The Hunt for Eagle One (2006 Video) User Reviews

Pretty Average Stuff!

[supertom-3 · 5/10 · 4 April 2006]

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. **

Those Filipino war films are back...

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 29 October 2014]

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.

Shoot shoot shot

[blkhwk41 · 5/10 · 19 April 2020]

Best thing I can say about this feature is that it likely has the most blanks used of any movie, ever... No Stingers were expended in the making.

Save yourself from this

[imdb-9446 · 2/10 · 21 January 2006]

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.

Bah humbug

[Brorim · 1/10 · 22 January 2006]

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 ..

If you like bad acting and shoot 'm up films, this one is for you.

[jstahl-7 · 2/10 · 15 January 2006]

A bunch of military guys and one women soldier gets captured. Another bunch of GI Joes go into save them. The bad guys torture the women soldier who remarkably is able to keep her makeup looking good through out the whole ordeal. Not many lines for the actors as they are too busy shooting everything in sight over and over and over again. It looks like they are trying to copy the Black Hawk Down film but on a very low budget. The only good part of the movie was at the beginning and that was only because it reminded me of the old WWII movies of the 40's and 50's. Rutger Hauer plays a small part as a commanding officer. It's too bad his movie career is in a downward spiral.

Save your money and time.

movie or computer game??

[chilsonjay · 2/10 · 10 March 2006]

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.

Fell Asleep 20 Minutes In

[enigma_x66 · 1/10 · 10 July 2006]

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. :(

there is not a word in the dictionary to describe how bad this movie is

[stephenallaway · 1/10 · 22 November 2006]

As a former member of The Australian Army, I feel that this movie is one of the worst, if not the worst movie I have ever seen. My first thought in the opening scene, "A daylight opposed landing????? What the...." (in reality a small force would never land in the middle of a beach with inflatables, opposed or not).Then to add even more insult, the long flowing, unrestrained hair on a "U.S. Officer" complete with glossy lipstick, both chargeable offences, I wonder who the "advisor" was and having served alongside members of the Phillipino army the comments made were very offensive and not just to women. The storyline did have potential, but the lack of credibility and poor acting killed it in the first few minutes. I found this movie to be an insult to the intelligence of even the most naive movie-goer and I recommend that if you feel you must watch it, then do so at high speed, the "keystone cops" feeling thus created at least deserves a laugh. Lastly the synopsis on the back is truly misleading and to say that this is in the same league as such epic greats as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Behind Enemy Lines" is a direct insult to the cast and crew of these, and I for one am amazed that Sony even put there name to it, all that have watched this bile should commence a class action against all involved in the production.

Do Not Watch

[creatrix22 · 1/10 · 22 November 2006]

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.

Not bad at all

[johnm-14 · 8/10 · 17 January 2006]

This is a surprisingly good movie, considering it is basically low budget. It is fairly realistic, too. The weapons sound like the real weapons. The actors act like real Marines and soldiers.

There are some lapses in dialog, though. Some of the things the Marine lieutenant says would not be uttered by a Marine.

Far and away the biggest lapse is Rutger Hauer. He is starting to show his age - unfortunately. Plus, with his long hair a scraggly 3-day-old beard, he looks more like a street person than a Marine Corps General.

That notwithstanding, the military advisers did a much better job than in other movies of this genre. It held my attention, even if it wasn't Saving Private Ryan.

Not a box office hit, But still not bad

[darrenpamplin · 7/10 · 20 January 2006]

Not a bad movie overall but lacks some special effects to beef it up, The Plot is at times a little weak, And I cant get the thought that the production team may have worked on the A-Team(Once you've watched the movie you'll understand). I Have seen better but its still entertaining and if your into Modern war films you will enjoy it. Of the new war movies this is not as hardihood as "Jarhead". As Another reviewer states it does seem a little on the low budget side but this doesn't detract from the fact its worth watching,The lack of training by Military ad visors does show with particular relevance to the handling of the weapons used by actors(anyone that has served in the Military will know that its a cardinal sin to bury the muzzle of a rifle in the dirt and that real weapons actually eject shells whilst firing). My advice is not to pick holes in the movie as i do or you maybe disappointed

Worse War Movie Made

[dig · 1/10 · 26 January 2006]

Beware of this stinker. Do not even rent it, You will be better off for something to do if you talk to your lamp light bulb. They show some shots over and over. the plot is the type we have seen before. but this so called movie takes it to so many lower levels, you will want to turn it off. Acting was as bad as the movie and filming of it.

Do not waste your time on this one.

Just so you know. I have only left comments for bad movies 2 times and good ones 6 times. The others (lots of them) have been OK enough not to have to say any more than others that have made comments.

If you feel the need to spend money on something, buy your worse enemy a gift. That will be just as bad as this movie.

Enjoy

I cant believe how BAD this film is!

