Quantcast
subscriber help

artisanal film reviews | by maryann johanson

Blades of Glory (review)

Faggoty Faggots on Ice

Straight American men are terrified of Teh Gay, and that is at the root of all the “humor” at play in Blades of Glory. Actual gayness is not the issue: accusations of gayness, the mere appearance of gayness, these are enough to flummox the typical American male, to send him into paroxysms of horror at the possibility that his heterosexuality might be called into question.
I want to be perfectly clear and say that I do not think this is the case: I would like to believe that American men are perfectly capable of being confident in their sexuality, whatever it is. (Point to me: Will Ferrell, who is willing to bare his less-than-model-perfect body here in the name of comedy, wins my admiration; the moment isn’t particularly funny in itself, but Ferrell gets a shiny gold star for his lack of inhibition.) I would like to believe that we are not a nation of children who spout repulsive playground taunts of “faggot” meant to cut to the bone. (Point to me: Jon Heder, who plays an effeminate straight man with all the confidence and gusto the character deserves, earns my good will, even if the movie undercuts that performance by making him an object of ridicule.) But Blades of Glory is funny only if you think there is something inherently hilarious about the fact that a small minority of men are sexually attracted to other men, only if you think there is something funny in a straight man being mistaken for one of these freaks of nature, only if you think there is something amusing about men who are anything other than the Hummer-driving, date-raping, “hot-blooded” caricature of a manly man. If this movie succeeds in winning over American movie audiences — and I fear it will — it will only be confirmation that I’m wrong to be as optimistic as I am about American society on the whole. I really, really would like to be proven wrong here.

Maybe I should take hope in the fact that it took two credited directors and five credited screenwriters to lash together this disjointed flick, which has to grasp at straws to make even a moderately sophisticated audience laugh. (Did I laugh in a few places? Sure, when the film sent up the excesses of figure skating. Not when it assumed I would find homosexuality funny, which is the basis upon which most of the “jokes” work.) Honestly, can it be a good sign that it takes five homophobes to come up with lines like “As if figure skating wasn’t gay enough already…” to describe the tale of figure skaters Chazz Michael Michaels (Ferrell: Stranger Than Fiction, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby) and Jimmy MacElroy (Heder: School for Scoundrels, The Benchwarmers), whose ongoing rivalry lands them both banned from the sport until they discover the loophole that lets them compete as a couple… as a male-male couple? See, it’s funny, cuz they’re two guys, but they have to skate together as a “couple,” which means one of them has to be the “girl,” and the other one has to suffer the indignity of pretending his male partner is a girl…

To complain about this movie is to give it too much power. It’s dumb, it’s juvenile, it’s pointless. It has nothing to say that’s positive or even enlightening by highlighting the sorry state of American culture. It insults everyone — men and women, gays and straights, sports fans and athletes — by demeaning individual choice and personal experience under the guise of celebrating it. Every moment in which the onscreen skating audience cheers the male-male couples skaters is meant to hold them up for scorn to the movie audience: look at the faggoty queers skating gayly! The inevitable jokes about groin injuries that characterize this brand of juvenile comedy take on additional potency for the immature audience: ha ha, real men don’t get kicked in the nuts, but men worthy of derision do.

I tried desperately to find something hopeful here, to find a tiny nugget of even grudging acceptance of the reality of homosexuality beginning to worm its way through the uncomfortable comedy and the adolescent sense of the inherent ickiness in the idea of two men doing anything together other than guzzling beer and watching football. For Ferrell and Heder’s skaters do triumph, of course, do overcome the doubt of the sports fans onscreen to win the day and put aside their ingrained homophobia. But it’s not enough. Blades of Glory wouldn’t exist at all if a sizable percentage of its potential audience weren’t repulsed by the idea of men loving men, no matter how ultimately triumphant the movie’s central characters are. Audiences may find the film amusing, but that will be a dispiriting portrait of American society on the whole.

(Technorati tags: , , )


MPAA: rated PG-13 for crude and sexual humor, language, a comic violent image and some drug references

viewed at a semipublic screening with an audience of critics and ordinary moviegoers

official site | IMDb
explore:
  • Dan Johnson

    I think you may want to try another line of work. Your review doesn’t say anything about the movie that would say, I don’t know, help me decide whether or not go to go and see it, but does tell me about your personal feelings on homosexuality. I don’t care how you feel about homosexuality, understand?

