|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||12 reviews in total|
11 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
A realistic police show before its time, 6 March 2003
Author: cadfile from Columbus, Ohio
S.W.A.T was a spin-off off the other great police drama of the 1970s -
Rookies" SWAT told the stories of an elite police unit called Special
Weapons and Tactics Unit or S.W.A.T for short.
They handled situations to dangerous for the regular police.
The show was very violent for the time and the SWAT officers were more violent than the criminals they were going against.
What was cool about this show was the title music which hit the TOP 10 in 1975 and the team scrambling into their truck, speeding to a scene, and then rushing into action. They did it without the body armor and helmets we see such officers wear today.
When I kid, my friends and I would play SWAT and today I wish I could watch the repeats.
Without the theme music and action it would be a run of the mill police show.
10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:
One of the better shows of the 70's!, 12 June 2003
Author: lyndafan from Texas USA
I wish that they would make shows like this today. I don't know about everyone else my age but I'm sick of these shows today like CSI, Cops, N.Y.P.D. BLUE etc. We see that on the news every night. I'm ready for shows to become fun again! And who wants to see blood and guts during dinner? But anyway S.W.A.T. has a wonderful cast, great action and is worth a look for fans of Starsky & Hutch and The Rookies.
7 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
SWAT is a great example of '70s police action episodic TV, 9 June 2003
Author: dorothea-2 from Los Angeles, CA
This was my favorite show as a kid! It's one of the best of the '70s cop
shows, and never fully got the recognition it deserved. It gave the
audience a look at a police unit many didn't even know existed at the
Aaron Spelling and Robert Hamner showed them as a group of men who had to
depend on each other and work as a team in very difficult
Back then, people WANTED to see action shows, but the writers still had a lot of restrictions on content and visuals. What's called `violence' in this show you can find in children's television these days. This show managed to get the violence of crime across without the gore most shows rely on today.
SWAT also had a very good ensemble cast. Steve Forrest (as Lt. Harrelson) obviously had a bit more to do, but the writers did a great job of showing the personal and professional sides of all the characters. In the '70s, these shows were truly episodic - there were no story arcs or follow-ups to an episode, unless, of course, it was a two-parter. A story began, developed, and wrapped in an hour. Yet, the writers managed to give some depth to these characters (and the actors something to work with) from time to time.
Robert Urich (Jim Street) was a good actor, and I think because he was considered the `GQ' man of the group, he was given a bit more screen time than the others. I absolutely loved him in `Vegas'. Rod Perry (`Deacon Kay'), Mark Shera (`Dominic Luca' - the object of MY personal teenage crush), and James Coleman (`T.J. McCabe') ALL gave consistently good performances and delivered in every episode.
In my opinion, SWAT is a great example of '70s police action episodic television. And personally, I'm VERY glad they've put it on DVD.
6 out of 6 people found the following review useful:
Still a great show, 8 September 2003
Author: Peggy Kuntzelman (firstname.lastname@example.org) from San Antonio, Tx
S.W.A.T. was my favorite show that came out of the 70's and I still enjoy
as much today as I did back then since it was shown on TVLand for a month
and now the first season has been released on DVD. I read all these
saying that the show doesn't transcend to today but I think that is
wrong. My teenage boys think the show is as cool as I did back in the
I have yet to sit down and watch an episode without one of them coming in
watch with me. I only hope that the second season is also released on DVD
because there are episodes in the second season that I haven't seen since
the show originally aired.
I only had a few complaints with the show, one is that they would change details from one season to the next without explanation, such as in the first season TJ was engaged but in the second he was out dating again. That seemed to happen a lot on shows in the 70's.
My major complaint with the show was that it seemed to focus mainly on the character of Hondo. Each episode seemed to make him out to be the hero, instead of ever letting one of the other members of the team get any glory.
All in all I think this was a great tv show that never got the praise it deserved.
5 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
S.W.A.T. TV show, 9 October 2005
Author: woods343 from Whitesburg, Tennessee
As a kid growing up in the seventies, I just couldn't wait for the next episode of swat. Came on after the Bay City Rollers. I know the younger folks probably think of this show as kind of goofy or something, but I believe its better than some of the cop shows we have today. Todays shows are very much more violent and I wouldn't let children watch them. Great theme song, M-16s and a big blue van. Wow!! These guys always got their man, and the issues they handled sometimes went with the time which the show ran. Steve Forrest was great, as was the rest of the team. I have the first season DVD set and hope they produce the second season. I hope TV Land brings this series back soon.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Great TV series, and now it's out on DVD!!, 21 August 2003
Author: (email@example.com) from Phoenix, Az.
The movie was pretty good too, so I bought the Season One DVD series. The 1st review here was right on accurate! Ditto everything he said! The TV series seems to have been well reflected in the Movie, even the character names are the same. Some of the TV show scenarios wound up in the movie also.
3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
my view point, 3 June 2003
Author: ciecie from mayville, new york
When I was a kid, that's what the viewers wanted in the police show. At the time the most realistic police show was Adam-12. In the 1960's and 1970's, Jack Webb produced the most realistic shows on television. Aaron Spelling did his thing even back then. One thing about SWAT was that they did function as a team.
