The Hunt for Eagle One

A dull plot, one dimensional characters and no money for special effects. Worst shooting ever! Magazines are emptied without hitting anyone at 20m distance and only the marines have hand grenades. Killing the bad guy is celebrated in a repeated slow motion but when he finally falls over miraculously none of the rifles caused any exit wounds. Of course what once has been just rebels now has ties to AKD (supposedly Al Qaida) and manufactures biological WMD's who just happen to be sitting right next to prison cell, very convenient. Maybe they should have called the movie "Counter Strike" like the game, so one would know what to expect.

This Roger Cormon produced action/war flick is reasonably well made but ultimately as shallow as most of it's rival DTV action films. The film shot on a clearly microscopic budget manages to deliver some competent action scenes however the lead Mark Dacascos has been used to far better effect in other movies.

Following in the vein of Saving Private Ryan and Black Hawk Down this film has the requisite battle sequences, which are shot well enough to mask the low budget, however unlike Scott's film and Spielberg's film, this lacks the character and depth of those movies. The cast is not too bad and everyone does reasonably well with their simplistic roles, but we never really care about any individual characters, particularly Dacascos in the lead. Dacascos is essentially playing a his character in solider mode all the time, he's in battle mode, showing little emotion or personality. Dacascos convinces as a solider but is given little humanity to convey. Also Rutger Hauer appears to chew scenery in a quick and wasteful cameo. Unfortunately Theresa Randle is quite wooden in perhaps the most fleshed out role.

Overall there are many films better than this but similarly this isn't too bad. **

This is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I completed watching it ( for some reason unknown to humanity ) the acting is not worthy of a 1st grade school play.

Why Rutger Hauer is in this movie is beyond me. Mark Dacascos as Lt. Matt Daniels is the only actor that had any of my attention during this horrible excuse for a movie ..

A few assault team characters were tolerable too but not even close enough for me to even take the time figuring their names out . The rest was poorly made bad threaded and without any form of passion and nothing I'm going to recommend to any friends of mine to watch.

If all you live for is war movies then by all means have fun just don't say I didn't warn you about this one .

Gimme more Jarhead though :) not anymore of this ..

Ever ..

Back in the 1960s, the likes of director Eddie Romero churned out endless WW2 films in the Philippines, all of them sub-par and displaying a distinct lack of talent. In the 1980s, cheap American studios and directors like Cirio H. Santiago reignited the genre with some more enjoyable, RAMBO-inspired blow-em-up pieces of spectacle. All has been quiet for a couple of decades, but now THE HUNT FOR EAGLE ONE seeks to bring this defunct Filipino war sub-genre back to life.

Unfortunately the best part of this production is the opening credits, in which we learn that Roger Corman served as the producer and good old Cirio H. Santiago was co-producer. Promise indeed! Sadly, THE HUNT FOR EAGLE ONE turns out to be a throwback to the '60s-style war films rather than the '80s-style, and a right chore it is to sit through too.

The film is badly written and horribly directed, with all of that choppy editing and bad, distorted direction that was a scourge of the 2000s (it helped spoil many a Steven Seagal-starring DTV flick, for example). Characterisation is nil and the endless battle sequences are low budget and largely uninteresting, failing to draw viewers into the scenario or action. There are precisely three familiar faces on show here: a tired Rutger Hauer, delivering a minor cameo; a bored Mark Dacascos, in a role which could have fitted anyone; and Theresa Randle (BAD BOYS), who once had a career of sorts in the 1990s, not that you'd know given her performance here. Avoid this one like the plague.

It's not a Hollywood war movie so don't expect big explosions or lots of military gear, but it looks pretty decent. The action...well it looked more real that the standard Hollywood movie, it was like a very good documentary ( I know it's not one, but still...).

The acting : well there were no "deep thoughts / lines" so not much to show for the actors and since most of the lines spoken by the "enemies" were in their native language it's hard to judge that.

There were no "bullet time/close-ups", no sound coloring or open wounds, but it looked exactly how it would like when ppl start shooting/fighting.

It isn't Black Hawk Down or Jarhead or even Apocalypse Now but it IS a solid movie about a bunch of marines doing their job and then going home ( no US patriotic bullshit etc. ).