Dead Air

Dead Air

Logan Burnhardt is the ego-king of the airwaves, but his unflappable persona is put to the test when a terrorist bio-attack unleashes a plague of flesh-ripping maniacs on Los Angeles.

Logan Burnhardt is the ego-king of the airwaves, but his unflappable persona is put to the test when a terrorist bio-attack unleashes a plague of flesh-ripping maniacs on Los Angeles. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Dead Air torrent reviews

Andrew N (au) wrote: I don't think I'd enjoy this movie had it not been for the brilliant performances courtesy of John Cusack and Samuel L Jackson. It's certainly no "Shining" but it does have some effectively taught moments.

Zebulon R (us) wrote: Why do they have to screw around with beloved stories like this? The story was great in the book, but they had to really water it down here.

Yash B (ag) wrote: Good spin off for a kid's afternoon. But nothing special for sure.

Guye J (ru) wrote: I enjoyed this 1997 movie! Sigourney Weaver(known in the "Aliens" movies) did a great job playing the wicked stepmother! Also I like Sam Neil's role as the father! The only disappointment was there was no seven dwarfs. There was only one dwarf and other six was normal size men. The twist in the movie was the prince had an affair with the stepmother and the stepdaughter Lilly fell in love with one of the six normal six men.

Tim L (ru) wrote: A surprisingly poor film from the mind behind Time Bandits and Brazil. I really wanted to like this film - it's too easy to cast it off as a 'Python solo project' and compare it unfavourably to the fantastic Holy Grail and Life of Brian that bookended it; especially as three out of the six are involved in this film. So I wanted to take it on it's own merits wherever possible. But they are few and far between. The script has some brilliantly witty moments (which would have perhaps worked better on paper than the way they are delivered) but the pacing is slow, the plot erratic and the acting lacks any focus to pull off rather expansive ideas. To its credit, it is a real 'who's who' of British comedy, and has some great cameos, but they often feel a bit wasted and not used as well as they could've been. In fact, after about half an hour, I found myself switching on the director's commentary, with Michael Palin and Terry Gilliam, which I found much more entertaining and watchable. Listening to them talk about how they made the film did make me think maybe I'm being a little harsh on the film - it does have very well produced action scenes for example - but I think I'd have to see it at least once more to try and see the positives in this difficult to watch film where you get the sense of brilliant ideas that just don't seem to work.

Evan H (es) wrote: One of the worst movies ever made. The acting is horrible and the script is enough to make you cringe. It's a real eye-roller!

becky t (br) wrote: an awesome movie to watch!!

Ravi Prasad V (mx) wrote: I luv it the best movie in the world great film forever creted and seen and iam waiting for frozen2

Yavu I (us) wrote: go preto give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift

Michael Z (jp) wrote: The simplicity of the story comes much to the benefit of Nanny McPhee, and the permeating feeling of Matilda-meets-Mary Poppins is very effective. However, as the film gets going, its similarities to the latter become distractingly obvious. Additionally, the characters are problematically underwritten, and the performances are similarly underwhelming. And the children face their turning point early in the film, which leaves the eponymous character nothing to do by the halfway point but to occasionally tap her magical cane to invoke some sort of comically unnecessary plot convenience. From that point on, the plot simply falls into the lap of contrived, thrown-together narrative devices that stumble inexorably toward the disappointing climax and, eventually, its eye-rollingly asinine resolution. *1.5/4*