Are government surveillance cameras intended to keep us safe actually killing people? Is it a plot by the government to suppress the opposition, or have our terrorist enemies secretly gained control of our security system and are now using it against us? Following another major terrorist attack the US instigates an intense government surveillance program in which every camera in the country is linked into a single, all-seeing network called the ODIN system (for Optical Defense Intelligence Network). The system includes millions of mobile, robotic surveillance cameras known as "Eyeborgs," which watch everyone for suspicious behavior, all in the name of security, law enforcement and keeping America safe. An agent for the Department of Homeland Security grows suspicious of the system after a series of odd murders in which the physical evidence doesn't match up to what the video records show. Now he must work outside the system to find out who is really controlling the Eyeborgs.

A federal agent investigates when inconsistencies turn up in the photographic evidence of several murders recorded by mobile robotic cameras. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Eyeborgs torrent reviews

David G (gb) wrote: Well acted slow burning study of redemption.

Walter J (mx) wrote: ...it's up to ones interpretation...

Alex S (ag) wrote: Who's "smart" idea was it to make this a cartoon?

Noname M (ca) wrote: There's nothing like Marine Corps boot camp. MCRD San Diego, Edson Range Camp Pendleton Oh, man... Good times. This documentary shows it to you straight. No storyline. No characters. No commentary. It's a great inside-look at boot camp.

bill s (us) wrote: Big spectacle but small laughs.

bill s (br) wrote: I can't believe this pulp is a Friedkin movie.

Sarah L (us) wrote: I stopped half way through . . . it was strangely bizarre and boring at the same time.

June B (us) wrote: Absolutely delightful story.

Private U (mx) wrote: Presque aussi "psychotronique" que la trop mconnue "Attaque de la Moussaka Gante"

Jeremy N (nl) wrote: An interesting western directed by Fritz (Metropolis) Lang.

Dylan G (ag) wrote: Smart, interesting, and loads of fun! This is one of the best movies the 1990's can offer! A+

Tarren C (de) wrote: I don't really understand why this film was, from what I can tell, all but completely shunned by both viewers and critics alike from any sort of acclaim whatsoever, without any sort of definitive, objective, or constructive reasoning to justify said shunning. I took this film in for the first time as a young fourth-grader back in 2000, 2001ish and was moved just as profoundly as I was moved by other films such as, say... Jurassic Park, an equally fair Michael Crichton manifestation to openly weigh pro-and-cons around. That's right, I said 'manifestation'. What are you gonna do about it? Am I tapping into some kind of sensitive underlying emotional trauma, Sphere-haters? The thing is, I don't know, because I'm the only one I know who's seen this movie, and apparently the critics hated it. And the book was WORSE than the movie-- in my opinion, of course. And I'm reading Jurassic Park right now and it's INCREDIBLE. Ok... maybe not incredible, but shockingly, expoundingly rich with content. So why does this movie get so much hate? I'm convinced it's because of Sharon Stone. Sharon Stone and the ending. 'The power to forget'. We are not yet ready for such awesome abilities and POSSibilities the almighty sphere would otherwise have so warmly and receptively had awaiting us if we only just took that first terrifying and dauntingly self-questioning leap of faith. According to some critics, a final thesis of said caliber is wholly unsatisfying and reflects some kind of ineptitude on the part of... Who knows. Not that that's the point or anything. So why is Dustin Hoffman running around like a crazed inward patient? Why is Sharon Stone in movies? Why is Samuel L. Jackson in everything? Why are they all holding hands? Why aren't the special effects as good as Stephen Spielberg? These-- and again, I can only speculate-- are just some of the thoughts that had to have gone through the minds of psychologically befuddled movie critics in lieu of deeper understandings of basic human character development. I guess, like our all-star cast here, audiences just weren't ready for Sphere, and, like the captain of the Navy ship who saw the damn thing fly out of the water in that oh-so-special final scene, were left effectively dumbfounded and robbed of any and all explanation. I mean I get it. It's not Academy-Award worthy or anything (after all we're talking about sci-fi), with visual effects not nearly as striking as Titanic-- or Jurassic Park-- or Star Wars-- or hell even Toy Story-- but this is a well-crafted, expertly-paced, character-driven sci-fi-style Agatha Christie whodunnit that's loaded with plenty of science, plenty of plot-thickening, plenty of twists, and plenty of good acting. It's a damn fine film with a disappointing ending (I know), but actually, it's a better ending than the book's. Far more satisfying, I'd say. And apparently the ending is the critics' biggest problem. Hmmm. THEY CHOSE TO FORGET. WHAT'S SO DAMN HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT. Like I said, I'm convinced it's Sharon Stone.