comment #1

Hallick says ...

This one looks like a really good HBO Film - and an underwhelming theatrical release.

comment #2

EO says ...

Trippy?

comment #3

Daniel Zelter says ...

If they wanted a biopic of Capote which had comic relief, they should have cast Andy Richter for the lead.

comment #4

Job says ...

Heard Mark Whalberg dropped out of this when he found out that the other film would surely being released first.

comment #5

Chris says ...

>>>If they wanted a biopic of Capote which had comic relief, they should have cast Andy Richter for the lead.

That's NOT Andy Richter?!?

>>>Heard Mark Whalberg dropped out of this when he found out that the other film would surely being released first.

Dirk knows better than to mess with Scotty J.

comment #6

Anonymous says ...

Fascinating stuff. Tobey Jones may hold a stronger physical resemblance to Capote, but his performance judged alongside Hoffman's is rather unfortunate, just judging by the trailer.

Not to say it's a miserable portrayal, but certainly there's a comedic slant to his deliveries, almost stagey at times.

Anyone else agree? Disagree?

comment #7

nemo says ...

Yeah, Mark Wahlberg playing Truman Capote! Now there's a trippy concept. I'd pay good money to see that.

comment #8

Anonymous says ...

Looks very theatrical. Looks funny and serious and tacky. Who did McGrath blow? How did he get invited to the table? Was it Woody? Why am I so angry? Why am making egg whites and tequila lime sausages for my wife?

comment #9

Eddie says ...

Question: As misleading as it would have been, would it be a good idea to not include the murder or its aftermath in the trailer, and sell Infamous as a sort of The Personal Life of Truman Capote, which the trailers' first half already implies?

This way, audiences would think that the film isn't the exact same movie as the Hoffman version was (People would be more inclined to fork over money for something they think they haven't seen). Infamous would come off as more of a compliment to, than a retread of, the first film.

comment #10

Bridup says ...

The whole movie has more of a comedic slant. It's not a bad film, but it's not as deep as Capote and there are more false notes.

comment #11

Chris says ...

Wasn't there a time when this was Sandra Bullock's Quest For An Oscar vehicle?

I can't even say that with a straight face.

comment #12

Anonymous says ...

I read George Plimtpon's screenplay three years ago. One of the best screenplays I've EVER READ. Hope they didn't fuck it up.

comment #13

Anonymous says ...

Oh wait, they cast Sandra Bullock. It's over.

comment #14

Jett Wells says ...

I can't believe this is happening again! This first one was great, but don't milk the great man within a few years. A second Capote film so soon will prove to depreciate his persona with apathy...if you study a man too much in one period of time, little is left for the beyond and the intangibles of a man's soul. However, on the bright side, there is comic relief in this one...he voice sounds like planted satire. I doubt this bird will fly twice so soon.

comment #15

katydid says ...

It's really too bad "Infamous" isn't a better film, because both Toby Jones and Daniel Craig deliver much bolder, more interesting performances than anything on view in "Capote," and the latter film wouldn't have been so worshipped if this alternate view had been available. I found Hoffman adequate but unimpressive, and his Capote was so introspective that it wasn't clear, as it needed to be, why so many people found the guy instantly off-putting. With Jones' performance, it IS clear. And based on the footage I've seen of Capote in his prime, Jones' work is MUCH truer to the man. And of course, being a Killer Films production, "Infamous" deals more explicitly with Capote's homosexuality and his sexual bond with the killer. "Infamous" actually focuses more on Capote's life in high-society NYC than it does on the events in Kansas, so it's not a complete "Capote" re-tread. But its structure is terribly awkward -- actors playing friends and associate reminisce about Capote to the camera, documentary-style, and then we cut back to the story at hand. Doesn't work. And as much as I detest Sandy Buttock, Harper Lee is a thankless role -- a schoolmarmish type who does little more than stand around and murmur, "Oh, Truman!" I love Catherine Keener, but even she couldn't enliven that part. Overall, "Infamous" is only worth seeing for the 2 lead performances.

comment #16

Anonymous says ...

>but certainly there's a comedic slant to his deliveries, almost stagey at times.

