We Were Soldiers

Not rated yet!
Director
Randall Wallace
Runtime
2 h 18 min
Release Date
1 March 2002
Genres
Action, History, War
Overview
The story of the first major battle of the American phase of the Vietnam War and the soldiers on both sides that fought it.
Staff ReviewsAround the Web ReviewsAudience Reviews

Check back soon when the reviews are out!

Or why not join our mailing list to stay up to date?

 

SIGN UP!

Box office recaps sent twice a month (maximum).

( ̄^ ̄)ゞ (☞゚ヮ゚)☞ No spam! ☜(゚ヮ゚☜)




 ✍🏻  > 🗡️   Want to join our team? Email us!  
Crosswalk2
Cross Walk



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • We Were Soldiers
    Movies from Film Forum, 03/07/02While the Vietnam War remains a haunting and troubling chapter in American history, it has inspired a wide range of cinema, including some great films (Coppola's Apocalypse Now, Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket.) We are drawn to the muddy moral dilemmas of the war. Should America have become involved? Was our objective worth the cost of so many lives? Was it a civil war that we should have left alone? What did we accomplish? Why do so many veterans tell horror stories not only about the combat with a resourceful enemy, but about the misbehavior of American soldiers?We Were Soldiers, the new film written and directed by Randall Wallace (who wrote Braveheart), may be distinguished as the Vietnam film devoid of any politics. It stands out from the pack of dark, cynical, and bleak portraits of the war, focusing on the virtues of men who will follow orders bravely. We watch the heroic Colonel Hal Moore lead a group of youngsters into the first major land battle in Vietnam, the bloody and chaotic disaster in the I Drang, "the Valley of Death." As they sacrifice their lives, these Americans look more like the heroes of John Wayne films than the frightened fighters of Apocalypse Now or the soul-searching boys of The Thin Red Line. But were they really, as the film claims, giving their lives "for their country"? Why did this battle have to happen?The movie doesn't say. This avoidance of political details has disgruntled some critics. "Essentially, We Were Soldiers assimilates Vietnam into the Second World War," argues David Denby (The New Yorker). "It recapitulates the many movies … which portrayed the Americans as good people fighting for a just cause. Only this time no one says what the cause is. Communism is never mentioned. Neither is China or Russia, and there's no sign of … the South Vietnamese. 'I'm glad I can die for my country,' one young soldier says, his face turning white as the life drains out of him. That unlikely line indicates what [the film] believes in—dying well as an American, and making a speech about it." Jeffrey Wells (Reel.com) says the film recalls Gibson's The Patriot, this time glorifying the "invaders who want to dominate their country culturally and economically."Others, however, praise the central lesson of the film—that however suspicious the political context, American soldiers care about each other in a way that provokes them to bravery and selflessness. This is a story about how men worked together to achieve difficult objectives, defend their honor, and defend each other. Further, many praise Wallace's respectful and even compassionate perspectives on the wives and children of the soldiers and on the Vietnamese soldiers "who died by our hand."Some are also impressed at the emphasis on faith. Lisa Schwarzbaum (Entertainment Weekly) writes: "Always grateful for instances in which expressions of specific religious faith are incorporated naturally in movies like the everyday occurrences they can be, rather than hysterically like the unidentified spiritual woowoo Hollywood usually thinks they have to be, I'm particularly refreshed by the delicacy with which Wallace and Gibson demonstrate the effect of Moore's Catholic faith on his character." googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); Religious press critics were particularly pleased with the film, largely because of its favorable portrayal of men with spiritual discipline.Phil Boatwright (The Movie Reporter) complains about the recent proliferation of war films, but then adds, "If I were to recommend a war film, this would be the one." He praises Gibson's portrayal of Col. Moore as a passionately religious and prayerful man: "He reminded me of what King David might have been like when heading his armies." But Boatwright also cautions us, "The violence here is even more explicit [than in Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan.]