BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Kodie Bird 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.

Comeuppance Reviews "The Hunt for Eagle One" doesn't live up to its B-movie potential.The plot: Capt. Jennings' (Randle) plane gets shot down over enemy territory. She is then kidnapped by terrorists. Only Lt. Daniels' (Dacascos) team can save her from certain doom.That's it for plot. So if the synopsis is short, how about the war action? Unfortunately, it's not good. Don't forget this is a Roger Corman production which means: cheap! But they did the best they could with a low budget. It looks like "Black Hawk Down" but it's not. The only thing saving this are the performances. Dacascos, Randle, and Hauer all put in decent work. The last gunfight was satisfactory though.Overall, It's not worth watching unless you like the actors. The sequel is better.For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

eduard-baba 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.

enigma_x66 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. :(

lerim63 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)