  • Dave

    This review says nothing about the movie? What does “To complain about this movie is to give it too much power. It’s dumb, it’s juvenile, it’s pointless. It has nothing to say that’s positive or even enlightening by highlighting the sorry state of American culture. It insults everyone…” mean then?

  • No, no, I think Dan has a point. He found this site, read a review he didn’t care for, so he did the only thing a rational human being could do: He complained in the comments, in the hope that Maryann would change her style of reviews to suit one person who doesn’t like her. You see, a lunatic, deranged person would just shrug and go read reviews at any of the many, many, many other sites online that end all of their reviews with a rating, or a thumbs up/down, since that’s exactly what he’s looking for. Again, though, this would be the work of a crazy person. It makes much more sense to seek out a critic that you don’t like, and then try to force them to change their style to suit you.

  • MaryAnn

    Hey, now, I think you guys are being too hard on Dan. Can you not hear his pain? What he’s saying is: “Look, MaryAnn’s gay, faggoty feelings about gay queers aside, I am, in fact, a juvenile cretin who thinks making fun of queey faggy fags is where it’s at today. Hence, your review does not tell me what I need to know, to wit: What will juvenile, cretinous homophobes get from this movie?”

    And Dan, your answer is this: Juvenile, cretinous homophobes will find complete enthusiam for their bigotry and total support for their small-mindedness. They’re only fags, after all — or worse, Proper Men Who Like Pussy who can justifiably be mistaken for fags — so who cares what *they* think?

    Dan is correct: My feelings about a film should not enter into my reviews at all. I should always endeavor to be considerate toward all those who feel totally unlike the way I do, so that I can ensure that my reviews are Objective.

  • Vergil

    Are you kidding me? Surely you didn’t make it on RottenTomatoes writing these kind of reviews?

  • David Cornelius

    Actually, Vergil, MaryAnn made it on Rotten Tomatoes precisely for this sort of writing – bold, funny, sharp, expertly presented in every respect. I think her review’s dead wrong – I actually found the movie surprisingly lacking in the very homophobia MaryAnn accuses it of oozing – yet I absolutely loved what she had to write, because, well, she did it so damn well.

  • Vergil

    Okay, I just read the reviews for “The Prestige” and “Casino Royale”. The writing is passable, and the enthusiasm unflappable. Especially nice review on “Royale” I guess “gay” is just one of those hot-button issues that brings our the weird in people. “Date-raping manly man”? I would expect this particular review on AICN or MySpace. Not Tomatoes.

  • Vergil

    Expertly presented but dead wrong? The whole review can be summed up thusly: If you find gay people funny then you are a beer chugging, Hummer driving, did I mention Date-Raping, football watching homophobe. Aside from that she makes the subtle yet vital logical error common when the topic comes up. It is not homosexuality that people find amusing, it is effeminacy. It is not (usually) the discomfort of closet confused over-compensating he-men that makes for the funny as most rainbow-liberal cynics would have it. It is the atypical nature, the seeming contradiction with experience that many find amusing. In my experience women find effiminacy in men even funnier than men do. Or is it just the beer-guzzling date-raping women?

  • Kay

    I think you’re giving Will Ferrell too much credit with that gold star. It’s not as though this were the first time he’s ever appeared in a state of undress for the sake of comedy — I’m pretty sure he’s done it more than once on Saturday Night Live alone. He has no shame, it’s not an act of bravery like it would be for many people. If his entire career is essentially an extension of his SNL skits, that’s not worthy of a gold star.

    Beyond that, this is no more than I expected from this movie.

  • Vergil, you seem to think women only laugh at effeminate men? Then how come Johnny Weir, who Jon Heder’s character was making the most fun of, has more fangirls than any other competetive male American skater at the moment? Even though he’s probably gay (though to some of his fans, that just increases his charm *G*)
    Weir, by the way, actually seems to have found this movie amusing from what he’s been quoted as saying about it, but after the kind of season he’s had, he’s probably just wants any excuse to laugh(but he might have skated better if he hadn’t been pressured to adopt a more “masculine” style of skating-not that it made the media go any easier on him)

  • Ken

    “If this movie succeeds in winning over American movie audiences — and I fear it will — it will only be confirmation that I’m wrong to be as optimistic as I am about American society on the whole. I really, really would like to be proven wrong here.”