. Yet, because the filmmaking is so involving you simply can't look away."The U.S. Conference of Cathlolic Bishops' critic writes, "Despite slim characterizations and a few clichÉs … Wallace's harrowing true story depicts war with raw, graphic imagery that underscores the wrenching loss of human life as it touches briefly upon the formidable struggle to reconcile Christianity and warfare."Ed Crumley (Preview) says, "It is a wonderful and cleansing exoneration to see the American military perform valiantly even in our most unpopular war, but the highly graphic wounds and deaths in the battle scenes are not for the squeamish."Ted Baehr (Movieguide) raves, "For mature audiences, it is a must-see movie, a great film about faith and valor in memory of the men who lost their lives in the thankless battles in Vietnam."Bob Smithouser (Focus on the Family) writes, "A bit melodramatic at times … Soldiers has its heart in the right place, wanting to honor the memory of the men who gave their lives in what turned out to be a divisive and politically incorrect war. It is gut-wrenching to see a platoon of khakied commandos attack a hill like John Wayne or Audie Murphy, only to be unceremoniously mowed down by an enemy hiding in the brush."Jonathan Rothgeb (Christian Spotlight) says, "It makes clear that war, though horrible, is sometimes necessary and is fought by courageous and dedicated people. It shows clearly that God is with us always and guides us to great courage and fortitude."Michael Elliott (Movie Parables) writes, "Wallace may very well have made the best Vietnam War film to date. In addition to the realistic depiction of war, he gives us clearly defined and compassionate characters, a look at the trying emotional times endured by the wives back home, and a hint at the poor decisions being made by American leaders unprepared for the war in which their country was now engaged."I find myself disagreeing with most of these reviews. While I was indeed impressed by Wallace's emphasis of Moore's faith, the film's violence struck me as excessive, taking valuable screen time that could have been used to develop other characters. Sure, it's a war film, and combat is ugly. But eventually I quit thinking about the story and wondered, "How did they make that soldier's head explode so convincingly? And how did that one burn up without injuring the stuntman?" The film might have been called 101 Ways Bullets Can Shred a Soldier. At one point, Moore shouts into his radio, "It's getting pretty sporty down here!" Indeed—like a sports highlight reel of killings. Kirk Honeycutt (Hollywood Reporter) goes so far as to call the film "war pornography." Violence included merely to stir the emotions of the audience is gratuitous.I have been criticized for defending violent films before—gangster flicks like Pulp Fiction and Miller's Crossing, and war films like Three Kings and Private Ryan, to name a few—but I only defend onscreen violence when it moves the story forward and helps develop characters. Soldiers only has one well-developed character and about a thousand brutal onscreen deaths. What Michael Elliott describes as "clearly defined and compassionate characters" seemed to me to be anonymous action figures being ripped apart—in grisly slow motion—by enemy fire, one after the other.Saving Private Ryan has set a new standard for combat realism in war films. "Gory details" worked for Spielberg because his attention to detail extended to the soldiers' personalities and personal histories as well. Several years later, I still remember vivid distinguishing characteristics of each man in that squad. I remember their stories, what fears they overcame, and how they responded to their commander in subtly different ways. But I can't tell you any interesting anecdotes about Colonel Moore's brave boys, and I saw it just yesterday. Wallace has advanced the science of fake bloodshed, but who will come along to advance the storytelling?To be fair, there are three memorable performances here. In his best performance since Hamlet, Gibson is the backbone of the film. Colonel Moore is given a lot of personal details: he's devoutly Catholic, hard-working, and devoted to his wife and kids. By avoiding his trademark macho expressions, Gibson makes Moore a real character. You never see that legendary Gibson rage—you know the moment—that instant when he turns from the scene of a tragedy and rises, eyes half-closed, jaw set, ready to unleash fury with a rifle or a sword or a hatchet. Instead, he charges in and does his job amid a hail of bullets. He's riveting.Gibson gets help from Private Ryan's sharpshooter Barry Pepper, who brings personality to the mix as a bold