OK, but what can we do about it? (Other than the obvious: not going to see them.)

What bothered me about the post was the last two paragraphs. Noah seems to think these movies shouldn't be made because "To Muslims, many of whom resent Western pop culture to begin with, this is a very touchy subject, even though these events occurred in what Westerners view as an unimaginably distant past. Where's Hollywood's customary timidity on the rare occasion when we need it? Can't it take a rain check?"

I think he's saying the movies shouldn't be made because they may upset Muslims. At least that's the way I read it.

He means they'll "upset" already-angry Muslims in the sense of increasing their list of grievances against the West.

He's saying that these people are amped-up enough without Hollywood going into propaganda overdrive for their "cause."

That's it. I'm goin' to H'wood, and burnin' it down.

Fuckers.

I WANT to see my favorite action heroes fucking up some Islamic terrorist M'fers in the worst way. Where is MY movie?

Oh man. How can 9/11 be our fault. How come we have to apologize for it. We haven't repressed the little brown peeps, we have made them gazillionaires, for cryin' out loud. Y'know, with our SUV's.

Enuf. Kill 'em. All of 'em.

Fuckers.

I know that's shocking coming from Noah, but that's the gist of the piece.

if that one paragraph seems confusing-- perhaps his editor insisted he suggest that he was just looking to protect the feelings of angry Muslims. Or perhaps he had a loss of nerve in making an argument against Hollywood, an argument coming from the "jingoistic right."

The overall thrust of the piece is clear enough. Clear enough for me, anyway, considering it comes from the amateur leftist newsletter Slate.

Today, at approximately 5:30 PM EDT, Instapundit linked to me.

The quest is over.

I am retiring from blogging.

Take care!

Ken J, you are my hero.

Congratulations, Ace.

Instupundit finally linked you!!

What can we do, you ask?

Pull a Gibson and make a movie telling the story of something most Americans deeply believe in: the American dream and the success of the western world spawned not from subjegation but from hard work. Hopefully "Micheal Moore Hates America" will try to do just that.

Anyone with $20M to spare interested in making $200M profit?

When I, as a Briton, see things like In the Name of the Father, I feel like punching a Hollywood producer in the face. And U-571 was just egregious.
Historical revisionism is nothing new for these guys.

As for offending Muslims: I hope everything about me offends Muslims. I drink, I chase women, I eat bacon and I'm an atheist. I find the very sight of Ibrahim Hooper or Hussain Ibish offensive. As one of the earlier commenters said, where's my movie?

I feel like Susan Fucking Lucci.

You know, after they deny you for 14 years, finally giving it to you is sort of a Pyrrhic victory.

"If Hollywood can manage to deftly avoid inflaming American passions against Muslim extremists, why do they seem incapable -- or unwilling -- to similarly avoid inflaming the passions of Muslim extremists against Americans?"

Ace, do you think this might be another case of the racism of low expectations? The message from Hollywood sounds like, "We're white and civilized, we should behave well and control our emotions - but what can you expect from Arabs?"

What's this...a tear? I don't know what to say...

I hope you still say that after you are swamped by the incoming Instalanch.

I don't know if you read Edelstein's "I'm a 13 year old girl" style review of Super Size Me, but it's hilarious. Unlike his review of F9/11 which is sad. The thing that stuck out in that review for me was him bringing up relativism. He compared Moore to Coulter and Limbaugh. But I would have to say the difference between the Clinton haters and the Bush haters is no one on the right ever wanted Americans to die just to make the President look bad. At least not that I can remember.

"We're white and civilized, we should behave well and control our emotions - but what can you expect from Arabs?"

Yes, Patrick, yes! that is the message we're getting from the "all inclusive" left!

Of course they're blowing their disenfranchised asses up. What choice do they have? Forming some sort of government? Working for a living? These are things that are anathema to this culture. Why else are the grunt jobs leased out to the infidels? (Not to mention, because I would HATE to offend anyone's sensibilities, the engineering jobs, the accounting work, the HR and tech support positions; y'know, the IMPORTANT shit.)

