Blink of an Eye

Blink of an Eye

An agent with psychic powers comes to the rescue of the kidnapped daughter of the CIA director.

Soldier attempts to rescue daughter of CIA director from a terrorist. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Blink of an Eye torrent reviews

FAIZAL F (ag) wrote: MOVIE TO SEE FROM HEART

Oli J (de) wrote: I don't think that it is any secret that this film has a clear agenda. I must admit that that is something that I personally struggle with in any movie, but in the case of this film in particular - a film which parades itself as educational - I feel that having such a blatant agenda is wrong and essentially makes this movie propaganda. Let me first state my stance in relation to climate change. I have no allegiance to either the environmental lobby or to global corporations that behave so frightfully. I know terrible things are done in the name of big business, I believe that climate change is probably happening. I guess you would call me a pragmatist. In other words I should be the exact target for this film. I am the undecided so come on, convert me... but don't just give me one side of a poor argument. The entire film is an exercise in the virtues of environmentalism and the villainy of corporations, and to me that's just as bad as watching an in house Halliburton funded movie on Dick Cheney rescuing kittens. That may be a little over stating the point but the issue here is that surely this topic is a massive grey area and nowhere near as clear cut as the film makers' project. A case in point being the unfinished health centre in the African village: Couldn't the makers have shown a bit of positive investment in one area and then a big 'but....' followed by evidence of multiple failures to invest? Furthermore, Shell is apparently quoted as saying that it removed its engineers on the basis the area was too dangerous and the risk of kidnap too high. That sounds pretty ethical to me. Would you want to work for a company that overlooked these issues? I also take issues with the doom laden news reports chosen to evidence the case. The makers simply picked (predominantly speculative) news reports that suited their agenda. With most of these it was impossible for the viewer to know if they were genuine or not. I recognised some of the reports as BBC news readers so I assume those reports to be genuine, although not given any context owing to the short time given to each. I cannot say if the others were authentic or not, nor if the relevant news network was reputable. This issue is compounded by the film's disconcerting combination of fact and fiction. Clearly the very beginning, the apocalyptic imagery of global capitals, was speculative (unless I have missed some pretty important events), but after that it was hard to tell what was factual and what was fiction - which I feel is a dubious method of film making. Equally dubious is the opening statement that the film contains 'widely held scientific views'. To me, that is something of an arbitrary statement. What is 'widely held'? How many people holding the same view constitute 'widely'? For example, I think 5000 people are a lot. I'm sure there are 5000 that follow the teachings of David Icke. Does that make his beliefs 'widely held'? And moreover, does it make the Queen of England a lizard? Give me evidence! I'm not saying you are wrong but prove to me you are right. I have to be honest and say that I found this film appalling primarily due to its failure to offer an objective point of view. I have already said this but I am the exact person this film should be aimed at, I am the undecided. And all it did was make me feel like I was watching an amateurish, patronising propaganda. Like this was all an attempt to indoctrinate me. This was kind of trash that is the cinematic equivalent of a primary school film deigned to scare 8 year olds into not leaving the tap on. In my ever so humble opinion the only people I can see this film appealing to are people who already subscribe to its message, kind of preaching to the converted. Also, I am truly surprised at the reviews I have read and, dare I say it, somewhat suspicious of a lot of them. But I will let you draw your own verdicts of those. In conclusion I offer you this. Ultimately you yourself will find out if the film's projections are true. It is not something that concerns me personally as I have a terrible degenerative genetic disorder that means I will be dead by then, so it is not my problem. Also because of this horrendous disease I will not have children so I need not worry about them. I will have no legacy. And that is what it comes down to. If you are worried about the future your kids will inherit, don't have those kids in the first place. That way you can afford more fuel for that monster truck you bought because you didn't need 4 doors. You may consider that a flippant comment but ultimately climate change is a man made issue and if we deal with the root of the problem then we're off to a good start. We have too many people. About one billion people are born every ten days, apparently. That was the population of the whole world in 1800! And this whole thing is expediential. So I offer you this: If you have more than two kids, more than you and their mum (who they will replace), then you are adding to the problem - so stop grumbling. As a caveat I should probably add the following. Owing to a combination of a need to enjoy every precious moment left on this doomed earth of ours and a desire to stop watching this pap I switched off when the Frenchman was chain sawing through trees in the snow (a curious image of this hero given the message of melting glaciers and nature synergy). After this point I have no knowledge. It might become the greatest film ever. If this is the case I have one message for the creators and that is 'Stop making films that start terribly and get better'. If the film continues as it began then my message starts the same but is shorter: 'Stop making films!'.

Vaibhav K (kr) wrote: Saw it for the songs !

ladysflower (kr) wrote: as a film star she must love our own chinese country ,take the chinese feeling first,not just for herself development,that is why i don't like her very much

Hannah M (br) wrote: More often than not, I enjoy movies that leave questions unanswered, encouraging its watchers to interpret and determine things for themselves. While this movie is not short of a few flaws, it is smart and captivating. Eckhart and Carter are a seemingly unlikely, but very charismatic and complimentary duo on screen.

Pedro V (de) wrote: Zoey siendo Zoey.( como ya es costumbre)

Kelly H (jp) wrote: Booorrrriiinnnngggg! This snooze fest has bad accents and a worse plot line. I forced myself to watch because of Richard, but it was just everywhere and chaotic.

April W (ru) wrote: One of my favorite movies of all time!!!

Akteiv G (it) wrote: I was an little kid when I saw this movie..!!! Was great for me and my brother!!

Jason M (ag) wrote: A lovely character focused movie with some awe-inspiring action.