journalist in the film's last, long 30 minutes. But the delight of Soldiers is the legendary Sam Elliott. Elliott makes the most of the film's few flashes of humor, bringing fresh life to conventional combat scenes. Unfortunately, his scenes are few and far between.Soldiers is being praised for portraying the struggle of frightened, grieving wives. I didn't see memorable women; I saw a bunch of actresses given nothing to do but scowl, cry, and offer small talk about laundry and babies. Most women I know would be offended by such a shallow portrayal of womanhood. As Moore's wife, the wonderful Madeleine Stowe has nothing to do but worry, wring her hands, and offer a teary-eyed gaze of sympathy to the other wives. Another of the film's many missed opportunities. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); At the conclusion of Soldiers, a devastated Colonel Moore exhorts the journalist, "Tell the American people how my troopers died." Oh, We Were Soldiers definitely does that, ad nauseum. But it doesn't bother at all to tell us how they lived. If I were a wounded Vietnam veteran and somebody asked to make a film that would honor me, I would say, "Please, show something more about me than how my faced burned away." ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • We Were Soldiers: God in the Midst of Battle
    Movies We Were Soldiers - R Best for: Mature teens and adults. What it's about: On Nov. 14, 1965, the 1st Battalion of the 7th Air Cavalry, led by Lt. Col. Hal Moore (Mel Gibson), is dropped off in the Ia Drang Valley, where 400 American soldiers are surrounded by 2,000 North Vietnamese soldiers. The story recounts the first major land battle of the Vietnam War, both on the battle field and off. Madeleine Stowe, Sam Elliott, Greg Kinnear, Chris Klein, Josh Daugherty and Barry Pepper also star. The good: Director/writer Randall Wallace (Braveheart) gives us a riveting and realistic look at war. This true account is more than just a war movie: It's a memorial to heroism. This emotionally moving monument to the men who went into battle knowing they probably wouldn't come out of it also tells the story of the soldiers' families back home. The story follows the men from their home lives through a battle that transforms them into fighting machines who endure hellish conditions and unbelievable odds to survive. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-1'); }); Moving scenes show the Americans and Vietnamese battling, praying and strategizing. Gibson embodies the leadership of Moore in every aspect, including his spiritual conflicts and family-man side, which is rarely seen in war movies these days. Here's a man who prays with his men before going into battle, promises them he will bring them all home, dead or alive, and weeps at the loss of those who give their lives for their country. Gibson gives an incredible performance. The talented cast of Elliott, Kinnear, Pepper and Klein, each playing a real-life character, add to the emotion of the story, which includes realistic battle scenes, heroic acts, humorous moments and human drama that capture the patriotism and sacrifice of the soldiers. After the movie ends, you'll feel as if you experienced this Vietnam battle firsthand, but you won't have to carry the emotional wounds and scars it left on its heroes. The not-so-good: Men are blown up, shot, stabbed and die horrible deaths in scene after scene. Be prepared. Offensive language: Lots of it, including the "F"-word and a few religious profanities. Sexual situations: No sexual scenes, but a few shots of married couples in bed talking or kissing. Violence: There are so many bloody battle scenes I can't list them all, nor do I really need to. Trust me: We Were Soldiers is a realistic depiction of a very brutal battle and is at least as graphic as any other war movie. Parental advisory: Take your mature teenagers (who can handle war movies) to see this movie, which is part of our nation's history. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-2'); }); if (gptClientWidth >= 992 && gptClientWidth <= 1000000) googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('gpt-ad-3'); }); Bottom line: Wallace should be applauded for this remarkable film. Despite the language and violence, the depiction of a battle leader who prays and depends on God through every situation and gives God the glory in the end is a rarity from Hollywood! The faith and heroism in the film will be inspiring to young and old alike. I hope the adult Christian community will applaud and support Wallace's movie. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Mark Steyn1
Fox News