    You may want to take another look at this. While I realize you want to be wrong about this movie’s likely success, it seems as if you’re saying you want to be wrong about being optimistic about society.

  • Actually, if we can steer the comments away from Stupidville, something I find interesting is that The Onion’s review of the film had basically the opposite opinion of Maryann’s re: teh homos.

    “So bring on the gay-panic jokes, right? It’s painful to imagine what the makers of Wild Hogs might have done with Blades Of Glory, but here, the less-than-masculine idea of male pairs is handled without anyone recoiling or making “Not that there’s anything wrong with that…” declarations. The filmmakers’ solution is just to dive into the frilly sport without embarrassment, which leads to transcendently silly sequences like Ferrell and Heder’s interpretation of Aerosmith’s love theme from Armageddon.”

    I’ll probably see the movie this weekend or next and formulate my own opinion, but really, the most important part for me will be whether it makes me laugh.

  • Vergil

    Isobel, I don’t know how I seem to think that when I said nothing of the sort. I said that in my experience, women are MORE amused by effiminate men. Not that ONLY women are amused. That doesn’t mean they don’t like them. Indeed, it often seems to be a quality of endearment. And your comment about Weir, and The Onion’s review (as Shrimpula has noted), and Dave White from MSNBC, all seem to suggest that the humor in the movie (which I haven’t seen) does NOT make fun of gays, but it makes fun of the “juvenile, cretinous homophobes” that MaryAnn seems to think will be the only ones to enjoy the movie. Perhaps she needs to write a letter to the leaders of the gay community (and Weir) and set them straight [no pun intended] about just how offended they need to be.

  • MaryAnn

    It is not homosexuality that people find amusing, it is effeminacy.

    Oh, so that’s okay then? What the fuck, are we all still in kindergarten as a nation?

    The whole review can be summed up thusly: If you find gay people funny then you are a beer chugging, Hummer driving, did I mention Date-Raping, football watching homophobe.

    No, I did NOT say or imply that. I said decried that as a caricature of American men.

    Perhaps she needs to write a letter to the leaders of the gay community (and Weir) and set them straight [no pun intended] about just how offended they need to be.

    People can be offended or not as they please. But what about me? Am I allowed to be offended if I am not a gay man? Am I allowed to be offended by racisim if I am not black?

  • Vergil

    I can’t judge whether it is okay or not. I’m just saying it is very different. Yes, as far as humor goes we ARE in kindergarten. Not as a nation, but as a world. The same things that made us laugh then make us laugh now. Hence the popularity of America’s Funniest Home Videos. It is basically funny to us when people act in unexpected ways. That is why children love clowns. But yes, there is a fine line between malicious mockery and quirky imitation. Kids laugh when classmates imitate a child with Down Syndrome. We as adults laugh when detective Monk once again falls victim to his OCD. Even with intelligent sophisticated humor, are we really that far removed from the child?

    “Blades of Glory is funny only if you think there is something inherently hilarious about the fact that a small minority of men are sexually attracted to other men”

    It’s difficult to decry something without saying it.

    Of course you can be offended by racism without being the minority under attack. But one might think you could question whether the racism actually exists in a particular instance when the minorities themselves do not see it as such.

  • MaryAnn

    Kids laugh when classmates imitate a child with Down Syndrome.

    And responsible grownups explain to those children that that’s not nice and not appropriate and not done.

    We as adults laugh when detective Monk once again falls victim to his OCD.

    See, but some of us don’t.

  • Vergil

    But that doesn’t mean that the ones that do are reprehensible. It is simply the nature of humor.

  • Mel

    I’m…kind of horrified that anyone would defend kids mocking other kids with Down’s Syndrome.

    It’s okay to mock the different, even when it hurts them, because that’s human nature? Lovely worldview. “Human nature” covers a multitude of sins,* but it shouldn’t excuse them.

    *Used in a non-theistic sense.

  • Vergil

    I understand that the format of the comments is confusing, but that’s not what I’m saying. I’m refering to the fans of the television show “Monk”. And I’m not saying that either is okay. I’m just saying that there is a difference.

