Bikini Airways

Bikini Airways

The sexy funs flies fast and furious as Teri inherits a failing airline that's deep in debt. To turn things around, she and her girlfriends decide to charter the plane out for flying bachelor parties with great success!

The trials and tribulations of a trio of girlfriends who inherit a run-down airline and struggle to resurrect it. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki

LinksNameQualitySeedersLeechers

Bikini Airways torrent reviews

Chris S (br) wrote: It's not original by any means, and I don't know if it was Michael Caine's wittiness towards KFC or just the fact that Walken was...well...Walken...but it wasn't bad. Very watchable and heart warming.

Adam P (mx) wrote: (53%)A goofy, lowbrow action adventure that gets by thanks to the charm of Johnson, and some B-movie style fun.Between the action there's nothing much to see here besides a borderline extended cameo from Christopher Walken, and some mild amusements involving baboons, but the action is break-neck, and some of the stunts look painfully real. Any fan of Mr Rock should give this a watch, or those with affection to B-movie adventure movies.

Anthony D (it) wrote: This is one great movie, and I can't wait to watch it again for the 100th time.

Kyle E (au) wrote: On paper, a sequel to the original Pet Sematary shouldn't work at all. I mean, how the hell do you write a sequel to it? It would be almost like writing a sequel to something like American Psycho. Seriously. But Pet Sematary 2 succeeds where movie sequels made today don't, it goes in a completely different direction. Rather than fall into the pitfalls of the original film (mind you, I love the original Pet Sematary, and I am also a huge fan of the book), it goes into a direction of well, those events happened in the first film, but we've moved on from them. Sure the famous Pet Sematary is still here, but it goes further into exploring the aspects of what would happen if people are buried in the Sematary. Pet Sematary 2 was also released during that time period where film makers though it was ok to show on-screen child abuse, so seeing a child or two get hit here or abused is deemed ok. We get it, the fat kid's step dad is an asshole, but the film goes into some taboo territories that you wouldn't see in anything today. The last movie I can remember showing an animal die at the hands of a person was 2005's remake of The Amityville Horror, and that was met with disgusted people walking out of the theater. In here our lovely asshole step father decides to shoot the fat kid's dog, just to prove a point that he should take care of it. It is still unsettling, twenty years later, as it isn't something you should ever get use to seeing on screen or off. But what I love about Pet Sematary 2 is that it doesn't fall into the typical traps of a sequel by relying on things or gags from the first film, instead it kind of spins everything on its head. Here we have the asshole father returning home after being buried and he lives an almost normal life with his family for a few days before things start to get crazy. I mean, at the same time you know that things aren't normal, but it is normal enough that it is passable. Pet Sematary 2 takes me back to a time where horror films weren't afraid to try new things, show absurd violence, tell insane stories, and show children being children. I love leaving behind the trappings of technology for the times where kids (like myself back in the day) didn't rely on video games, cell phones, and television to have a good time. I remember the good ole' days of riding bikes everywhere and doing things outside, and those moments made me enjoy this film all that much more.

Russell G (nl) wrote: A little whimsical fantasy, some foul play, and Woody Allen's touch do wonders to put a spin on a simple rom-com. A prominent journalist dies and on his way to the afterlife, he uncovers the identity of a notorious serial killer in London. He speaks from beyond the grave to a young female journalist in the middle of a magic show. Now she must uncover the news story and substantiate it with supporting evidence. It is a widely creative idea for a comedy. The charming cast is fantastic and Woody Allen sets the tone with his brand of jittery sarcasm and good-natured pessimism. Scarlett Johansson is endearing as a naive but nerdy young reporter. The pair of unlikely friends improvise and lie themselves into position to get the story. When the movie looks like it could turn sappy, the quirky characters veer away and keep things interesting. It is not hysterical, but the story and the characters are interesting. The third act loses momentum and the ending does not seem right. Overall, it is quite enjoyable, and rewardingly unpredictable.