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • We Were Soldiers
    Duolingo’s creator Luis von Ahn learns the word for "learning" in Chinese and shares his incredible vision for enabling millions of people all over the world to learn languages for free. Read extended show notes for this episode here: https://www.chineasy.com/talk/lessons/087-learning/ Explore various topics, special guests, and expansive list of useful Chinese phrases on Talk Chineasy website! goo.gl/VJ8plT Want to practice the pronunciation of words taught in this episode? Have fun learning with activity sheets, recap video, coloring book, and more. Become a Golden Chineasian to enjoy exclusive premium content! goo.gl/vjbtL9
    ...
    (Review Source)

Steve Sailer2
Taki Mag



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Mel Gibson: Back Into the Fray
    (”We Were Soldiers” is briefly mentioned in this.)


    Rather like Donald Trump’s campaign for president in 2016, Mel Gibson’s 2004...

    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Left Coast’s Right Turn
    (”We Were Soldiers” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    ...
    (Review Source)

The Federalist Staff2
The Federalist



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • ‘Dunkirk’ Should Be Considered Christopher Nolan’s Greatest Film
    (”We Were Soldiers” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    'Dunkirk' is not a war movie in the mold of 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'We Were Soldiers,' or any of the hundreds of other war films that have come before it.
    ...
    (Review Source)
  • Seven Reasons You Should Not See 'American Sniper'
    (”We Were Soldiers” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    My Twitter feed and Facebook timelines have been exploding with praise for “American Sniper.” Some cried. Others remained speechless. Regardless of the reaction, everyone seemed to be moved. Of course, the response wasn’t unanimously positive, and some seemed a little hurt by the movie’s success, taking to Twitter to show their annoyance, only to be called out by the public or Lieutenant Dan himself. The film has blown away all expectations for box-office numbers. With a $105 million opening, it set the record for the highest ranking January-release ever. Yet despite these numbers and all the publicity and hooplah surrounding the film, some are still on the fence about whether they should grab a ticket and venture to the theater. If you’re one of those, here are seven reasons you might want to save the cash and stay home. 1. You Demand Perfection from Movies While Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller, and the entire cast rocked it in their roles, the movie isn’t perfect. The directing was on par—although I say that as someone who likely couldn’t identify bad directing even when pointed out. But I do know the editing needed some work. That cutting room floor must have been cluttered with all the plot lines left hanging. I can’t be the only person left wondering about Chris Kyle’s brother, right? So while there was nothing majorly offensive in production or direction, an inability to see past the little imperfections may prevent you from seeing the beauty and importance of the overall story, and lead to unnecessary frustration. 2. You Can’t Handle the Fake Baby In one of the most touching scenes in the movie, the Kyles hit an emotional wall after the birth of their second baby. It’s a moment many military families can relate to, yet it’s nearly ruined by the obviously fake baby playing their daughter. Perhaps this is a sign of some poor direction on Eastwood’s part, but I imagine a few more dollars could have bought a more lifelike doll. The claim is that the baby initially set to play the role got a fever, and the alternate was a no-show. First, who doesn’t show up to have their baby held by Bradley Cooper? Crazy people. That’s who. Perhaps more relevant, though, why didn’t they simply use one of the babies from the nursery scene? Regardless, it’s a small faux-pas and a minor distraction, but a distraction nonetheless. If you can’t handle the plastic stand-in, you will find the entire second half of the movie ruined. 