S.W.A.T.: Under Siege

Meeting every single cliché from lingerie wearing fighting evil women, over stupidly ridiculous tries to depict 'hackers' - BTW, imitating Microsoft Windows isn't a step in the right direction up to the 'love story' happy end (despite the fact that a dozen of his closest friends just died).

I actually have no words; that's how bad of a movie this is.

The correct title is: S,W.A.T. - Ostromállapot The hun title featured here is for the movie SWAT-Firefight

"S.W.A.T.: Under Siege" should delete its writer's credit and replace it with a line crediting everybody who has written an action film in the past. The plot draws heavily from "Assault on Precinct 13" and "Safe House," with a lot of familiar tropes seen in dozens of genre films. What few mild surprises the plot offers generally happen off-screen, although it is not easy to predict which characters will die, who will kill whom and the order of their demises. The biggest surprise seems borrowed from "Showdown in Little Tokyo" and is surprising only because the film hadn't yet developed the characters – although, to their credit, it is a great improvement on the SILT scene. The bad guys who are really good and the good guys who are really bad could have simply worn T- shirts identifying themselves. The dialogue alternates between pretentious, execrable, familiar and unnecessary. Production values are generally adequate, although marred by over-reliance on distracting jiggly-cam shots.

However, the fight scenes are capably executed. Michael Jai White is highly proficient and other cast members demonstrate considerable skill as well, including Marsden, Zagorsky, Jaeger and Palicki. The fight choreography is competent, although uninspired. The special effects incorporated into the numerous gun battles are handled well.

Advocates of diversity in films should be encouraged by the ethnically diverse cast. However, skeptics will note that most of the Asian, Hispanic and black performers are in background roles and underutilized. The director seems to have attempted to give a couple of them more screen time with prolonged noble demises, but the shots seem more distracting than empowering. White delivers his dialogue with a heavy accent and another character is given an urban 'tude, but as in many films with large casts, the diversity seems more a result of casting decisions than screen writing choices.

OK, that's definitely not ASSAULT ON PRECINCT, nor NID DE GUEPES ( WASP NEST), even LES INSOUMIS, starring Richard Berry but on the same scale of GRIDLOCKED or BLACK SITE DELTA, schemes where police stations are under assault, a topic very often seen since John Carpenter's masterpiece, back in 1976. So, yes, it was a pretty good time for me, despite the bad acting and lousy directing. The army of mercenaries is laughable, they all look like football supporters rushing out of the stadium after the match to fight against the other team hooligans. Laughable, but I repeat, the basic scheme is not bad and Michael Jay White pretty good. By the way, I did not get if YES OR NOT, he died in the end. And what about the geek helping the baddies out with his computer...was he wasted or not? I guess so. Thanks Netflix for providing such films. There were so many looking like this one, i don't remember all of them, sorry. One last thing, I appreciated the way the couple of heavies - man and female - are presented, aboard the private jet, talking in a very intellectual way about the origins of the American Civil War, between North and South states taxes...Interesting for this kind of grade B films.

An absolutely abysmal movie, I have nothing good to say at all about it -it has diabolical acting, script and action sequences - the lead man gets knocked out 3 times I think, the whole thing is laughable and if I was one of the "actors" in this film (and I use the term loosely) I would be ashamed to put it on my CV. Avoid like the plague.