Just like the real Capote!

comment #17

Mike Gebert says ...

Yeah, seeing the In Cold Blood story for the THIRD time sucks the life out of this trailer-- it's not that interesting a crime that we need a third go through it, what made it interesting among senseless murders was simply that Capote wrote about it with such an eye for detail. (And that rural Kansas was the far side of the moon for New Yorker readers.) It ought to be only about Capote in the 70s or something. Maybe Geoffrey Rush could have played Peter Sellers in the scenes about making Murder By Death...

comment #18

L.B. says ...

Yeah, I agree, Eddie. I was pretty engaged for the first part. As soon as the ICB storyline entered the trailer I felt like I'd seen this before. And most moviegoers don't pay that much attention, so there's a great chance a lot of this will slip by as "they're putting that out again?" I spent the rest of the trailer matching up the cast. Jeff Daniels is great, but I take Chris Cooper any day. And there's not even a contest when it comes to Keener vs. Bullock. It would be interesting to see what Jones does with the main role. That's a hard person to portray without slipping into parody. A large portion of the magic of Hoffman's portrayal was the way he skirted that line again and again and always came back with a real person. I don't know. Might be worth seeing. Thought, personally, Paltrow and Bogdanovich are big minuses for me. (Though I'm sure they're not in much of it.)

comment #19

Jett Wells says ...

Daddy, he voice REALLY sound like planted satire.

comment #20

Bridup says ...

Paltrow is only in the opening scene. Singing.

comment #21

Sarah Nyland says ...

It's so funny to see people judging a movie based solely on a trailer.David Thomson,one of the best movie critics,gave this film a stellar review calling it a much superior movie,so it's better to wait.

comment #22

Sassy Bitch says ...

OK,my issue is not with "Infamous" but it does has to do with homosexuality and perceived homophobia by mr.Wells.I'm openly gay and a fan of this blog until I went to Afterelton's site where they mentioned your review of "The Night Listener",where you basically said that the friendship of a 50 year old gay man and a 14 year old boy was basically icky.Now,I hope you were not suggesting that all gay men are pedophiles.I really hope not.Because pedophilia and homosexuality has no relation whatsoever.I want to know one thing ;if this was a friendship between a straight guy and a boy would you have jumped with this same assertion.I guess not,Mr.wells,because you're basically a closet homophobe.You may reject that but if you were'nt why would you rapidly suggest such a thing.I may forgive some of my straight friends stupidity but when someone accuses homosexuality to be related to pedophilia,then I find that unforgivable.It's disgusting and I really hope that you are able to overcome this bigotry of yours.People might think Mel Gibson is big time homophobe but at least he admits,he has no qualms of exposing it but closeted homophobia is so wrong in may ways.

BYE BYe,Mr Wells,Because this is the last Time I will read this blog.Moronic statements are not for me.

comment #23

Todd J says ...

I thought Jeff was gay.

comment #24

Isaac A. says ...

There is nothing in the rule book that says CAPOTE cannot become the Hamlet or Romeo & Juliet (Romeo in Joliet?) of our age, reenacted hundreds of times by a myriad of actors, filmed in modern dress or period costume, revived, forgotten, and revived again, perhaps with Rosie O'Donnell as Capote, or Jamie Fox. Once CAPOTE enters the canon, it's up to future generations how best to carry Truman's essence into the deep, deep future.

comment #25

Mike Gebert says ...

"It's so funny to see people judging a movie based solely on a trailer."

I'm not judging the movie. I'm judging my interest in seeing a second Capote movie. Which, frankly, is pretty goddam small. I lived through Capote's ubiquity as a talk show figure (and object of comedians) and a little of that persona goes a long way. (I would feel the same, incidentally, if some other much caricatured figure of the period had two movies coming out-- say, a pair of Howard Cosell biographies back to back. Though Christopher Walken would be great in one of them.)

Philip Seymour Hoffman managed to dial down the Capote imitation and give us someone you could believe as an insightful writer, but this-- for all that it may well be better structured and occasionally more sharply written than Capote, which involved a lot of drunkenly staring into space-- looks like two hours in the company of a catty hairdresser more than a movie.

comment #26

Lydia Marsh says ...