3. Fake Accents Offend You After seeing the previews for the movie, you might be shocked to discover Cooper isn’t actually a Texan. Gasp. I know. I should have told you to sit down first. All joking aside, the Philly native did a pretty stellar job hitting a Texan twang and cadence. My husband and I (also not Texans) both found ourselves fighting the urge to pick up the same drawl after listening to it for two-plus hours. But we all have our pet peeves, and maybe fake accents get under your skin. I’m not judging. If you happen to be a purist who gets irritated when Northerners cross the Mason-Dixon, Brits cross the pond, or Aussies leave their hemisphere, then maybe just sit this one out. 4. You Don’t Like War Movies “American Sniper” is a war movie. Just in case the previews and the title weren’t clear enough, I thought it best to spell it out. There are many great films in this genre. Some I love: “Restrepo,” “We Were Soldiers,” and “Band of Brothers.” Some I loathe—cough “Hurt Locker” cough. And some I find difficult to watch, like “Blackhawk Down” and “Fury.” Although this movie differs in many ways from its fellow war-film brethren, it most certainly fits among them with the same tension, grit, and suspense. The content is meant to be difficult. War is hell, after all. But hell or not, the subject matter is important, and with the number who have lived, endured, and given their all to it, it deserves to be told with honesty and respect. This means no sugar-coating the hard truths and no glossing over the difficult realities. If you can’t handle that, then avoid it. 5. Violence Makes You Squeamish One difficult reality of war is violence, and as a war movie, some level of violence should be expected. Now, this film is no episode of “Game of Thrones” nor an installment of the Saw franchise. The gore factor is minimal, the violence isn’t in your face, and there are certainly bloodier movies out there. It’s still not an easy watch for those with sensitive stomachs. Factor in the knowledge that it is based on actual events and Kyle’s own experiences, and it may be even harder to handle. If you aren’t prepared to look away or close eyes and ears during some scenes, just don’t go. 6. You Don’t Believe in Evil Evil exists. Evil beheads children, terrorizes communities, and exploits civilians as cover. Most of us recognize this. We don’t like it, but we acknowledge it and the need to combat it when necessary. Perhaps, though, you prefer to see the enemy opposition as simply misunderstood folks who just need to be left alone, talked to, or hugged. You believe there’s nothing a sit down over tea with a bit of negotiation can’t fix—as long as someone else does it. But all we really need is love and understanding. For you, references to insurgents as “savages” will likely offend. Kyle’s insistence on returning time and time again to hunt down the enemy will bother you. You’ll be seething so badly from Kyle’s obvious prejudice you’ll completely miss the portrayal of everyday Iraqi families being terrorized and held hostage by that same enemy he hunts. It’s okay. You have your rainbow-filled bubble. Stay there. You’ll be happier. 7. You Only Pretend to Support the Military Supporting our military is a popular stance these days. It seems regardless of political affiliation or ideology everyone wants to express his support and claim to care. Gone are the days when our soldiers return home to be spat on and cursed at. Well, at least to their faces. I’d love to believe every person who shakes a hand and offers a word of thanks does so with genuine gratitude, but it’s not true. If you’re one who rattles off the “I support our troops” one second, then turns around with accusatory shouts of “propaganda” and “war-mongering” whenever the military and their vocation are portrayed in a remotely positive light, then you are a liar and should not see this movie. Not only will you be faced with two hours of fairly accurate portrayals of military life, where killing is justified and war isn’t outright denounced, you might also have to suffer vast numbers of the “very angry people” who are flocking to see this movie. We wouldn’t want you to be uncomfortable, after all. All that said, “American Sniper” is a good movie. It’s not perfect. It has flaws. It might be hard to watch. It might offend. It’s not a movie for everyone, and no one’s requiring you to see it or insisting you must love it. Feel free to heed my advice here and ignore all the buzz, save your money, and stay home. If nothing else, it should save you from having to backpedal your social media rants later on. ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

