geekmalone S.W.A.T. was so crappy that I was certain that it was Jerry Bruckheimer movie. It wasn't! I can't insult it any worse than accusing it of being from Jerry, so I'll stop now.

851222 Greetings from Lithuania."S.W.A.T." (2003) is an action flick and nothing more - it doesn't try to be anything else, nor it is - its what it promises to deliver it delivers. The plot is pretty good, although yes sometimes sometimes formulaic but it does work. Performances were also pretty nice for this material. The more tight direction of this movie i think would have made this movie better, but it is OK flick for what it is. And by the way i noticed in once scene, one ultra short scene Octavia Spencer - yes, the same Oscar winning actress in one small scene, that was really coolOverall, "S.W.A.T." has nothing original nor super exciting, but it delivers what it promises - action flick and nothing more. On that account, it works.

juneebuggy I remember seeing this when it first came out and really enjoying it. This time around though it viewed as just your average action thriller. Entertaining enough, and easily watchable but also pretty mindless. Good cast though; Sam Jackson is always cool, I enjoyed Colin Farrell as a demoted special weapons and tactics team member and Jeremy Renner as a hothead SWAT member gone bad.I did like the set up of an imprisoned drug lord offering up a 100 million dollar reward for anyone who can break him out, this of course sets up the obligatory guntoting mercenaries and big action sequences throughout downtown LA, its a cool idea.The training sequences were fun too as 'Hondo' assembles his elite team and he and Farrell provide some pretty entertaining banter as they drive around collecting and introducing the new rookies (LL Cool J & Michelle Rodriguez.) Olivier Martinez plays the bad guy here, he was okay, doesn't really do much. The police politics were cliché and on that note boring. Lots of shoot-em-up action but mindless as a whole. 11/24/15

inspectors71 I was irritated with 2003's SWAT, a modernized, big-budget version of the gasping-for-air-it-was-so-stupidly-unintentionally-funny ABC series of 40 years ago. Eight bazillion thugs, pugs, and mugs spill out into the streets to collect a reward put up by a cartel-type to get him out of the clutches of the LAPD. It's like the excremental Predator II, with the streets taken over by zombies in doo-rags.Then, Director Clark Johnson gets it under control. Control being defined as holding on to the steering wheel of a tightly-plotted SWAT van of clichés. At no time did I believe anything I was seeing, but damned if I didn't get pulled into this nonsense, much the way I loved the old series. I actually felt a little goose-bumpy at times, kind of chilled from the excitement.Is there anything wrong in enjoying a stupid shootemup like SWAT? I don't think so, if the movie's heart is in the right place, the Dollar Tree philosophy isn't too thick, and the narrative throws out some surprises I didn't see coming.I saw SWAT on TNT some weeks ago, and even with the occasional gout of blood or F-cracker being eliminated, it still seemed to come to the small screen intact. If I can forgive the network hacks hacking out the icky stuff, I get a double whammy of good value--mindless entertainment, all in the comfort of my own home. Shoot, I just had to wait ten years to see it.So, if you haven't seen this professionally produced cinematic equivalent to a 10 piece box of Chicken McNuggets, look for it the next time it's on the tube.It's worth the empty calories.