  • Jus10

    yeah i hate this review

    NOT BECAUSE (a) it’s concerned with issues of how Americans poke fun at gays/effeminate men or (b) because I liked the movie

    but BECAUSE (a) the reviewer apparently saw the movie resigned and ready to criticize people for laughing at gay/fem people, when really what they were laughing at was good comedy
    (b) she was never going to find that “nugget” she claims she was looking for because she wasn’t really looking. the movie – and i’m thinking of the “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing” scene – DOES have moments that are tender and a little brave.
    (c) i’m usually annoyed when someone goes to see a movie that doesn’t even take itself very seriously and then all they do is say the same thing everyone else already knew and decided to put aside for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT.

    Get over yourself sweetie – lighten up – and you might just find yourself (God forbid!) laughing.

  • “I’ll probably see the movie this weekend or next and formulate my own opinion, but really, the most important part for me will be whether it makes me laugh.”

    For the record, I liked this movie, thought it was really funny, and I think you’re reading a lot of stuff into it that wasn’t there, MaryAnn.

  • “…and I think you’re reading a lot of stuff into it that wasn’t there, MaryAnn.”

    is it not the job and purvue of a critic or reviewer to see things that others don’t see or aren’t looking for? or to point out troubling issues that most people are too blind to see? what exactly do you people thing criticism is? pauline kael, john simon and h.l. mencken made their livings and their reputations pointing out the subtle cultural prejudices that most people don’t see.

  • Vergil

    I think the key phrase in Shrimpula’s quotation is “wasn’t there”.

  • MaryAnn

    I simply do not understand you folks who think you are refuting my comments by saying the film is simply “good comedy” or “funny” or “entertainment.” If you are laughing at this movie, you are laughing AT something. At least one of you was able to concede that you were laughing at effeminate men because effeminate men are apparently hilarious. But you cannot simply say “it’s jusy funny, okay?” without explaining WHY it’s funny in a way that contradicts my complaints.

    i’m usually annoyed when someone goes to see a movie that doesn’t even take itself very seriously and then all they do is say the same thing everyone else already knew and decided to put aside for the sake of ENTERTAINMENT.

    This makes no sense to me. Are you saying, Jus10, that “everyone” actually understands that there’s nothing inherently funny about effeminate men or homosexuality but they are able to become juvenile bigots for 90 minutes in order to laugh at something they are “supposed” to laugh at because it’s in a movie that is intended to be “entertaining”? How do you do that?

  • I wasn’t aware that there was anything all that entertaining about a Will Ferrell movie. Indeed, the few Ferrell movies I’ve liked–like “Stranger than Fiction”–have been movies I’ve enjoyed DESPITE Will Ferrell. But, hey, it takes all kinds…

    Anyway, speaking of subtle cultural prejudices, anyone else find it funny that figure skating is one of the few sports in America in which female participants are often far more famous than their male participants (just compare the number of people who’ve heard of Peggy Fleming, Nancy Kerrigan, or Kristi Yamaguchi compared to the number of people who have heard of Johnny Weir)–and yet when it came time for Hollywood to make a movie about that sport, they chose to make it about MALE figure skaters? Because naturally the same people who lined up to watch Nancy Kerrigan and Kristy Yamaguchi–yeah, I know, MaryAnn, my PCRS are a bit dated–perform in their prime couldn’t possibly be interested in a movie about FEMALE figure skaters. Unless, of course, it’s another “Cutting Edge” sequel. But, hey, that movie was a romance, which means it has a guy in it, so therefore, it’s okay.

    And it’s not like female athletes do anything important anyway…

  • Vergil

    It’s because this movie, as MaryAnn has so enthusiastically pointed out, is not about figure skating at all. Of the top ten Ice Skating movies according to About.com, only two are about men skaters, two about pairs (of opposite sex), and six about women. Really…of all the REAL problems in the world why do people continue to make up ones that don’t exist?

  • “is it not the job and purvue of a critic or reviewer to see things that others don’t see or aren’t looking for? or to point out troubling issues that most people are too blind to see? what exactly do you people thing criticism is?”

    Well Vergil hit on it there, in that I said stuff that’s “not there”. I do come here so MaryAnn can help see things I didn’t see before, and many a time I’ve come here and her reviews have helped me put my finger on something that was buzzing around the back of my head about a movie that I did or didn’t like. I love this site because the reviews aren’t a simple “This was teh awesome!!!” or “That movie was totally lame!!11eleven” They go a lot deeper than that, and I come to read them after seeing a movie as well, not just before to see if I’ll like it. In this case, however, I disagree with what she says is lying underneath there. That’s all.

