To me, this movie is perfection.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I thought I was going to see something similar to the old time Vietnam movies. It has a similar feel, but then of course nowhere near the continuity of the old movies. This movie cannot even make the F rating of movies. A helicopter is not a plane. More so than that, the recon plane was never shown in the movie but they keep talking about it as if we were supposed to know of its presence, but then there is a moment there where they name the helicopters the "recon planes." This movie really is a jumble of bad acting and bad screen writing. Editing is probably a 2/10 stars since the effort probably was put into that part of the movie to make it at least a 2-hour long endeavor. Also, they do not present the characters correctly. The rescue mission was supposed to have failed when the two recon helicopters got shot out of the sky. Where did the other team come from and how in the hell did they get to the area of trouble so fast that they actually caught up with the rebels? Just awful. I mean I'm not that smart a guy and even I got insulted with the blatant way this movie skipped parts and tried to fill in gaps with rotten conversation.

At one point in the movie, where the captured captain is being tortured, when they electrified her and other people were holding her, the captain felt the shock and other people didn't feel a damn thing. Even a primary grade student would also know that if someone is holding other person and if the other person feels the shock then the first person would also feel the shock.to put it in the simple way "A Bullshit movie". Very poor acting, low budget, insane direction and no use of brain. The rebels just jump in front of marines without thinking that if they are able to kill one person from that point, they can kill more but it seems that director think that rebels have no brain and they don't use any tactics then he is doing a huge mistake. I think the director of this movie should go and train marines. They might win the "the war for oil and safer Israel" :D

Legendary Hollywood producer Roger Corman has managed to turn a profit on every single one of his films because he produces them on a literal shoe-string. One of his frequent favorite cinematic collaborators is Philippine producer Cirio H. Santiago. Santiago has produced over twenty movies with Corman. These two moguls anted up the bucks for "Rage and Discipline" director Brian Clyde's "The Hunt for Eagle One" with martial arts sensation Mark Dacascos and African-American beauty Theresa Randle. Not long after Sony Pictures and Nano Pictures released "The Hunt for Eagle One" as a direct-to-video movie, they released the sequel "The Hunt for Eagle One: Crash Point." Although "The Hunt for Eagle One: Crash Point" has a far more suspenseful plot, "The Hunt for Eagle One" is a creased, straightforward, standard-issue combat epic in the tradition of "Black Hawk Down" on a micro-budget that has displays greater camaraderie among the members of an elite U.S. Marine strike force.Despite its wall-to-wall pyrotechnics, "The Hunt for Eagle One" lacks the cutting edge violence of both Ridley Scott's "Black Hawk Down" and correspondingly Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan." Actually, "Bloodfist 2050" scenarist Michael Henry Carter's screenplay for "The Hunt for Eagle One" resembles the plot of "Black Hawk Down" because both films concern rescue missions about saving helicopter pilots. Unfortunately, the lack of drama and the tight-lipped performances mar this otherwise well-produced B-movie action thriller. "The Hunt for Eagle One" looks like a Vietnam era combat opus because it relies on Vietnam era armaments and choppers. The filmmakers have also taken dramatic liberties with various technical factors that only military enthusiasts would recognize, while Clyde relies on tried-and-true film-making conventions that illiterate filmgoers neither recognize nor understand. For example, the opening scenes when our heroes land on a beach in inflatable rubber rafts as the sun is rising clashes with the normal tactics of landing under cover of darkness. Alas, had Clyde lensed the landing scene in the dark, nobody would have seen anything. Yes, the landing would be more realistic, but audiences would have harped that they couldn't see a thing.The same thing applies to the failure to recognize certain military practices by the U.S. Navy and Marine Corp when it comes to saluting a superior officer. Most people that watch "The Hunt for Eagle One" could care less whether one officer salutes another officer without the proper headgear in place. Remember, it isn't whether it's done according to proper military etiquette that matters, the point is does it create excitement and suspense. Unfortunately, "The Hunt for Eagle One" looks more like a reenactment of a rescue mission than a rescue mission itself. Clyde and Carter have managed to forge a sense of unity among the Marines on the rescue mission, but nothing about the mission or the hostage situation generates suspense. "The Hunt for Eagle One" qualifies as just another combat mission movie with better-than-average production values. You see to see and hear a hell of a lot of shooting in this thriller but it rarely translates into thrills and chills. Incredibly, despite its R-rating, Clyde and Carter shy away from showing a decapitation scene in the jungle and the torture of the female helicopter pilot is extremely mild and unrealistic. Considering that "The Hunt for Eagle One" received an R-rating for violence and language, this gung-ho actioneer seems pretty tame.Essentially, the plot concerns a raid against Middle Eastern terrorists who are working with local rebels in Mindanao in the Philippines. U.S. Marine General Paul Lewis (Rutger Hauer in a thankless role) assigns Lieutenant Mark Daniels and his crack team of troops to rescue a captured helicopter pilot, Captain Amy Jennings (Theresa Randle of the "Bad Boys" movies), who has been taken captive by terrorist chieftain Abubakar Al Hassan (Jojo De Leon of "Uzi 9mm Brothers") and his troops after two rescue chopper are blown out of the sky. Daniels and his men have to shoot their way into the terrorist camp, avoiding getting hit by friendly artillery fire, and then they must not only snatch Jennings but they also must destroy an anthrax chemical warfare laboratory. Not for one single second is there any chance that anybody on Daniels' squad will die or that Jennings will suffer abominably at the hands of the terrorists. In fact, the terrorists are not particularly unsavory as you might expect from a propaganda thriller. They look like ruffians and they fall to our heroes' fusillades like ten-pins in a bowling alley, but you don't hate them the way that you hate Nazis in a World War II movie.All-in-all, despite it technical flaws, "The Hunt for Eagle One" is a tolerable potboiler if you have an hour and a half to blow.

I think we have been used to seeing a lot of Hollywood films with its big budgets, flashy PR and amazing special effects that we sometimes fail to appreciate the beautiful simplicity of other films.Of course the "The Hunt for Eagle One" is not without its faults, too many in fact such as inaccurate translation of the Filipino language, and bad acting but then again, if you read the cast list at the end of the movie, there are only a handful of real actors, both American and Filipino in the movie. The majority are actual members of the military from the US and Philippine Marines which I think lends to the realism of the film. I'm former US military so I may be a little biased ;) The movie is set in the jungle where technology and air power is of no use. It's a simple movie about the simple realism of jungle warfare in Southeast Asia where battles are fought by the grunt hoofing his way through the thick vegetation with only a rifle and minimal supplies for a long range patrol and with no effective air support and minimal logistical support due to the impassable terrain. Also, it is an accurate movie about a handful of US military advisors embedded with the Philippine military who are not as technologically equipped as their American counterparts.There's not enough drama in this film for plot development and sometimes, that's the way I like it... less drama and more shooting. This movie definitely has a lot of shooting. The basic no frills firefight is what I want to see when watching a war flick. The way everyone maneuvers seems very real to me and Mark Dacascos plays a good Marine Lt.The way the terrorists were portrayed was accurate as well. They're not the fumbling and poorly trained irregulars as they are typically played by Hollywood. Both Philippine military and rebels alike have been fighting since the 1950's and both groups share the same level of combat experience.Basically, it's not "Hollywood" but it's "Real" so I like it....