Hell, put 'em all in the care of Sweden or France. Put 'em all on welfare. Let somebody else pick up the cost, and - Presto! Problem solved.

Then, our folks can come home. For a while, anyway. Good things in that area last as long as a sandstorm. Sometimes days, sometimes hours.

Ken J, alas, is wrong. I can remember, during the Kosovo campaign, seeing right-wingers on the Free Republic Web site rooting for Slobodan Milosevic, hoping a victory for him would destroy the Clinton presidency once and for all.

Happily, this view was very much in the minority, yet it's just as well to remember that there are nutzos on all points of the political compass.

Oops. Posted in the wrong place. How the hell does this thing work, anyway?

Congratulations on the Instalanche. You are now knighted, Blogger, so swear fealty and proceed with drinking.

And Patrick's commend "another case of the racism of low expectations? The message from Hollywood sounds like, "We're white and civilized, we should behave well and control our emotions - but what can you expect from Arabs?"" is spot on.

yet it's just as well to remember that there are nutzos on all points of the political compass.

The question becomes how representative of their side of the political spectrum the nutzos are. Our point is, on the left they're a much larger portion of the party.

Hiawatha (god I hated writing that) I did say "at least not that I can remember". But then again a couple freepers on a web site is hardly comparable to someone who's been on the news everday for the past two weeks.

But mostly, I'm too giddy about helping make Ace's dreams come true to wade into the nit-picking pissing contests that people seem to enjoy so much. So, for the rest of the life of this post, I will only respond to people challenging what I wrote by saying: "I am King Bongo of Coconut Island and you are forbidden to speak to me that way.

All this faux horror over the Crusades. Hell, the whole middle east except Arabia was Jewish, Christian, and Zoroastrian until 632-732 when the armies of Islam came pouring out of Arabia and made everyone an offer they couldn't refuse. Even then, the Christians didn't fight back until the moslems refused to let them make pilgrimages to the holy places of their religion. Some historical perspective, please. Even Egypt was Christian.

Will you all relax (esp. Ivan and David)? Disney's coming out with a movie you'll love:

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/heartandsoul/flash.html

And don't forget there's always BlackHawk Down, Saving Private Ryan, Pearl Harbor, The Patriot, and more. (all produced by major studios)

If those aren't recent films that effectively depict Americans nobly kicking ass then I don't know what to tell you. Hollywood's in it for the money, just like the rest of us. If you want films that you want to watch then make them or write a script and sell it. It's cheap enough now.

And then you can watch your script (should it ever be bought, which you have about a .000015% chance of seeing happen) you can watch it be rewritten into unrecognizability. Please see above where Ace cites the transforming of the Muslim villains of Sum of All Fears into Neo-Nazis.

Blackhawk Down was not about Americans "nobly kicking ass." Have you seen the movie? Read the book?

Blackhawk's line is that a bunch of overconfident Americans stuck their nose in and got it shot off. It barely touches on the inept UN troops, the aid that flowed in the larger operation... It concentrates on a couple of dozen Rangers, some hardly old enough to shave.

I know what the author's take was, and that's fine - it's his damn story, and we've got freedom of speech. All I'm saying is that it's no patriotic, chest-beating film.

Neither, for that matter, is Pvt. Ryan. I think it's a good film, but it doesn't portray the nobility of the American cause. It shows the horror of war, and how men, ordinary men, can rise to fantastic heights when driven by extraordinary situations.

Pearl Harbor was, of course, tripe. Can't comment on it, I didn't make it through.

The Patriot is the only one you can even make a case for, but I'd still submit that it takes more than a Mel Gibson to counterbalance what we have in Hollywood today.

-BF

Scats,
None of those movies were overtly right-wing. There are so many good true stories to tell that aren't put to film because the politics lean to the right.
Fox News and talk radio proved the market is there. When will Scaife, Murdoch, et al venture into movie-making?