    “But you cannot simply say ‘it’s just funny, okay?’ without explaining WHY it’s funny in a way that contradicts my complaints.”

    Well ok, two examples: 1. Jon Heder’s character, you say he’s made an “object of ridicule”, and make the leap that it’s because he’s effeminate, despite also acknowledging that “…the film sent up the excesses of figure skating.” I did not see it as “Haw haw, look at that faggot on the ice dress up like a girl!” I saw it as “Ha! Look at that silly exaggeration of figure skating costumes! That’s pretty damn dead on.” 2. The scene everyone’s seen in previews, with them skating in, basically, a standing 69, with the camera showing the uncomfortable look on Will Ferrell’s face. Is that any less funny if he’s holding a woman? I don’t think so. The positions the figure skating couples get into are all sorts of awkward and sexual. I’d imagine it takes some getting used to. Having to suddenly skate around with someone’s genitals inches from your face is something that is going to be weird and funny at first, whether that person has genitals that match yours or not. Is it a little different shade of funny if those genitals belong to someone who is not a member of the sex you’re attracted to? Sure. But I don’t see that as beer-guzzling homophobia.

    I think you need to do some supporting of your own. Comments like, “Every moment in which the onscreen skating audience cheers the male-male couples skaters is meant to hold them up for scorn to the movie audience: look at the faggoty queers skating gayly!” I could use a little clarification on that. I certainly wasn’t seeing that there. The crowd was weirded out at first, then came around and supported them when they basically said, “Fuck the crowd, let’s just do this thing and kick some ass”. Ferrell and Heder end up being supported, cheered, and succeeding, and the other American skating pair, the one everyone loved and accepted because they’re a male-female pairing, turns out to be a couple of incestuous cheaters. I just do not see the rampant homophobia you’re seeing in this movie.

  • *my* key words: “… see things that others don’t see or aren’t looking for? or to point out troubling issues that most people are too blind to see?”

    and, obviously, that others still don’t — or refuse to — see, even after MaryAnn pointed them out in her review.

  • ” We as adults laugh when detective Monk once again falls victim to his OCD.

    See, but some of us don’t.”

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but, having OCD myself, I can find some of Monk’s antics amusing because they are relatable- I feel sorry for him, but at the same time, I can imagine myself in the situation and feel relieved that it’s not me. And maybe that’s the key. A lot of humor rests on the premise of watching bad things happen to other people, and is funny because we can imagine ourselves in that position. It’s possible, then, that a movie drawing humor from effiminate characters can use that humor to send up our own discomforts with said characters. I haven’t seen this movie, so I can’t say for sure, but it’s often hard to tell the difference between a movie that earnestly presents a position and one that satirizes the same position.

  • MaryAnn

    I can’t speak for anyone else, but, having OCD myself, I can find some of Monk’s antics amusing because they are relatable-

    *Monk* was funny the first year, when Adrian was not the butt of one big extended joke poking fun at mental illness. Once the show lost its own sympathy for the central character, I stopped watching.

    And it’s not like female athletes do anything important anyway…

    No, it’s that they’re not funny while they’re doing what they do. Women are “allowed” to be pretty and graceful, but it’s “funny” when men are.

    I saw it as “Ha! Look at that silly exaggeration of figure skating costumes!

    But the excesses of figure skating are sent up in other ways, via other characters, without also being “ha ha, look at the femmy dude.”

    The scene everyone’s seen in previews, with them skating in, basically, a standing 69, with the camera showing the uncomfortable look on Will Ferrell’s face. Is that any less funny if he’s holding a woman?

    Are you kidding? Of course it is… depending on how it’s played. (This could have been played in a not-funny way here, too, but that would have been contrary to the aim of the movie.) Almost anything can be funny or not-funny depending on how it is presented. A guy’s face in another guy’s crotch could have been sexy and provocative — just as a guy’s face between a woman’s legs could be — instead of juvenile and stupid. But this movie WANTS the audience to be grossed out by the thought of a man’s face in another man’s crotch.

    Ferrell and Heder end up being supported, cheered, and succeeding

    Yes, as I mentioned in my review. The audience IN THE FILM comes to accept them, but they are still the butt of the joke for the audience of the movie itself.

