IMDb RATING
3.7/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
A group of U.S. Marines are sent to rescue a captured U.S. Marine and a Filipino Captain while stopping a group of Al-Qaeda-backed local rebels from launching biological weapons.A group of U.S. Marines are sent to rescue a captured U.S. Marine and a Filipino Captain while stopping a group of Al-Qaeda-backed local rebels from launching biological weapons.A group of U.S. Marines are sent to rescue a captured U.S. Marine and a Filipino Captain while stopping a group of Al-Qaeda-backed local rebels from launching biological weapons.
Joe Mari Avellana
- Gen. Romero Panlilio
- (as Jose Mari Avellana)
Jerry Corpuz
- Pvt. Amador Magtuto
- (as Jerry Corpus)
Reiven Bulado
- Pvt. Don Tubayan
- (as Raiven Bulado)
Featured reviews
I don't remember much about this movie, other than it seemed like a very cheap production and the acting was awful. The film quality seemed B rate. It's one of the few movies that I can ever remember falling asleep during or turning off before it was over. Just bad, bad, bad. If you can catch this on regular television than maybe, but otherwise don't waste your money like I did. Luckily I only rented this, if I had gone to the theater and wasted $8-$10 I probably would have puked.
Rutger Hauer being the lead actor in a movie in 2006 should have been a dead giveaway. I knew better. War movies tend to be my favorites but this was just pathetic. :(
Rutger Hauer being the lead actor in a movie in 2006 should have been a dead giveaway. I knew better. War movies tend to be my favorites but this was just pathetic. :(
this was probably one of the worst war movies i have seen in a really long time. from the very beginning it had the feeling of wanting to be a "saving private ryan" type film, but in my opinion, never made it past a re-enactment of one of those commando war hero computer games. very bad acting and continuity mistakes all throughout the film made it very clear that they weren't trying very hard to produce a quality film. it was difficult watching these guys recite their lines instead of actually acting. i was tempted to just turn it off, unfortunately i did finish it and will never get those 90 minutes of my life back! so, do yourself a favor and go rent saving private ryan, tears of the sun, or pretty much any other war movie in place of this one. you can thank me later.
Well they must have spent the budget they had set aside for the technical adviser on all the pyro and squibs they blew off. A good war movie is FAR more than authentic uniforms, locations, equipment. Doesn't matter how good your replica looks if the acting, continuity, and technicalities are crap! The pilot, after the crash doesn't even attempt to check the many other troops injured in the crash, she goes right to the conscious one with a hurt leg - no blood to be seen... this is the crappiest triage I have ever seen - not at all real to what a true Marine would do in that situation. She also remains way too calm during the crash AND after the crash - this scene coupled with the lame beach attack scene alerted me that turning the movie off would be the best thing to do.
This movie is a waste of time, a waste of a Hollywood budget, and a shame to army movies.
This movie is a waste of time, a waste of a Hollywood budget, and a shame to army movies.
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. ).
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. ).
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThe character of Major Aguinaldo may be a reference to the first Philippine President General Emilio Aguinaldo.
- GoofsWhile walking in the jungle after Jennings patches Aguinaldo's broken leg, the gash and blood on Aguinaldo's head switches from the left side to the right side of his forehead in one shot.
- Quotes
Gen. Frank Lewis: The Pentagon can kiss my ass.
- ConnectionsEdited from Operation Balikatan (2003)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 28m(88 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content