I did'nt know Jeffrey Wells was homophobic.I don't remenber reading anything that supports this assumption,though after reading his take on "The Night Listener",I can understand why people would think this way.

comment #27

Fan of Paradise says ...

On the face of it, Toby Jones is doing a remarkable imitation of Paul Williams. It's eerie.

comment #28

Gabriel says ...

Yeah, one of last year's leading "Brokeback Mountain" cheerleaders is a homophobe for shizzle.

Also, maybe you should read the entire passage.

"Would any movie deliver a story about a 50ish straight guy getting into a close relationship with an afflicted 14 year-old girl, and then have him try to visit her at home?"

I think that a movie would definitely deliver it, but it would be in the context of the guy being a child molestor. All Jeff is saying is that nobody's mentioning the possibility of Robin Williams' character out of political correctness. He's just calling it as he sees it.

comment #29

Dixon Steele says ...

Gabriel,

The reason why nobody's mentioning it, but Jeff (and you), is that if you see the film (which you probably haven't), it's obvious that the pedophilia issue doesn't exist (in this story).

Jeff's predisposition (and obviously others like you, I'd bet) that it does is why people are writing about it.

You can debate it all you want but until you actually see the film in question, it's worthless.

comment #30

NYCBusybody says ...

Does Jeff's predisposition towards thinking of pedophilia concerning stories of adults befriending children mean that he's homophobic?

Wouldn't that only be the case if he WASN'T predisposed in the same way if a story deals with a straight man and a little girl?

It seems to me that if you can have a problem with what he wrote, it's that he's predisposed in GENERAL towards accusations of pedophilia, whether the adult is straight or gay.

And if you believe that this isn't the case, that he's really hiding the fact that he's ONLY predisposed if the adult is GAY, why not ask him if this is the case rather than making McCarthy-esque Gay-Police accusations?

comment #31

mitch says ...

I don't often defend Wells, but I must say: If he's homophobic, so fucking what? That's HIS inate right, sassy bitch.

I'm sick and fucking tired of people telling us how we 'must' feel. It's bullshit through and through.

And these are exactly the same people that contend homosexuality is genetic (which I believe) yet will deny other people the instictive reaction of repulsion (which I also believe).

Fucking hypocrites.

comment #32

Gabriel says ...

Exactly.

Also, I never made the inference of the gay character being a pedophile; I'm just saying that, to interpret Jeff's capsule review as evidence of closet homophobia is to take it out of context. After all, as the accuser said, his impression was gleaned from another source and not the review itself.

comment #33

Gabriel says ...

By the way - My "exactly" was in response to NYCBusybody, whose response was brilliantly worded.

comment #34

Sassy bitch says ...

A-Homophobia is wrong.I don't care if it is inate or not.

B-the fact remains that Jeff made the association.why do you think people are disturbed by gay adoption? it's not about a child needing a father and mother,it's because most people and I include Jeff think that gay men are inate sexual predators.and it's sickening.How would you like if Manohla dargis wrote in "The New York times" that all straight men are rapists.

comment #35

Andrea miles says ...

I honestly don't understand Sassy Bitch's idiocy.OK,let's face it.She's basically a pervert and why would'nt jeff question the relationship between a child and a gay man.we all know that 80% of gay men are pedophiles(as proven by various christian associations in America) so his disturbances are vallid.Gay men are nothing more than sinful freaks who prey on boys,Thank you,Mr Wells for voicing your concern.

I hope "Infamous" will not portray Mr Capote's homosexuality.no wonder he died.The last "Capote" movie was so disgusting I almost threw up.What's up with these studios promoting the gay agenda.

comment #36

NYCBusybody says ...

Christ almighty, which one do I hate more, Sassy or Andrea? Head...must....explode...

comment #37

NYCBusybody says ...

"Manohla dargis wrote in "The New York times" that all straight men are rapists."

Many mainstream feminists do say that.

comment #38

NYCBusybody says ...

"80% of gay men are pedophiles(as proven by various christian associations in America) "

I just took a poll of various gay associations in America, and it was proven that 81% of Christians are gay. So there.

comment #39

Oscar Wilde says ...

