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.

Thomas Jolliffe (supertom-3) 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. **

kvonnegut 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.

honda2 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. ).