth) does the best he can with a horrendously underwritten Lead Character, Sam L. Jackson (Pulp Fiction) barks and bellows in his trademark fashion, the ever-muscular LL Cool J (Any Given Sunday) bares his chest, and the ever-surly Michelle Rodriguez (Girlfight) does not.

    It seems clear that Johnson and his massive array of screenwriters were trying to mix an inventive cop procedural with a traditional action flick. Unfortunately, S.W.A.T. earns a meager grade on both counts: the action scenes are sparse and only sporadically exciting, and the non-action-scenes are omnipresent and frustratingly trite.

    Why drop eight bucks on a story you can see on Network TV every night of the week? Heck, why drop eight bucks on a story you've already SEEN on Network TV every night of the week?
     
  7. Eric Emma

    Eric Emma Supporting Actor

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    0
    S.W.A.T. is basically a time-passer and nothing more. It's entertaining but after the first viewing you proberly won't watch it again... I can sum it's problems up in one sentence.


    S.W.A.T. is unorignal, no character development, suffer from pg-13, and has a piss-poor director...


    [​IMG] [​IMG] out of [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     

Share This Page