What makes it different from others?

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

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.

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. :(

The Hunt For Eagle One, a film by Byran Clyde, is another generic action flick of the likes of Navy Seal or Iron Eagle. Not that's it's really bad, just average. It was nice to see Theresa Randle in a film (I enjoyed her performance in Beverly Hills Cop III). And Mark Dacascos did a good job too as Lt. Matt Daniels. The real problem for me is that this is all about the special effects (which for this low budget flick is pretty good - the explosions are even top-notch in certain places - i.e. when one of the helicopters blew up in the beginning) and because it's only about that, there's no character emphasis or development. Which makes me not very sympathetic with the main characters - for example, at the very end of the film when Lt. Daniels mourns for his fallen comrade, I really didn't fell attached (since I didn't get to know that fallen comrade). 5 out of 10.

Begin rant : don't waist your time. not even if it's in the bargen bin at ur local superstore for 1 pound. it's to expensive to use as a Frisbee and there are better ways to make coffee cup coasters. i honestly couldn't stand anymore, i watch for one hour. and that was one hour wasted. i couldn't take anymore. End rant /The acting was OK , i feel most of the poor screen work was due to director / producer's input. i can't see any research , or specialist advice used in the film in regards to mission operation procedures and gun handeling. this is the first ever movie i have rated as 1 out of 10 . and it deserves every single point.