The American Conservative Staff1
The American Conservative



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Good Film Violence, Bad Film Violence | The American ...
    (”We Were Soldiers” is briefly mentioned in this.)

    22.01.2014 · 12 Years a Slave was just a lousy movie with gratuitous violence, no narrative, no back story, and with nothing redemptive to say about the suffering portrayed.

    ...
    (Review Source)

PJ Media Staff1
PJ Media



(Reviewers' Site/Bio)

  • Springtime for Secretariat
    (”We Were Soldiers” is briefly mentioned in this.)
    Ed Driscoll Watching the trailer for Secretariat that trotted onscreen before (if I remember correctly) Toy Story 3 this past summer didn't exactly leave me with a great desire to see the film, but man, after reading Andrew O’Hehir absolutely lose it in Salon, I'm starting to get pretty psyched. (Link safe; goes to John Nolte at Big Hollywood):[T]he movie itself is ablaze with its own crazy sense of purpose. (Or as if someone just off-screen were burning a cross on the lawn.) …“Secretariat” is a work of creepy, half-hilarious master-race propaganda almost worthy of Leni Riefenstahl[.] …Although the troubling racial subtext is more deeply buried here than in “The Blind Side” (where it’s more like text, period), “Secretariat” actually goes much further, presenting a honey-dipped fantasy vision of the American past as the Tea Party would like to imagine it, loaded with uplift and glory and scrubbed clean of multiculturalism and social discord. In the world of this movie, strong-willed and independent-minded women like Chenery are ladies first (she’s like a classed-up version of Sarah Palin feminism)[.] …[Randall] Wallace, also the director of “We Were Warriors” and the writer of “Pearl Harbor” and “Braveheart,” is one of mainstream Hollywood’s few prominent Christians, and has spoken openly about his faith and his desire to make movies that appeal to “people with middle-American values.” …But it’s legitimate to wonder exactly what Christian-friendly and “middle-American” inspirational values are being conveyed here, or whether they’re just providing cover for some fairly ordinary right-wing ideology and xenophobia. …[Secretariat] himself is a big, handsome MacGuffin, symbolic window dressing for a quasi-inspirational fantasia of American whiteness and power.As John Nolte jokes:Wow! Cross burning, xenophobia, Leni Riefenstahl, master-race, and whiteness and power, all in a review of a harmless little family flick about a horse. There’s part of me that admires O’Hehir’s ability to summon that kind of rage. Where was he when I couldn’t pull those grocery carts apart?You can read the whole write-up but the full rant and rave won’t make any more sense … because it’s not supposed to. The buzz words are all that matters, the tainting as Hitler-ish those apostates in Hollywood who dared produce a film for the everyday Americans O’Hehir so obviously despises and fears.That's one safe bet about the critics on the left: once they compare a mainstream Hollywood movie to the products of Leni Riefenstahl, you know it's going to be good. In the previous decade, the Riefenstahl card was only reserved for films like The Passion and 300 (Another film I only watched because so many leftwing critics wet themselves over it). Oh, and that frightening piece of radical rightwing Christianist agitprop, Tom Hanks' The Polar Express.Back in 2006, when Brokeback Mountain debuted to boffo reviews in all the usual places, but only so-so box office, Michael Medved wrote:The publicists and activists involved in promoting Brokeback Mountain seem almost disappointed that religious conservatives have expressed so little indignation. No major organizations called for a boycott of the film, or threatened its producers, or made any serious attempt to interfere with those who might enjoy this artfully-crafted motion picture (it has become a modest commercial success). In the heartland of Evangelical America, Brokeback has generated more ho-hums than howls of protest (or hosannas).Similarly, around that same time, Mark Steyn added, "The more artful leftie websites have taken to complaining that the religious right deliberately killed Brokeback at the box-office by declining to get mad about it."So when will the left get the hint that playing the Riefenstahl retort is a losing hand, as it will likely cause people to see what the fuss is all about...in this case, about an innocuous family Disney movie about a successful racehorse and the team that ran it to victory?But these days, just about every major film gets accused by some critic of being racist, and/or having subliminal Nazi imaginary buried in it. And these are "liberal" film critics who profess to liking the movies industry! Is there a cumulative impact of those complaints -- most of which are coming from the same side of the political aisle as most Hollywood insiders? If one were to take them all seriously, you'd have to assume that Hollywood is an absolutely seething hotbed of hatred and racism -- and if that's true, why would anyone want to see their product?By the way, any word on whether or not Jodie Foster will ever get to make her dream movie -- a more or less sympathetic biopic about Riefenstahl? I can't wait to read the reviews in Slate and Salon about that one.Update: Welcome Big Hollywood readers! If you spot any other reviews from major film critics or liberal Websites that link a Hollywood product with Leni, let me know in the comments. class="pages"> https://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2010/10/8/springtime-for-secretariat/ ]]>
    ...
    (Review Source)

Want even more consensus?

Skip Rotten Tomatoes, they’re biased SJWs too afraid to criticize things like the Ghost Busters reboot. Avoid giving them ad revenue by using the minimalist alternative, Cinesift, for a quick aggregate:

 🗣️ Know of another conservative review that we’re missing?
Leave a link in the comments below or email us!  

What’d you think? Let us know with a video:

Record a webcam review!

Or anonymous text review:

Submit your review
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Submit
     
Cancel

Create your own review

Average rating:  
 0 reviews
Overall Hollywood Bs Average rating:  
 
Anti-patriotism Average rating:  
 
Misandry Average rating:  
 
Affirmative action Average rating:  
 
LGBTQ rstuvwxyz Average rating:  
 
Anti-God Average rating:  
 

Buy on Amazon:
⚠️  Comment freely, but please respect our young users.
👍🏻 Non PC comments/memes/vids/links 
👎🏻  Curse words / NSFW media / JQ stuff
👌🏻 Visit our 18+  free speech forum to avoid censorship.
⚠️ Keep your kids’ websurfing safe! Read this.

Share this page:

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail