WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

"Biggest Loser" Shoots for Record Ratings with Heaviest Contestant

Posted: December 14th, 2009 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
"Biggest Loser" Shoots for Record Ratings with Heaviest ContestantSubmit Comment
Last season of "The Biggest Loser" introduced audiences to Danny Cahil, a 40-year-old man from Oklahoma who started out the show weighing 430 lbs. He ended up winning by dropping 55.6 percent of his body weight, which is 239 lbs.

Cahil's results were record-breaking for "Biggest Loser," which saw its highest ratings since 2005 by drawing an estimated 13.4 million viewers. And now that the ninth season is set to kick-off on January 5th, the contestants chosen are even heavier.

Two of the new contestants will be a pair of 30-year-old identical twins from Florida, who started the season (which is now being taped) weighing 485 and 484 lbs. That's the heavies participants that the show has ever selected, but they are light-weights comparing to their competitor.

"Biggest Loser" also signed on Michael Ventrella, a 31-year-old DJ from Chicago, who weighed in at 526 lbs, easily shattering every weight record on the show and the first to start at more than 500 lbs.

While "Loser" has lots of doctors at the ranch, it doesn't seem right to put people who can barely support their own body weight into a regime that consists of running and lifting weights for six month, before having them lose a few hundred pounds through dieting.

But NBC sees that the heavier contestants get, the higher the ratings become. Will we soon see a 1,000 lbs man on the show?

Source: NY Times


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 56 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
VDODSON writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 7:08:09 AM

Sounds like a bunch of fat, disgusting bastards. Where were they when the cops had to haul a 700 lb dead woman out of her house on a flatbed? They were just going to incinerate her, but he chance of a grease fire was too big.
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 7:53:05 AM

How is this movie news?
gummijoker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 8:57:45 AM

i hate this f*oc*ing show its just some fat people cryiung cause they cant eat all the time while ion the show
barley_cat writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 9:24:41 AM

To be fair though, who doesn't like seeing obesese people try to run?
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 9:36:33 AM

So, the heavier the person, the higher the ratings?

Well then, the show should start breeding their own batch of stars!

Here's how, have a group of people locked up in a house, being fed nothing but fried Snickers bars, pizza and burgers for 6 months, with activities including watching TV, sleeping and playing videogames and there, the show would have a fat new group of stars.

... oh wait, I've just described half of the American population!
barley_cat writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 9:40:53 AM

And dont forget- posting on forums PP, thats what lazy people do!
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 9:46:00 AM

It's a sad statement on America to say that even the epidemic of obesity is turned into entertainment.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 9:49:51 AM

Nah... that would be multitasking. With a burger on one hand, and a smoothie on the other, how could they type?
Too much of a hassle for the fat lards.

Awesome people post on forums, while doing 50 clicks on the treadmill! ;)
johnny_boy writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 9:54:29 AM

This kind of reminds me of that family guy episode where stewie says to all the fat men,"I bet you can't even find your penis. Find you penis one dollar!"
jeffw1978 writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 10:34:57 AM

This is f*cking retarded why are they glorifying fat asses
rabid writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 10:40:53 AM

Never heard of this show but it definitely sounds like reality tv. How the hell do people even get that fat?
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 11:35:47 AM

Only in America. I mean, how can you let yourself become like that? When you can't see your fun parts anymore, don't you questioning your actions? That maybe this isn't good for you.

And that episode of Family Guy is among the greatest
ksplatt writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:03:16 PM

I hate obese people. They stink, have numerous chins, and fat on their eyebrows. I do think it'd be humorous if I poked someone in the tum-tum and they yelled "NOOO! My precious goo! No!!!" *chuckles*
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:29:25 PM

How can people in America get this fat?!

It's the country that invented deep-fried butter ... and you ask this?!?!

minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:38:05 PM

Not everyone is fat because they gorge and binge and eat McDonald's every meal. So a little tact might be in order, rather than f*cking bash every overweight person.

And no, I am not remotely 'fat'. But my grandmother was. And she didn't eat much. She couldn't help it, nor could some of the people I have known. They would diet and diet and diet and never lose any weight. Fat is very stubborn, and requires little influx of calories to hang about, so even exercising and dieting won;t always burn enough calories to eliminate fat.

Sure, some people are just f*cking disgusting pigs. And the deserve some scorn, some seriously harsh criticism, if for only their own good. But not everyone is that way. What's even worse, evil in fact, is any attempt to make money off of people's obesity, and that says more about American 'culture' than the obesity itself.

What's next? A reality show where cancer patients compete for chemotherapy? f*cking sick. You have to wonder how future citizens will look back on these days. Who have to wonder if they'll view us with the same contempt we heap on the romans for their gladiatorial games.
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:42:13 PM

Or obese people in gladiatorial games.

Great mink... you just gave Hollyweird their next reality TV idea!

minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:43:37 PM

We will already saw fat fighting morons. It was called 'Roseanne'.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:44:14 PM

subtract the 'will'.
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:48:13 PM

Biggest Loser's vs. Mega Shark & Giant Octopus.

(I'd watch that).
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:49:35 PM

"Not everyone is fat because they gorge and binge and eat McDonald's every meal. So a little tact might be in order, rather than f*cking bash every overweight person"

- The people you refer to, that have problems loosing weight, despite of their best efforts, are the exception.
The large majority of obese people out there got to that point because of terrible eating habits that they've prolonged for many years.
The exception doesn't justify the majority.

If there's anyone out there that has some health condition preventing him/her of having the weight/look they desire, then please take no offense in my comments.