  • Danielle

    I’ve read three reviews in gay publications that stated this movie actually avoided obvious gay jokes/homophobia (at least in the opinion of the reviewer), so I may Netflix it when it’s available and I’m in the mood for a stupid comedy and won’t beat myself up over it.

  • MaryAnn

    Yeah, it avoided the “obvious” jokes in exchange for some all-new ones. :->

  • MBI

    I’m not going to disagree with your rating for this movie, because it sure did blow. I’m also not going to disagree with the tenor of the review — yes, this movie thinks it’s funny that these guys are acting all gay and shit. I don’t think I agree about the degree of prevalence of it in this movie, or the level of vitriol you have for it (I don’t have a problem with celebrating juvenilia, even though I found these particular jokes tired and exhuasting). But the point on the whole is perfectly valid.

    I think it’s worth pointing out, though, that Ferrell’s character is spoofed for his moronic testosterone-driven machismo much more than Heder is for his pansyness. I think the movie is on the whole much kinder to his character than Ferrell’s; he even gets a nice wholesome love interest (for reasons I can’t possibly fathom).

  • Steve

    I think this review is brilliant. I saw this terrible film with five 11-year-old girls in Tribeca for a birthday party. And 2 Moms. Popcorn, sodas, candy. I think it cost about half my monthly rent. As a gay man, and Chapperone, I was prepared to love this movie. Gosh did it stink. I asked the girls, after my nap, if they liked it. They all said No. I couldn’t stay awake long enough to notice any outward homophobia. The one-note sketch became unfunny after 10 minutes, and all of those writers failed to come up with anything remotely resembling a story to tell us. A complete waste of time. It is sad that America eats this movie up ($$$), but what else is there? We’re so hungry for entertainment, we’re consistantly fooled by a funny trailer, a silly poster, and the “ooh, I like that SNL girl!” hype. “Blade of Glory” makes “Zoolander” look like “Gone with the Wind”. Bravo for writing such a bold, articulate review of a ghastly, hugely successful film. Go figure. Maybe the worst movie I’ve ever seen.

  • I have to disagree with this review. While it may be true that some viewers may laugh at effeminacy or homosexuality, I feel that the movie *itself* is far smarter than that.

    Instead of making effeminacy the target of criticism, it makes a mockery out of the *fear of effeminacy*.

    I say this from the POV of a skating fan, and that may have something to do with it. I noticed a lot of subtleties in the movie regarding skating itself, and that made me see the movie as an inteligently written farce, rather than as lowest-common-denominator schlock.

    The “as if figure skating wasn’t gay enough already” wasn’t delivered by a hater, but by an insider (I presumed another skater, or a fan). And believe me, it’s always been a huge issue in skating, with the image-makers trying their best to present American male skaters as being manly and straight. No figure skater, to date, has come out of the closet while still competing (Rudy Galindo and others came out after they were done with the olympics and had moved on to professional shows that have steady paychecks and no judges). And BTW, same-sex pairs skating is actually against the rules of olympic and worlds eligible competitions (one reason being exactly what happens in the movie… a male-male pair would have an athletic advantage and could do side-by-side triple axels, say).

    It’s telling that the Jimmy character, who’s set up to be the ‘gay guy’ turns out not to be. Also telling that the two characters get over their own squeamishness, and get on with business. Jimmy is in much better shape, and in the end, he’s the one that does the heavy lifting — all contrary to stereotype.

    The movie doesn’t laugh at effeminacy. It laughs at the fear of effeminacy. The protaganists succeed precicely because they get over their own discomforts to, in the movies own words, “create something beautiful” (male sexuality generally shies away from the word ‘beautiful’). And both Jimmy and the hyper-macho Chazz embrace this.

  • MaryAnn

    Nope, sorry, sunjoy. The movie wants to have it both ways. It wants to be able to say, “Hey, look, we’re making fun of people who think Teh Gay is funny!” But it panders to those very people — almost every joke is aimed at making those people laugh by playing into their hangups. A movie that genuinely wanted to satirize juvenile attitudes about men wouldn’t do that. It would laugh AT those people, instead of entertaining them.

  • Shannon

    I agree with sunjoy. And I think you people are looking for a reason to be offended.

Pin It on Pinterest