> "If Hollywood stops making big-budget movies
> about the Crusades and Alexander the Great, the > terrorists will have won." The obvious logical > flaw here is that Hollywood had no interest in
> making such movies before the World Trade
> Center fell. The urge to make them now seems
> not only reckless, but perverse.

The logical flaw here is that this is simply
not true. For years, Arnold Schwarznegger and
Paul Verhoeven were stumping for a project about
the Crusades, and the main reason it didn't go
through is because the budget would have been
cost-prohibitive. (This was before computer
animation was good enough to defray much of these
costs.) Political correctness was simply not a
major part of the reason it didn't get made. As
I understand the premise of the Bloom film, the
movie isn't really about good Muslims repelling
evil Christian occupiers-- it's about good Mulsims
*and* good Christians banding together to repel
the Crusaders. (Which would make more sense with,
you know, Orlando Bloom in the lead.) To the
extent that this movie has anything to do with
9/11, it's in the attempt to depict brotherhood
between Christians and Muslims-- which, you know,
is a good idea that even George W. Bush would
get behind, right?

Guys, you're missing the point.

This is fucking America. Hollywood is an American institution.

Scats (name seems to fit) is arguing that Hollywood is "fair and balanced" between America and her maniac terrorist enemies.

Errr... Is that what we're shootin' for here, Tex? "Balance"? We "balance" one movie that portrays Americans as not deserving of genocidal mass-murder with a couple that do?

The logical flaw here is that this is simply
not true. For years, Arnold Schwarznegger and
Paul Verhoeven were stumping for a project about
the Crusades, and the main reason it didn't go
through is because the budget would have been
cost-prohibitive.

I'm glad someone brought this up.

Here's the difference, James:

Arnold Schwarzenegger, the star of the Crusader project, was to play a crusader. The Eponymous crusader, in fact.

See, when the hero is on the Crusader's side, that means the Crusaders will, generally, be portrayed sympathetically, or at least a mix of the heroic and venal.

I know that when Hollywood does movies about foreign countries or minorities it has to be "sensitive." I expect that when a True Lies is made, there's going to be a heroic Arab character. I expect that when a Schwarzenegger Crusader film is made, it's going to feature Saladin as a good and noble man, and it's going to have venal and bloodthirsty Christian villains (who will, somehow, be in league with the "bad Arabs").

But this new take is quite different. Now we're casting the mass of Christians as villains, the mass of Muslims as heroes, and -- as the main heroes -- the Christians who are wise enough to take arms against their own countrymen to defend the Muslims.

Yeah, there are going to be one or two sympathetic Western characters in this movie-- the ones who so bravely help kill the other Western characters.

I understand an action-adventure film about the heroic life of Jose Padilla is also in the works. It'll co-star Chris Tucker as John Allen Mohammed.

By the way:

When Hollywood makes major movies about Americans at war, they've generally got a very down, very anti-war theme. Death. Destruction. Maiming. The futility of war.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing.

But it seems to me that this Crusader picture has the typical action-adventure good guys/bad guys sort of plot.

In other words:

When a movie features Americans as the heroes, the film casts War itself as the villain.

But when Westerners (read: Americans) are the villains... well, they're just the villains, aren't they? War can be a good thing, if you're killing the right people.

Yes. The Sailor too is physically angry.

Hollywood is the enemy. It's comical to say scoop up the whole town and dump it into the middle of the Afghan desert, but the traitors are here, in our midst, and here they stay.

Unless and until we slap their ears back but good.

Why can't they make a movie showing how barbaric the Muslim world really is? Make a movie that takes place 200 years in the future, where the world has entered a Dark Age because the Islamists win (I can imagine a scene kinda like that in planet of the apes, where the audiance recognizes the remains of the statue of liberty). Make such a movie where there are remnants of Americans hiding out trying to fight for their freedom.

