What is it with Ebert and Roeper lately? I'll cut Roeper some slack because he's relatively new (compared to his veteran partner) but Ebert is a little hard to figure out these days. I know that when reviewing a film, I and everyone else that does this sort of thing is simply giving their opinion, but sometimes I wonder if the dynamic duo see the same movies that the rest of us see. First, they proclaim The Italian Job a great piece of summer entertainment. Aside from a couple of decent car chases, that picture was nothing to write home about. It was predictable beyond belief, and featured sorely misplaced humor. Add to that a wooden turn by Mark Wahlberg and a one-dimensional, underwritten role for the usually dependable Edward Norton, and you have what I feel was one of the more dull movies of the summer. Now they're heaping praise on S.W.A.T., calling it one of the very best action pictures of the season. What???? Don't get me wrong. The movie isn't garbage, but it's a thriller-by-numbers--featuring sub par direction and very few...no...make that zero surprises.

S.W.A.T. is yet another movie based on an old school television show, and features Colin Farrell as an ex-S.W.A.T. team member who desperately wants to get back into the game. Samuel L. Jackson is a legendary S.W.A.T. commander who must assemble a crew set to take on a dangerous mission. Not surprisingly, Jackson approaches Farrell with an offer he can't refuse. Before long, Farrell and several other recruits begin training for their harrowing assignment.

S.W.A.T. starts off with a promising, beautifully staged shoot-out sequence that reminded me of that terrific heist in Michael Mann's brilliant Heat. While it isn't quite at that level of storytelling, it is exciting nonetheless.

Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a stock exercise in the obvious. There's double crosses, pissed off ex-partners, bitter police sergeants, and a one-dimensional villain (played by UnfaithfulÕs bland Olivier Martinez).

Through it all, I was constantly asking myself; "Why the hell is Colin Farrell doing this?" He is an extremely charismatic actor who reminds me of a young Robert DeNiro, and while he certainly tries his best here, he is never able to rise above the stale material. He fared much better in the superior Phone Booth. True, the Joel Schumacher nail biter wasn't perfect, but it was a hell of a lot more intense than this.

I will give S.W.A.T. props for keeping it's action realistic. Most of the big moments in this picture are grounded in reality. Still, I wanted more from this movie. Gritty dialogue, an unpredictable revelation, a menacing villain. Something!!! Unfortunately, that "something" never materializes. Farrell is a major talent, but he can only do so much.

As for Ebert and Roeper? I'll always be a fan, but sometimes they blow my mind when championing such movie mediocrity. Again, I know we're talking opinion here, but it still boggles the mind. I thank the good Lord above that they trashed Bad Boys 2.