[jnoll-2 · 1/10 · 14 November 2006]

The opening scenes are poorly acted out and the suspense level is not even noticeable. If I were a pilot that had just gotten shot down, I would be a WEEE bit more hysterical. No name actors and a no name producer with a no name production company = a no name film that has no value. I would give it a great big "0" if I could, even negative numbers are too high! I tried to watch this film with all of my imagination, but it was really hard. I just couldn't get my mind around it. I have been in the military and I know that people just don't act like that when under pressure. The human element just isn't there. The female pilot is too robotic in her verbal responses and I just thought it was quite boring. I was truly underwhelmed. Save your money and get the Bourne series, a much better series of films and a recognizable acting team. BTW, what was the budget for this loser film anyway?? Probably a six pack of beer and a bag of chips.

kill me billy!!!

[elfsandwich · 2/10 · 24 March 2006]

This was the worst war movie I have ever been able to finish. The budget apparently was not big enough to hire an adviser with even a minimal amount of military knowledge. At the beginning they say the night before they did some bombing to clear out a valley, but they try to convince you that they are performing some kind of covert special ops mission.One problem, it is daytime. Also the prior days bombing not only did not enable them to land on the beach without getting fired on, it probably alerted every bad guy that was nearby. Also the soldiers are getting picked off left and right at the beginning. You would have thought it was the Swedish or Belgian troops prancing their way to talk the terrorists into a willing plunge off the nearest cliff. And of course the terrorist are not Arab. I mean everybody knows that a majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by Phillipinos out on a major Jihad. Overall I give it a 2.

Probably The worst Action Movie ever created

[and_mitchell_2000 · 2/10 · 13 March 2007]

First off, the acting is just terrible, I could go on, but just trust me! Second, the special Fx is really bad, anyone could tell that they are fake. (Spoiler Below)

I remember one scene where the bad guys are going to shoot down the helicopter and instead of having of a shot of the actual bad guys manning a gun, about to fire it; they had a CG helicopter flying in the sky with bright red cross-hairs locking on the helicopter. It was bad. The helicopter crashing was terrible too, they just shook the camera for a shot of the helicopter and cut to a shot of the camera zooming in on the tries below.

Most People would rather watch a movie with the same synopsis, shot with a 8MM camcorder, THAT HAD AN ACTUAL PLOT; than watch "Hunt For Eagle One" with fancy effects and shot by fancy camcorders, WITH NO PLOT.

Simply Awful!! *** may contain spoilers ***

[kvonnegut · 1/10 · 17 February 2006]

I rented this flick simply because the DVD cover looked like it was a good flick. I was in the mood for a guy flick and the DVD cover caught my eye, the premise written on the jacket was decent and also I didn't feel like watching any films that are really deep (plotwise)at the time. Well, to my surprise the DVD Cover was the only thing redeeming about this flick.

Supposedly, this is based on a joint operations between the Philippine military and the U.S. Marines in the hunt for the Abu Sayef Brigade (thugs more like it) in the Southern Philippines (Mindanao). Well it was a good idea for a flick but very bad execution in more ways than one.

The plot is a rip off of "Black Hawk Down". How so, you may ask? Well, there was a mission (that is the capture of thug/terrorist Abu Bakkar), a chopper went down, the pilot was captured, there's a sub-mission: that is to rescue the pilot (since you know, Marines never leaves anyone behind), the bad guys die, some of the good guys die, then the heroes bury their dead etc. All that is nice and good except it was badly done even for a small budget flick. Oh yeah, did I mention the even some of the scores were very similar to BHD. Simply pathetic.

The acting is sub par. The woman who played Capt. Jennings seemed like she's reading the script rather than acting. Rutger Hauer, for such a good actor seemed like he did not want to be in this flick. Mark Dacascos performance is halfway decent. Of course, it doesn't help if the dialogues were poorly written. The dialogues simply lack realism. It's obvious the writers never had any military background. At the very least, know the basic military lingo to make the lines a little bit more convincing.

The cinematography is decent. It did try to copy BHD but it simply fell short. I could understand why, as it is not easy to shoot war scenes, not too mention working on a limited budget. This is evidenced in the set design and lack of military consultants to at least train extras on rules of engagement, weapon handling etc.

I do think that watching this flick is a waist of money (and time) but if you just happen to be in the mood for a bad flick on a cold rainy Friday night; then go ahead and rent it.

Another bird down...a chick is down.

[michaelRokeefe · 2/10 · 31 January 2006]

Not like BLACK HAWK DOWN(2001)being the paradigm, this movie is very predictable and just lacking in the ability to sustain interest. Blame director Brian Clyde? Or executive and famed/infamous producer Roger Corman? General Frank Lewis(Rutger Hauer)commands a controversial tactical unit in the Philippines to capture rebel terrorist. Lt. Matt Daniels(Mark Dacascos)leads this special team and is called upon to rescue Captain Amy Jennings(Theresa Randle)after her helicopter is shot down by the enemy. While deep in unfriendly territory, Daniels stumbles upon a secret anthrax lab. The rescue is no picnic. But what hurts this movie is what seems to be over use of stock footage. Maybe I'm wrong, but at times this flick looks just plain shabby.