Edith N (br) wrote: More Afraid to Take a Stand Than Its Characters Apparently, all concerned claim this movie has nothing to do with the Rosenberg case. This is a ludicrous claim; what else can this movie be about? Oh, it's certainly not a completely biographical version of the story. Not even just in a "names changed to protect ourselves from lawsuits" kind of way. The Rosenbergs had two sons, Robert and Michael, and they're both still alive. They also went the sensible route of filing a Freedom of Information Act request to get information from the government about their parents' case. However, since there aren't a lot of married couples who have been executed for espionage, and since the circumstances are extremely similar, what else can this be about? Anyway, as time goes by, fewer Americans even know who the Rosenbergs were. That ignorance of our own history strikes again. Not that this movie made enough of an impact on culture that it would remind anyone of anything. Daniel Isaacson (Timothy Hutton) has just found out that his sister, Susan (Amanda Plummer), has attempted suicide. He firmly believes that this is mostly to do with their parents' execution on espionage charges when he and Susan were children. Paul (Mandy Patinkin) and and Rochelle (Lindsay Crouse) were young Communist activists in love, and they were raising their children with Communist ideals. Of course, the problem there is when they were doing it. Paul comes home from the War and runs a little radio repair shop, and even as time passes and Communism becomes a scarier and scarier word to the average American. They are tried, convicted, and executed for "giving the Soviets the secret of the bomb." Years later, after he is a husband (to Phyllis, played by Ellen Barkin) and father, Daniel still can't come to terms with what happened to his parents. Susan tells him how proud she is to be the daughter of her parents, but it may be what has caused her problems. Or it may not. Susan is never developed much as a character except inasmuch as she is shown to be completely dependent on her brother. She's definitely shown to be freaked out by what happened, in no small part because of the reactions from people at school. (There's a reason the real Rosenberg boys took their foster parents' last name.) However, we never know enough about her to know if she's traumatized by life, mentally ill, or both. Based on what we see, I lean toward both. Maybe it's more clear in the book, but in the movie, Susan is a cipher. She's someone for Daniel to project his feelings on, but really, that's everyone. Tovuh Feldshuh plays Linda Mindish, daughter of Selig (Joseph Leon), who is the man who turned the Isaacsons in. She is also the person who knows what Daniel is really looking for, and she knows she's pretty well it. He wants someone to blame, and since her father is now senile, and since she and Daniel didn't get along as children, she's it. The truth, whatever it is, won't change that. And that's really the problem with this movie. We never know the truth, and we know that Daniel never will, either. Now, we are told, and it's true, that the idea that the Soviets "stole" the secret of the atomic bomb is a flawed one on several levels. What's more, even if it weren't, there's no reason to believe that Rosenberg/Isaacson had it or could have understood it. It doesn't take much to come to the conclusion that, guilty or not, these were not people who should have been executed for what they did. Especially given the arguable nature of "time of war." However, what Daniel is looking for, he won't find. Can't find. He's looking for someone who to pin the blame on, not just for his parents' deaths but for every wrong in his life. What's more, I think Daniel is projecting so much of himself that there isn't much to him left but desperation and regret. He imagines a life other than the one he leads, and he puts so much of himself into it that he isn't living this one. Still, Hutton is doing what he can with what he is, and so are the others. There's an extremely embarrassing scene wherein Paul lectures Daniel about wanting Wheaties just because of the baseball player on the box. He goes on about how the baseball player, I forget who it is, is no better than any other worker, because he doesn't own the team. In his case, the means of production. What's more, he's selling himself so that Daniel will want to buy Wheaties instead of wholesome oatmeal. (Ilan Mitchell-Smith, who plays young Daniel, makes the perfect expression of distaste at the very thought.) Not even Mandy Patinkin can pull off that dialogue. However, he does a fine job of playing the youthful, then not-so-youthful, idealist. Timothy Hutton carries of the intensity of a driven man, though I think he also imbues it with a sense of having forgotten what drives him. And, of course, Amanda Plummer always seems to end up playing crazy characters, so it's not anything difficult for her.

I am A (de) wrote: love the monster, didnt think the story was that great