S.W.A.T.: Firefight

When you watch movies like this you know what your up for. Swat Firefight is a generic but entertaining B movie action/cop movie. Nothing more and nothing less.

OK, let me first say that this is my first ever review - I was compelled to write one based on simply how BAD this movie is. The only reason I didn't give it a 1 is because I have seen worse.

Another reason I felt angry enough to write a review is because I normally like these kind of movies. Normally all you have to do is include something like SWAT, SAS or Marines in the description of the movie and point me towards it and I will lap it up. Unfortunately however, SWAT: Firefight only succeeded for me in one regard - it has SWAT in its title.

The story is just weak, really weak. Just when you feel it is about to get going, it literally ends. Its cliché to an extreme and about as predictable a movie I have ever seen.

I wont go on but to summarize, this is just a bad movie. If you want some decent SWAT like viewing entertainment, I recommend Flashpoint (Canadian TV Series) or possibly watching paint dry could also be considered a viable alternative.

I am very surprised by the low ratings for this film. I watched it not expecting great things, especially considering the low ratings and the fact that its a straight to video bandwagon film. However I was impressed. Yes the acting is not Oscar threatening and there are some cheesy clichés but overall I thought it was a well presented mature film, at the right pace with an above average plot. The script was particularly impressive, instead of the usual 'gung-ho' or unrealistic machismo's there is a lot of normal, down to earth banter that goes on between the team that is very true to life. the realism of the action and more importantly the justification and technical stuff is also well written. I would suggest they don't have a top class professional adviser but they got by. things to consider, there are some (albeit only some) relatively well known actors, some impressive hard wear and sets, including some big explosions. all done on a budget of $8 million. overall, although not on par with the 2003 original, it certainly stands up on its own as easy to watch action movie. I would be interested to see what this film would have been with double or triple the budget.

Hardly a 1 out of 10 so I'm not sure where the other guys are coming from. I would be interested in seeing what they think is a 7 or 8 rating for a movie. There are definitely plenty of other movies out there that are worse. SWAT is more like a glorified TV movie than a big budget Bruce Willis movie blockbuster.

Its worth watching if you like your cop/hostage movies. Its kind of like the new Hawaii five O TV series turned into a movie. Judge for yourself but don't let the 1 and 2 ratings above throw you out. I'd expect it to end up around the 5 or 6 mark once the figures balance out. I thought the guys and gals did a good job in it.

I strongly suspect that this direct-to-DVD sequel to the movie S.W.A.T. was set primarily in Detroit not because the screenwriters thought it would add color, but because at the time the movie was filmed, Detroit was offering a generous tax rebate to movies that filmed in the city. Actually, the Detroit backdrop *does* add a little color, giving the movie an interesting background you seldom see in movies. Unfortunately, that's about all that's positive to say about this movie. It's a cheap-looking effort. The low budget is no excuse - I've seen some amazing-looking movies shot on low budgets. Robert Patrick (what happened to his career?) is pretty much wasted in his monotone part. The worst thing, however, is how boring and tedious the whole enterprise feels. There's hardly any action, and the action sequences are brief and unexciting. Apart from the backdrop, the only other positive thing to say about this in-name-only sequel is that it makes the disappointing original movie look better.