Operation Balikatan (2003) User Reviews

Not recommended for die hard war fans.

[jhpstrydom · 4/10 · 9 February 2012]

As the cover might give the impression that this is a serious war film it is not, in fact realism is thrown out the window in this film, the gun battles are poorly staged, the script is a typical story of a rescue team sent somewhere to rescue a senator from a group of terrorists, the acting is bad and the film clearly suffers from a low budget.

Aside from that, there are some really bad casting choices made here, mainly Stacy Keach who is actually too overweight to play a marine commander and the rest of the cast seem unsure on how to portray their characters.

The plus side is it did manage to pass the time which is the only reason I gave it more than one star but I can imagine that it will be more of a chore to sit through for many people so I wouldn't even recommend this film as a last resort.

Don't waste your time

[Pulmyfgr · 2/10 · 9 May 2005]

This movie was incredible! Not in the good sense, however. Growing up in the sixties and watching my cowboy heroes shoot their six-gun 15 or 28 times without a reload, I could forgive these M-16's shooting fully automatic for minutes and minutes on end. But as Marine, I can't tolerate an over-aged, fat, Stacy Keach wearing a beret (Marines don't wear berets and are not fat.) as a Marine Corps 4 star General. If all you want are a bunch of explosions, then this may be the movie for you.(notice the obvious pre-built artillery simulator pits dug in the sand on the beach landing) I'll say one thing, though, this Christian Boeving actor is on par with Arnold and can speak English.

It's true: some movies can make you go blind

[Geosci · 1/10 · 26 March 2005]

I have a friend (let's just call him Friend A) who is often duped into purchasing those two-for-one DVD sets that allow extraordinarily bad movies to hitch rides into otherwise respectable movie collections. Friend A enjoys subjecting Friends B through E and myself to these films, presumably for some form of sadistic entertainment. Such is the case with 'When Eagles Strike,' a movie so horrendously awful that I struggled not to tear my eyes from their very sockets during the viewing. For this particular movie night only Friend B and myself had arrived at Friend A's house, requiring the three of us to take up the slack, so to speak: Friend C's bloated sarcasm, Friend D's nonchalant remarks, and Friend E's ultra-liberal commentary. If you plan on watching this movie, I recommend it be with friends, because if you don't have anyone to laugh with you'll probably end up crying and checking into a neurological center to correct your enfeebled cerebral cortex, melted to a runny goo by the sheer stupidity of this movie. Yes, it was funny because it was such a failure, but I for one am not willing to trade my sanity for a few good laughs. The plot/lack of plot concerns a group of poorly-trained military commandos (played by porn stars) who infiltrate the jungles of Random Jungle Country X in an attempt to rescue two captured U.S. government VIPs from the clutches of Oriental Muslim terrorists who dress in checkered garb reminiscent of picnic blankets. If that doesn't shy you away, then keep reading. The rescue mission is headed by General Thurmond as played by Stacy Keach (yes, the father from 'Titus' who thought it would be funny to trick his son into thinking he had AIDs). Thurmond assumes command by radio from "the base." This base is effectively the director's unfinished basement, replete with camouflage netting tacked to the ceiling and a map of "the world" mounted on a wall. As is to be expected, Thurmond is an imbecile and poorly acted. Maybe this is why Stacy Keach can only find work nowadays narrating anthropology and vulcanology documentaries. The commandos are no less inept than their commander. Their covert trek through the jungle reminded me of the nature hike in "Heavyweights," in which a number of fat disoriented children stumble around aimlessly through the woods and generally make as much noise as possible. Friend A often complained of the ridiculous whiffs presented in the movie; people are knocked backwards by fists that never came within three feet of their faces. Friend B noted that the machine guns sounded like futuristic space lasers. Evidently some form of ape subbed for the foley artists during post-production. There is even a stereotypical nerd commando (much like Friend C who was unfortunately unable to come to the viewing) who is obsessed with computers and nearly fudges the mission on several occasions because he is a coward. And I have a sneaking suspicion that the movie wasn't really filmed in a jungle ... are maples and oaks normally found in tropical environments? Looks more like the director's backyard, without the hippies and squatters. Friend A apparently even noticed some footage ripped from other war films. For notes on the script and dialogue, refer questions to Mrs. Howard's third-grade speech class. I just don't get it. The director, Cirio H. Santiago, has been making movies since the early sixties. Ever hear the phrase "practice makes perfect?" Well, it doesn't.

A poor movie from the eighties?

[erikjungan · 1/10 · 30 June 2004]

I am a real fan of war movies but this must be on of the worst I have seen in my whole life. First of all it is hard to believe it was really made last year. No, its whole appearance is more like some poor action movie from the early eighties. The plot is awful and the dialogue is parody.

The lack of realism in the action scenes (more or less 98% of the movie) is also stunning. Of course I am no expert in combat tactics, but do US marines really take a rest on the beach in a neat little clump just after they disembarked? That is just one of few obvious unrealistic action they take.

The movie goes from bad to worse and frankly it is a big joke. I must admit that my friends and I had good laugh, even though I don't think that was what director had in mind when he made film. So, a big warning for this one, it is a waste of time.