But a historical movie would probably be a bigger hit. Make a movie of the Battle of Salamis, where the Greeks defeated the Persians. Make a movie of Poitiers, where Charles THE HAMMER Martel defeated the Islamic armies, or Lepanto where the HOLY ALLIANCE (imagine that name in a movie...) defeated the Turkish armada.

I say: stir up the goddamn pot.

i say: pass the pot

All this belies the fact that the Crusaders were
often pretty villainous, not just against Muslims,
but Jews. And until someone actually presents
the script to be made, to infer that this going
to be a work of anti-Christian/anti-Western
propoganda is just absurd. Here's Ridley Scott
on the movie, and two things are worth noting:

1) To the extent that it glorifies Saladin,
a Kurd, it glorifies the tradition of the most
pro-American people in the Middle East. (At
this point, judging by polls taken in Northern
Iraq, the Kurds are probably more pro-American
than actual Americans.)

2) Ridely Scott's last significant movie was
the pro-military, pro-American *Black Hawk Down*.

http://movieweb.com/news/news.php?id=1725

In a recent interview with The San Bernardino County Sun, Ridley Scott spoke briefly about his Crusades project which has been looming:

"It's a movie I've been thinking about for 20 years. It's going to take place in the middle of the Crusades, around 1130, 1136, and feature Saladin, a Muslim, who was the wisest of all the knights, a trustworthy man of his word. He kept the peace around Jerusalem, which was held by Baldwin, a Christian who believed that any religion should be able to come to the city and pray. The two men had a connection of respect. I don't want the movie to be about knights in armor and chaps charging around with red crosses and waving swords and hacking off heads. It really should be a fundamental discussion between the two religions and not only that, but the actual misrepresentation of the Holy Roman Empire by the Catholic church, which was in those times seriously corrupt.

Er, except that the crusaders were evil, homicidal barbarians, who rampaged through Europe and the Near East before even getting to rampage through the Middle East. A movie casting them as heroes would not just offend Moslems, it would also offend millions of American Jews, Greeks and others who remember them as villains.

Jews, in particular, could be expected to react to a movie idolising the crusaders much the way they would to one idolising Chmielnitsky's Cossacks, or the Spanish Inquisition, or, dare I say it, the Nazis. The massacres of 1096 are still remembered and mourned as one of the greatest tragedies in Jewish history.

I'll say it again: Black Hawk Down was not pro-military, nor was it pro-American.

Like Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, it was a film that was successful with (some) military audiences, but was not RPT NOT advocating the position of the US Army nor that of the government. Like Ace points out, this one's big message was that "War Sucks."

Thanks, Hollywierd, I got confused there for a while.

What it didn't do was portray the US military (specifically, the Rangers) as knucle-dragging apes who didn't care about anything but getting into a fight. The book took care of that angle quite nicely, though.

Frankly, I don't know what the hell is up with this film - my fiancee told me that people used to protest outside theaters showing it because they said it "glorified war." Why he heck does the Left think this is such a righ wing film? Is it that they've never seen a war movie?

-BF

Yes, of course, these movies are obviously an attempt at an American apology for 9/11, and not, say, an attempt to cash in on the Historical Mega-Epic fad of movies right now.

Sheesh.

Lexington,

Ummm, the only Mega-Epic Wars left of those between Westerners and Muslims?

Geeze, I didn't know that.

Thanks!

I thought there were hundreds of wars which could be made into movies which wouldn't serve as masturbatory propaganda for Christian- and Jew-hating Islamofascists, but I see now I was wrong! Quite wrong!

If Hollywood is all hot and heavy to do big, epic, West vs. Islam pics, how about they make a fucking movie about the War in Afghanistan?!

There's a notion, huh?

Sounds crazy, but it just might work.

Has Hollywood gone completely friggin' Insane!

I've seen the enemy...and it's on screen five at the metroplex...

visiting your site for the first time. I like it so far. You know Hollywood may be afraid to hurt
the feelings of Muslims but they sure don't have any qualms about hurting the feelings of Americans. Remember that grotesque rewrite of history called "The Reagans"? And how about Michael Moore's adventures?