No, not gay; 81% of Christians are sexually ambiguous.

comment #40

NYCBusybody says ...

No, not sexually ambiguous. Sexually amphibious.

comment #41

zoey says ...

Sorry to bring the disussion back to Truman, but too bad this movie doesn't center on the end of Capote's career. I would have started in '66 with the praise for ICB and his Black and White Ball, at the high point of his career. And then chronicled the slow unravelling of his life beginning in '75 with the serialization in Esquire of parts of Answered Prayers that made him a pariah among the wealthy socialites that made up his circle of friends.

Except for a brief uptick in '80 with Music for Chameleons, his last years were pretty sad. Most people know about In Cold Blood and his friendship with Harpee Lee. I don't think as many know about his drunken visits to TV talk shows and the hallucinations that haunted the last few years of his life.

And of course in my version, I would have cast Hoffman.

comment #42

mitch says ...

sassy, I thought you weren't reading this blog anymore? But, since you've come back...

So you expect people that experience an inate repulsion to homosexualiy to deny their feelings, but expect people that are homosexual to act on their impulses if they so desire?

No one in this forum is advocating violence towards anyone, but to tell someone that their instinctive emotional response is wrong just because you 'say' so, just because it follows your agenda while at the same time ignoring your illogical expression is, well...hypocritical.

Yet I do love hypocrites. So very much.

comment #43

mitch says ...

As for Andrea's comments...I'm rather speechless.

Andrea, please stop giving christians a bad name. It just isn't fair.

comment #44

Andrea Miles says ...

Stop giving christians a bad name???? All I've done is in accordance with the rules of the Bible.This country is a mess.When we have movies like "Infamous" promoting the homosexual agenda,then it's up to me to denounce it.Thje only place for perverts is the gas chamber.

comment #45

Gina Marchette says ...

OMG,andrea,when I read your posts,I'm thankful I'm a atheist.

I'm awaiting the release of "Infamous".Toby Jones does look more like Truman Capote than Philip seymour hoffman but the film has the feeling of repetition.Sandra Bullock can't act,Douglas Mccgrath does'nt have a single great film in his resume(Emma!An Ideal husband!!!!!).

comment #46

Mike Gebert says ...

Honestly, people, haven't you ever seen a troll before? (And I'm not referring to Toby Jones-- though how did he NOT get a part in Lord of the Rings?) "Andrea Miles" isn't even a subtle one. Don't take the bait.

comment #47

mdc says ...

"If he's homophobic - so fucking what? That's his inate right."

Mitch, were you leaving posts last week about Gibson, "If he's an anti-semite - so fucking what?" Or would you write "If he hates blacks - so fucking what?" How is what you wrote any different? BTW I'm not arguing the "It's his inate right" part, that's no-one's business, I agree with that. But you seem to dismiss an accusation of homophobia not on its merits but "so what?"

"instinctive emotional response, inate repulsion to homosexuality, etc."

It's not the place here to get into if it's "inate" or "instinctive" (we don't have years & I don't have the qualifications), but it's interesting how similar reasoning like this is to what was said in the late 40's when they integrated the army & baseball. Men felt "uncomfortable living in the same tent as negroes," they didn't want to dress in the same locker room, etc. You never heard rational arguments, always ones based on feelings, on social discomfort. I realise people have those feelings and I'll even accept that they're "instinctive," but I do think it's permissible to say those feelings are "wrong," just as an "instinctive" aversion to contact with blacks was wrong in the 40's. People who felt uncomfortable with integration were sincere. But just because they had a sincere aversion doesn't excuse their actions. In fact it's fascinating to read what was said without embarrassment at the time. The world really has changed.

Prejudice toward gays will take a long, long time time to disappear, it's still the only socially acceptable prejudice (except Wells about Italians of course - that will never change). The legal stuff is just the beginning.

comment #48

Lisa says ...

What about Wells and fat people? That's still a socially acceptable premise, innit?