Acting, I mean line reading, is so bad I couldn't finish it....

[MovieAGoGo · 2/10 · 28 January 2006]

"Oh...no.....we....are....going.....down....this.....is.....it....." Seriously, if the lines the cast delivers in the first 10 minutes we said by robots (with no emotion or comprehension of what they were saying) they would sound more natural. Everything from the press conference to the lines of the soldiers were so horrible in delivery that it totally ruined the effect.

I am not a movie maker, but if casts like this one can get funding, maybe I should start. The actual visuals are not that bad, but the Vietnam era helicopters and the stupid tactics of sending in rescue teams right after a helicopter was shot down, before the area is secure, make what happens in may cases totally predictable.

I recommend not taking the time to check this "not even made for TV" movie out.

*warning spoilers*its bad

[octahexx · 2/10 · 31 January 2006]

We got a black hawk d...ops i meant eagle one down. The actors in this movies is actually not that bad but the story is really poor. They have really bad education on tactical movements and remind mostly of actors trying to be soldiers. their cqb tactics are to all run in a big bunch.

Their weapons are really really wrong. The most disturbing is a guy using a redpoint on top of a m16 carry handle AND a high mount so its like in the forehead..very annoying. And he is their sharpshooter..it gave me a headache.

The pilot is probably a super soldier because even after torture and being smacked around her haircut is in perfect condition.

the so called regular army don't have battle vests at all i guess the budget was used up.

Rugter has no real role in this movie they just wanted his name in the movie.

You should go for another movie if you like war movies. If you don't know anything about war and weapons and just want something to look at while eating popcorn Sunday 4 in the morning i guess its OK to fall asleep to.

U.S marines mission to rescue U.S soldier

[nosdahicet · 9/10 · 20 January 2006]

I play battle field 2 and this movie was exactly like that game, while i was watching this movie I thought I was playing that game....I think this movie was realistic but in a way it was kind of crappy but it was worth watching....If you are looking for a realistic war movie then this is it...For example weapons they used in movie was just like what USMC use in field or spec opt mission.I don't think that scene where the rebel defending their camp was realistic. And when rebel was tortured captain and didn't killed her when there are no use of her. when USMC comes to rescue her, there were only one of rebels watched her and he was like waited to be beat up by exhausted and tied soldier. I thought rebel supposed to be cruel and inhumane. But in this movie they weren't like that they were just stupid and lacks experience in combat.

Solid War Movie

[honda2 · 6/10 · 16 February 2006]

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. ).

remember black hawk down?, picture it with jungle but worse.

[lerim63 · 1/10 · 16 March 2006]

I've thought I seen a lot of shitty army movies, but this one beat em all, bad acting,worse "special" effects ,worst story - just an attempt to try boost moral to all the failed missions with capturer terrorists. Its hasn't got a single thought of creative movie-making, and no feeling from the actors, and the typical American stereotype, the big chief with his cigar,and the typical terrorist. I tried long and hard to see something new and eccentric and finally came to the conclusion that this movie is perfect for lovers, who can make out without minding the movie at all. I can understand why they make a movie like this(or at least try)to make the whole Iraq war seem meaningful and just.(meaning: there is no word of oil, only a threat from a jungle with chemical warfare)

Awful

[johnson_jamesw · 1/10 · 25 May 2006]

One of the few films I've rented which i haven't actually watched to the end, I couldn't. This film is one of the worst I've seen for a long time, there are no special effects, no storyline, zero acting skills. The lack of a military adviser if blindingly obvious from the very first frame of the very first scene when the platoon of marines row their boats onto the shore in open daylight. Then run across the beach in a mindless rabble. From there things go from bad to worse, poor archive helicopter footage spliced in with even worse shots from within the cockpit. As an example one shot uses one type of helicopter (westland), then the next shot we see two totally different helicopters!(Huey) What were they thinking. The whole thing is a total failure, its not even entertaining as a mindless action film. For anybody that is thinking of watching this film, don't waste your time. I feel dirty giving it even 1/10.

just terrible...

[juancho8 · 1/10 · 22 January 2006]

Why are rebels using mask in the middle of the jungle? This is a film tailored for retarded guys in the US military... Acting is terrible from start to end. The torture scenes were pathetic, man I lost 2 hrs. of my life watching this crap. I just came back from Afghanistan(Canadian Army) and I will buy the DVD just to have a good laugh with my team. This is in my opinion a very, very, bad propaganda film. The bad guys are surely still laughing. The uniforms used were brand new, and always clean with the faces of the soldiers very dirty, not at all convenient for fighting in the jungle, and what about the glasses? and Lt. Daniels suddenly with a clean face at the end. If you really are into war flicks you have to watch full metal jacket from Stanley Kubrick, now we're are talking.

Hurra!!!