All is not lost though. As long as Hollywood can
still put out things like Harry Potter and Bend it Like Beckham there is hope.

posted by Mike N

While this 'Kingdom of Heaven' doesn't appear to have any redeeming values (other than it might make money, which, regardless of what anyone believes, is the only thing that motivates the studios in Hollywood), the fact that Hollywood avoids inflaming an already present American hatred of Muslims probably isn't a bad thing. After all, attacks on law abiding American citizens who happen to be Muslim are on the rise, and attacks on American mosques have skyrocketed. But, people who are committing the attacks hate all non-Christians, so it's no surprise that they are attacking a film about non-Christians.

To bad the Slate article is full of shit. As I posted at TWP, here:

http://www.theperfectworld.us/thread.php?id=396&postNum=1674

From the article linked by Ace:

"But wait," stout defenders of liberty may say. "If Hollywood stops making big-budget movies about the Crusades and Alexander the Great, the terrorists will have won." The obvious logical flaw here is that Hollywood had no interest in making such movies before the World Trade Center fell. The urge to make them now seems not only reckless, but perverse.

From the Dish section of Daily Variety, page 15, July 17, 2001, pulled off of Nexis:

SO GREAT: Alexander the Great, the general who led armies to world dominance by age 24, now has a trifecta of films in the works. "Usual Suspects" scribe Christopher McQuarrie will direct a pic he wrote for the Canton Co., while Dino De Laurentiis has recently hired Ted Tally to adapt a trio of historical novels by Valerio Manfredi. A third's in the works with producer Gene Kirkwood, who just wrapped a redo of the Orson Welles pic "The Magnificent Ambersons" for A&E. While the others have Gladiator-sized aspirations, Kirkwood's pic will cost $ 15 million, money already raised by financing partner George Hasiotis from Greek investors and ship builders. Kirkwood's producing with Millie Toy and Norman Toy Jr., the latter of whom is the playwright who penned the script. Kirkwood indicated much of Alex's conquering will be done in the bedroom, calling the Greece-based pic a marriage between "Last Tango in Paris" and "The English Patient." Said Kirkwood: "This was a kid in his early 20s who loved his sex. The sensuality is the key and as for the battles, well, there was just one big fight in 'Rocky,' but it was memorable," said Kirkwood, who was a producer on that pic.

The Dino de Laurentis project is the one that Baz Luhrmann eventually signed on to direct.

Another article, this time post-9/11 -- but I find it hard to believe that Ridley Scott just up and decided to do this picture based on any sort of pro-terrorist, anti-American sentiment. Given that he helmed Gladiator and was first approached to direct the de Laurentis picture, I think it's more likely he did it out of an interest in directing epics. Maybe you feel differently.

From Daily Variety's Dish section, March 4, 2002 (not even 6 months after 9/11), p. 1:

After examing ancient Rome for the Oscar-winning epic "Gladiator," director Ridley Scott has targeted the religious Crusades of the 11th century for a period epic he hopes to direct in 2003.

Twentieth Century Fox, which last fall signed an overall deal with Ridley and Tony Scott's Scott Free banner that calls for each brother to direct a film there, has hired screenwriter William Monahan to create a film about the Crusades, when Christians were directed by the Church to forcefully spread their faith across Europe and into Jerusalem. The Crusades, which began in the 11th century, will provide a highly visual canvas for a drama featuring armor-clad warriors who bore red crosses on their breastplates and battled with spears, swords and shields.

Scott and Scott Free prexy Lisa Ellzey chose Massachusetts-based, AMG-repped scribe Monahan because of his script "Tripoli," the Mark Gordon-produced Fox drama about how U.S. soldier William Eaton joined forces with an exiled king to overthrow the corrupt ruler of Tripoli (now Libya). Both "Tripoli" and the Crusades project are being shepherded by Fox exec Michael Andreen and production prexy Hutch Parker. After Scott told Monahan he wanted to do a film about the Crusades, Monahan came back with a strong storyline, and Fox made the deal. Scott, who directed the hits "Gladiator," "Hannibal" and "Black Hawk Down" in quick succession, wants to maintain that pace and will likely take one of several projects currently being offered him. He hopes to begin the Crusades pic by the winter.