Anyway I think that his original comment was more about society's paranoia and obsession with paedophiles. I read an opinion piece a couple of years ago about a guy who saw a kid wandering about lost in a supermarket and didn't do anything about it because he was afraid of what people might think. If I saw an older man go up to and start speaking with a young teenager (of either sex) I'd think it was weird. If anyone here has seen english show Brass Eye, they'd know what I'm talking about.

comment #49

mitch says ...

No matter your opinion on the subject, the fact is that nature, via evolution, has programmed within the majority of our species a predisposition of sexual attraction between men and women. Our version of self procreation (before the helpful hands of modern science intervened, that is) requires this to be so. Why? I do not have the absolute answer. Wish that I did. Really.
Bisexuality is another option, but its genetic repression likely has as much to do with energy conservation as anything else.
mdc...I totally respect your view on the subject. Yet, in this currently overly politically correct society it is considered an act of hatred or prejudice to voice ones’ feelings on many subjects. Agenda groups are constantly attempting to police those thoughts which do not meet their interpretation of life as they know it, and now one schema crowd is attempting to paint those that find homosexuality repulsive as mentally disturbed. I find this faction and those that are lockstep with them just as repulsive as I find those stating homosexuals are mentally disturbed. Diametric agendas always seem to want to police the thoughts of the each other. Blech.
Being anti-Semitic is quite likely not instinctive in itself. Thus, it does not meet the requirements of an important part of my contention, which is that repulsion to homosexuality is very likely an instinctive and genetic property of one’s self.
Intermixing black and/or yellow and/or brown and/or white, or any combination thereof, has not been proven to negatively affect the ability to procreate. If one finds a person unacceptable based solely on their ‘color’ then they’re likely prejudiced by an outside force. However, I can’t instantly condemn someone for that because I can’t know their motivation without further interview. I would need to know much more about the person involved. And I fully suspect that some people are instinctively disinclined to various races via genetic blueprint. To dismiss such tendencies as simple bigotry without real, non-agenda based study is deceitful and cowardly. It’s also censorship without finding, which is another topic altogether.
***** Major Ricky Bobby Spoiler ahead. Skip to the end to avoid! *****
I saw Talladega Nights a while back. I viewed this in a blue state (Washington), in an absolutely blue theater (downtown Seattle), with what was likely a very blue crowd. When Cohen kissed Ferrell towards the end of Talladega Nights, most of the audience groaned and voiced displeasure at the moment. Did some of them really like seeing that kiss yet still didn’t peep a sound? Very likely. Were some of them lying with their reaction? Very likely. Were some of them instinctively repulsed, grossed-out, scandalized by what they saw? I’m positive (my lady, her friend, and, yes, me). Did at least one person yell out a ‘woohoo’ and clap? Damn right, yet I’m not about to tell them that they can’t feel that way or that they must totally suppress such feelings for fear that they’ll upset someone else. I say total rubbish to that idea. And I say total rubbish to telling someone that they can’t express displeasure of same occurrence.
***** Spoiler end *****
I’m working on just about an hour’s worth of sleep since yesterday. I hope that I’m making some sense here. If not, feel free to flame my worthless butt for not waiting till the morning.
BTW: I’m agnostic. I don’t claim to know a savior, or which religion is the correct religion, or what happens to us when we die. I will say, however, that if god exists, and god is good, then god won’t care one whit about whether you’re gay, het, or asexual. To what end would such a god care?

comment #50

mitch says ...

one more thing: your point about prejudice against gays as the only form of acceptable prejudice remaining is truly bunk. If you're male, then you are instantly vilified as the sole dispenser of domestic violence by virtually every left leaning organization in America. Here�s an example:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/279040_abuse27.html
Yes, billboards and posters on buses depicting frightened child and teary eyed mother in foreground, angry and obviously unstable male in background. No mention of female violence towards men, no equity.
Blech again.

comment #51

mdc says ...

Mitch,

I tried to reply twice Sunday but it got swallowed both times. I was doing something wrong with the new system. Finally figured it out. On the chance you'll see this at this point...