1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
70s' Hit Crime Drama, 17 December 2011
Author: Sparky48 from United States
"When you need help, you call the police. But when the police needs
help, they call S.W.A.T." I vividly remember this tag used to advertise
this then-new TV crime drama, which debut in 1974 when I was 13.
Having watched a number of detective and conventional police crime dramas on television, S.W.A.T. was indeed a different type a crime-drama TV series about the quasi-military arm of the Los Angeles police department, assigned to respond to extreme/emergency situations. The show became an instant hit, with its theme song even becoming one as well on many radio stations during the mid-seventies.
A strong cast lead by Steve Forrest, who plays the stern, level-headed Lt. Dan "Hondo" Harrelson--and featuring Rod Perry as "Deacon" Kay, his loyal right-hand man, Marc Shera as Officer Dominic Luca, the free-spirited Italian, James Coleman as Officer T.J. MaCabe, the expert marksman, and Robert Urich, as the no-nonsense young Officer Jim Street--provides solid and intriguing drama that would hold the TV viewers' attention in almost every episode.
However, I recently viewed the series again in re-runs on TVLand, and as a middle-aged man now instead of a young teenager, I've become a bit more critical. When watching the series now, it seems quite unrealistic how in certain episodes a S.W.A.T. team member had personal connections to an individual who was involved in a particular case that the S.W.A.T. team responded to.
In one episode, T.J. reunites with his former high-school basketball teammate and introduces him to the other members of the S.W.A.T. team. Later that evening, T.J.'s buddy, who's now a pro basketball player, plays a basketball game at the local arena and thugs kidnap his team. They hold the players hostage in the locker room, and you can guess--by the strangest coincidence--what particular law enforcement unit comes to the rescue.
In another episode, a college professor of a university is also held hostage by extremists with the S.W.A.T. team responding to the emergency. Interestingly enough, the professor just happens to be Street's instructor of a course that he's is currently taking in night school at the university.
Yet in spite of these "Hollywoodish" moments, the show still holds up fairly well after 35 years. It can still captivate TV audiences with its action-packed, dramatic moments and provides sufficient entertainment to merit viewing.
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
I loved it as a kid--but of course, kids are sometimes wrong!, 28 February 2013
Author: planktonrules from Bradenton, Florida
When I was a kid, I loved "S.W.A.T." and was sad when the show was canceled after only two seasons. Recently, I discovered season one of the show on Netflix and was thrilled to see the show once again. At first, I really liked the episodes but after seeing many of them I detected some silly clichés. Whenever one of the characters introduces a friend to his co-workers with the S.W.A.T. team, you could guarantee that the person would either go psycho (like Cameron Mitchell did) or they'll be kidnapped (like the basketball player and girlfriend of T.J.). This same pattern happened again and again. And, the show occasionally degenerated to such silly plots as people who are going to kidnap the beauty contestants or blow up a movie studio!! Huh?!?! What were they thinking?! I think the problem was that the S.W.A.T. team in real life is really a special occasion task force--there for some pretty insane situations. BUT, these insane situations are generally predictable and too dull for TV--such as bank robberies. So, to add spice, the show made the crimes ridiculous and outrageous--the things most S.W.A.T. teams would never dream of seeing. Aaron Spelling couldn't have the team taking out bank robbers or ending a common domestic dispute in 5 of every 6 episodes--realistic, yes, but not very exciting. So, they went the opposite direction--making the shows insanely impossible--week after week. What you are left with is NOT a show like "Dragnet" (which showed ALL the many facets of police work--the exciting and the mundane) but one that wasn't that far removed from "Charlie's Angels"--kind of mindless and entertaining. Overall, I'd say the show wasn't bad but clearly it wasn't all that good. And, what did I know--I was only 10 when the show debuted!
2 out of 12 people found the following review useful:
S.W.A.P. it for something else!, 5 July 2006
Author: pwoods1 from Adelaide, South Australia
In 1975 I was still in the army.
We'd been through "Mod Squad" and similar 'groovy' attempts at television showing us that it was awkward to be a Vietnam vet - because ALL of them were either cops or robbers. What the medium at the time was NOT showing, was that things hadn't changed since the First World War: when the troops come home, they are not the same people they were when they went away.
OK. That's something best discussed on another day.
SWAT is crap because the actors make the notion of watching paint dry exciting. It might be an early Spelling production, but it's as terrible as the 'seventies Hannah Barbera cartoons. 'Wooden' is an insult to trees.
There is NO attempt to be 'real' or even occasionally-accurate when it comes to weapons per se and why people steal/use them.
Occasional 'through-the-scope' sniper views make me want to weep. Trust me, you don't want to know.
Stories/scenarios are as hackneyed as the characters. Let's face it: pneumonic plague (?!) is not got rid of as easy as "We've been inoculated, therefore you're safe". That particular episode with 'Little Billy' surviving is, indeed, a classic.
Did I offer 2/10? I must be dreaming...
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|