"Er, except that the crusaders were evil, homicidal barbarians, who rampaged through Europe and the Near East before even getting to rampage through the Middle East."

This is an excellent point made by Zev Sero. I really don't mind a film taking a pro muslim point of view about the crusades. As long as the film reminds its audience that the crusaders were all European; espeically the friggin' French.

Golden Boy-

Good point re: scaife/Murdock. I honestly don’t know why they don’t fund right-wing movies. It can’t be for lack of money, and they’re obviously not afraid of the people who wouldn’t like it. If I had to guess, I’d say it had something to do with the economics of the multiplex which has eliminated the ability of marginal films to slowly gain an audience. Remember it took Limbaugh a while to gradually build his market, and TV (Fox) is ubiquitous and costless for the consumer thus you can take a loss for a while as you build an audience and sell ads. You can’t do that with movies anymore, you have to be assured of your audience up front or you’ll lose your shirt. Of course I suppose they could make a few flics and not care if they are flops just to test the waters. $50 mil is peanuts to Murdock.

Ace (in what hole, exactly?)-

Not really sure what you mean by Hollywood being an American “institution”. It’s a bunch of American businessmen looking for coin. If jingoism sells, they’ll sell it, if guilt sells, they’ll sell that too. That’s just capitalism, it knows no national allegiance. Politics is a commodity just like any other to a good capitalist. If you don’t like it, get a new system.

If you think Limbaugh and Fox are where they are today because they have an audience then you’d have to say the same for the CEO’s at the studios. You can’t have it both ways. If they want to avoid offending people then they believe that people will be offended. So quit yer crying about the “elitists” in Hollywood. They’re as desperate to cravenly pander to the common man as anyone. If you don’t like what they put out, then blame the populace.

For the record, I wasn’t saying that we should be “shooting for balance”. The whole concept and dispute over "balance" is bullshit in my opinion. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. Straw men are so fun to knock down aren’t they?

The War in Afghanistan is impossible to make into an “epic”. Epics involve a great, almost impossibly won and nearly lost, struggle. Afghanistan was three weeks of us raining hell on a bunch of guys with dirty pajamas, kalishnikovs and RPG’s. Either that or using the Northern Alliance as proxies (not too flattering to Americans). Goliath versus David is not an epic. The Dream Team beating hell out of the Croatian all-star team at the Olympics is not an epic. Switch it around and you may have something epic, but you’re not going to have a movie American producers will make.

Whatever you can say about Afghanistan, or Iraq for that matter, there was really never any question that we were going to "win", at least militarily. Dramatic? Possibly. Epic? Not really.

Have you heard about "Ladder 49?" This is a movie that intends to capitalize on the nation's love for the 9/11 firefighters, but it's not about 9/11! I posted about it here-
http://theendzone.blogspot.com/2004/07/movie-about-courage-of-911-fireman.html

So when the propaganda is pushing 'our' causes, it's all hunky dory? Wake the F up.

My, my, what a difference a handover makes. All of a sudden, Slate's resident Bush-haters start putting forth pieces that actually suggest that the war's not such a bad thing after all.

See Fred Kaplan's praise for the handover, and then this Noah piece bashing the Hollywood soft jihadists. What next: Weisberg bashing the French? Kaplan saluting Bush's new "flexibility" and diplomatic subtlety in wrongfooting Chirac in Istanbul?

What next[?]

Fatboy turning down the cheese fries.

What next[?]

Endomorpheus saying no to Oracle cookies.

I'm gonna go buy some more guns with my next bonus check.