My objection was not to any feelings Wells, or anyone else, might have. Just to the part where you said "so what? It's his inate right." You didn't go further with Sassy, and I wasn't sure where you were headed with it. It reminded me of the excuse for homophobia that goes like, "it's unnatural, it feels unnatural, and I have a natural aversion to it, so there must be something wrong with it." That's the point at which I posted. Well, you weren't going there as I see from your second post.

I don't agree that there's a natural (or biological) aversion but I don't see how it can be proven one way or the other. My example about race was from reading about attitudes in the 40's when they integrated baseball & the army. The quotes were not the "they'll bring crime to the neighborhood" kind of thing. They descibed a visceral, from-the-gut, genuine aversion to the actual proximity of two races. It sounded more like quotes from the Civil War. The quotes were almost identical to quotes from the 90's about gays in the military. I don't doubt people's sincerity in either case. I referred to it because that particular feeling about race has largely gone and I don't see how it could disappear in fifty years if it was genetic, not culturally induced. But I know you can say here that it is genetic, it's the outward suppression of it that's been culturally induced. As I said before, I don't see how it can be proven either way.

But I think it's beside the point anyway, because we describe lots of "inate" & "instinctive" feelings as wrong - an impulse toward violence or murder, just to use a ludicrous example. So while I don't disagree that anyone in that theatre shouldn't be able to express his reaction, there has to be a point where acting on the reaction is wrong. That's where your "so fucking what" suggested the wrong thing to me.

For what it's worth, describing an aversion to gays as a mental disturbance is a new one to me. But Seattle is kind of the Vatican for PCness, isn't it? You must hear a lot of that stuff.

About the last part where I said prejudice against gays is the last socially acceptable prejudice, I wasn't referring to the PC crowd. I agree straight white men are constantly vilified. Also Catholics, Evangelists, and so on. The phoniest thing about PCness is its arbitrariness.

I was referring to a non-PC environment, away from the office, just among friends. The boards here are an example. You see "pansy," "limp-wristed," "fairy" all the time (it will be really bad when The Departed comes out, haha). But you never see "kike," "spic," or "nigger" posted. I'm a gay man and a sports fan. I spend too much time in a sports bar near me, and if I had a nickel for every "faggot" I hear there and at work (by people who don't know me obviously), I could produce my own movies. So that's what I meant by socially acceptable. You never hear "spic," etc., even in a bar.

One more thing, I have to say your post was pretty impressive for 3 AM.

Cheers.

comment #52

kimi98 says ...

I was referring to a non-PC environment, away from the office, just among friends. The boards here are an example. You see "pansy," "limp-wristed," "fairy" all the time (it will be really bad when The Departed comes out, haha). But you never see "kike," "spic," or "nigger" posted. I'm a gay man and a sports fan. I spend too much time in a sports bar near me, and if I had a nickel for every "faggot" I hear there and at work (by people who don't know me obviously), I could produce my own movies. So that's what I meant by socially acceptable. You never hear "spic," etc., even in a bar.

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62

7
8
9
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32

109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173

114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197

336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402

69messenger
66mature
63massage
60manga
57logiciels-gratuit
26orgie
23orgasme
20nudiste
17nude
14nu
11noire
08nero-gratuit
05nero
02musiques-gratuites
99musique-gratuite
96music-gratuite
93mure
90msn-gratuit
87msn
84mp3-gratuit
81movie
78morpheus
75models
72messenger-gratuit
35partition
65pipe
62pied
59photo-sex-gratuit
56photo-sexe-gratuit
53photo-porno-gratuit
50photo-gay-gratuit
47photo2
44photo
41penis
38partitions
32paroles-gratuit
29parole-gratuit
d/26716safari
d/26713sado
d/26710rousse
d/26707recettes
d/26704recette
d/26701real-player
98rasee
95pussy
92programme
89pps-ppt
86porno-gratuit
83pornographie
80porno2
77porno
74porn-gratuit
71porn
68poitrine
d/26746sexuelle
d/26743sex-gratuit-beurette
d/26740sex-gratuit
d/26737sexe-gratuit
d/26734sexe-amateur-gratuit
d/26731sexe2
d/26728sexe
d/26725sex2
d/26722sex
d/26719salope

120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159

07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828

117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176

192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235

42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76

124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147

172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199

71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105

871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890