Suggestions anyone? I've only got a HK .45 right now... I figure a short barrel shotgun should be next on the list.

fat kid,

one of the best values in a home defense shotgun is the Mossberg 550 Pump 12 ga. Mine came complete with 2 barrels (one long, compensated hunting/skeet barrel, and one 18" riotgun barrel), wood furniture (pump grip and stock), and a pistol grip (which you should never try to use, because if you try aiming with it, you will lose teeth, but still noce to have). Total cost was around $250 IIRC. A REAL bargain.

Remember to get the full kit from the gun shop. If they don't give you all of those things, they're ripping you off.

It's actually listed as a Model 500 #54169

costs a lot more than it did in 1998.

http://www.mossberg.com/pcatalog/model500_1.htm

17 latki rucha podwojnie @ 17 latki rucha przystojne @ 17 latki rucha rajstopy @ 17 latki rucha rozjebane @ 17 latki rucha siksy @ 17 latki rucha w 2 osoby @ 17 latki rucha w dziurke @ 17 latki rucha w pupe @ 17 latki rucha w szparke @ 17 latki rucha wyrosniete @ 17 latki ruchac 2 pary @ 17 latki ruchac 2pary @ 17 latki ruchac brutalnie @ 17 latki ruchac fetyszystki @ 17 latki ruchac free @ 17 latki ruchac lezbijki @ 17 latki ruchac lezby @ 17 latki ruchac od tylu @ 17 latki ruchac ostro @ 17 latki ruchac pieniadze @ 17 latki ruchac pijane @ 17 latki ruchac pizdy @ 17 latki ruchac podwiazki @ 17 latki ruchac podwojnie @ 17 latki ruchac przystojne @ 17 latki ruchac siksy @ 17 latki ruchac w 2 osoby @ 17 latki ruchac w cipke @ 17 latki ruchac w dupe @ 17 latki ruchac w dziurke

17 latki lize w 2 osoby @ 17 latki lize w dziurke @ 17 latki lize w kakao @ 17 latki lize we dwoje @ 17 latki lize za kase @ 17 latki masturbowanie cycate @ 17 latki masturbowanie fetysz @ 17 latki masturbowanie forsa @ 17 latki masturbowanie free @ 17 latki masturbowanie latwo @ 17 latki masturbowanie lesbijki @ 17 latki masturbowanie lesby @ 17 latki masturbowanie na zywo @ 17 latki masturbowanie nietrzezwe @ 17 latki masturbowanie ostry @ 17 latki masturbowanie pieniadze @ 17 latki masturbowanie pijane @ 17 latki masturbowanie pizda @ 17 latki masturbowanie rozjebane @ 17 latki masturbowanie siksy @ 17 latki masturbowanie szybko @ 17 latki masturbowanie w kakao @ 17 latki masturbowanie w szparke @ 17 latki masturbowanie we dwoje @ 17 latki masturbowanie wyrosniete @ 17 latki masturbujaca sie 2 pary @ 17 latki masturbujaca sie brutalnie @ 17 latki masturbujaca sie doswiadczone @ 17 latki masturbujaca sie forsa @ 17 latki masturbujaca sie grupowo

17 latki foto na zywo @ 17 latki foto nietrzezwe @ 17 latki foto niewolnice sexualne @ 17 latki foto od tylu @ 17 latki foto odurzone @ 17 latki foto ostro @ 17 latki foto ostry @ 17 latki foto pieniadze @ 17 latki foto pijane @ 17 latki foto pizda @ 17 latki foto pizdy @ 17 latki foto podryw @ 17 latki foto podrywacze @ 17 latki foto podwiazki @ 17 latki foto podwojnie @ 17 latki foto przerosniete @ 17 latki foto przystojne @ 17 latki foto przystojny @ 17 latki foto rajstopy @ 17 latki foto rozjebane @ 17 latki foto siksy @ 17 latki foto szybko @ 17 latki foto w 2 osoby @ 17 latki foto w cipe @ 17 latki foto w cipke @ 17 latki foto w dupe @ 17 latki foto w dziurke @ 17 latki foto w kakao @ 17 latki foto w pupe @ 17 latki foto w szparke