For the other fat lards that wish they didn't look like elephants, go do a f*cking sit-up!
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:57:59 PM

Irony would be someone watching this show with a pile of junk food in their lap.
LastActionHero writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 12:59:47 PM

If your fat it's because you ate more calories than you burned. The people with weight gain for other reasons are and EXTREME rarity and I guarantee none of the people you know fall in that category.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:03:06 PM

"Irony would be someone watching this show with a pile of junk food in their lap" - lol

- Yeah, and thinking "I could do that!"
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:26:39 PM

LOL!
rabid writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:30:32 PM

I read somewhere that the Japanese are passing a fat tax. They fine you when you cross a certain threshold of tubbiness, then they fine your employer for employing a fatass.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:35:48 PM

@ rabid:

They've instituted that law already. They have a state-prescribed limit for male and female waistlines.
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:38:19 PM

I believe they tax you harder if you have more than 1 kid as well (it's not the Chinese doing that... is it?). Yeah, Japan may be playing a bit too much the 'big brother'... but they're probably doing it based on health care projections... so good on them. I know we certainly don't have the same eating habits (which people call 'diets'... as in they're going on one, when they were already on one) as when I was a kid. People inherently take the mile after given the inch (like VinDandy's d*ck). I'm not opposed to smokers (I'll indulge a cigar here and there - no VinDandy... a REAL cigar), but there are figures out there what employer's lose in productivity in a year due to smokers (smoke breaks and health issues) - it's in the billions of $.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:40:41 PM

Well, yeah, duh, the definition of 'fat' is always related to the ratio of calories absorbed versus calories used. Don't know how else you would define it, really.

And no, I've never known anyone weighing in at say 900 pounds, but that doesn't mean that even those particular people got that way because they ate Big Macs for breakfast.

Sure, perhaps most people get fat because of poor diet, but because there are those that did not grow obese through binging, and because you can't immediately know the difference, a little discretion, a little tact is required.

And making fun of them for money is just beyond crass and stupid. And lends evidence to anyone that would call Americans a bunch of morons.

And yes, my grandmother weighed around 300 before she died. And she hardly ate. She was 70 or so. She had some sort of thyroid problem. And I knew a girl that was overweight, and she did everything she could to lose it, to the point of not eating for days to no avail. She had always been overweight, even as a child, even though she was fed no differently than the rest. I, on the other hand, eat nothing but garbage and I'm still relatively slim.

In fact, genetics has a huge play on weight. And in fact, I have NEVER known anyone that was obese simply because they sat around gorging. Not one person. Most of the people I've known that were overweight had always been somewhat large, and I had never known them to eat fantastic amounts of food. So I imagine that genes play a very large part, no pun intended, in a person's weight.

But use whatever excuse is needed, I guess, to justify it. Or to make money off of it.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:44:02 PM

Japan's nuts. Too many people is the problem, not the weight. Overcrowding, not obesity. They're already the slimmest industrialized nation. This coming from the place that invented panty dispensers.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:46:26 PM

"The people with weight gain for other reasons are and EXTREME rarity and I guarantee none of the people you know fall in that category."

Actually, considering the numerous causes of caloric imbalance, in which overeating is just one of the many possible causes, what you're saying makes no sense. So your entire statement falls apart.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:50:00 PM

"Too many people is the problem, not the weight. Overcrowding, not obesity"

Mink, it makes sense they'll want them leaner then, they'll take up less space.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:50:15 PM

'but they're probably doing it based on health care projections"

That's exactly why. They have been hit by the recession as well, and still have a growing, overcrowded population jam-packed into urban areas like canned sushi.

And they're already skinny as hell. So it's more than just big government, its useless government. Some forecasters are actually projecting the changes in policy to cost more than doing nothing, which doesn't surprise me, considering America's civic history of expensively doing nothing.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 1:52:17 PM

"Mink, it makes sense they'll want them leaner then, they'll take up less space."

It has nothing to do with space. They're not fat now anyway. Again, out of all the industrialized nations, Japan is the slimmest.

No, the issue is the blooming cost of health care, also known as medical entitlement, and the Japanese government can't handle a diabetes (for example) epidemic on top of the crushing weight of pre-existing medical issues.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 2:04:33 PM

... yeah, I know, only that was at attempt at humor.

I wasn't really suggesting their government was planing on squeezing more people in there.
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 2:20:42 PM

'...a little discretion, a little tact is required.' --- you're know you're on WP mink, yes? lol.

As for that heavier girl you knew that went as far as to not eat for days. We all know that is the WORST thing a person can do to their metabolism. Grazing is the was to lose weight. Starving yourself only makes your digestive system super-absorptive and throws your body sugars out of whack. As anyone one eats after that (it is stored as fat), because the body (from that experience) doesn't know when it's next meal is coming from (it's very much like a camel storing water in that fatty tissue in their humps (no, they're not water tanks like some people think...lol). As for your Grandmother... I too have heavy ancestors (from European regions). They had starchy diets, and grains... the fat (really) kept them warm during those winters of poor housing and thin clothing. But our ancestors (during their able/working years) also worked the land for 18 hours a day, so they also get away with eating such foods. In our 'cubicle-working' ways these days... our fast food, tv, cell phones, internet environment... quite the different story.
LastActionHero writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 3:57:09 PM

Your kidding yourself. The people you knew were fat because they ate to much and move there body around too little. Including your grandmother.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:05:20 PM

"Your kidding yourself. The people you knew were fat because they ate to much and move there body around too little. Including your grandmother."

Idiot, did you miss where I said she hardly ate? Are you f*cking dense or what? Pay attention to what I said before you type. I get tired of repeating myself. No, she didn't a lot, and not every f*cking fat person is fat because they f*cking eat a lot, so that does give you a carte blanch to make fun of them and then excuse yourself because you can then say, hey they deserve it. So shut the f*ck up. If you knew anything you would know that people struggle with obesity, and that it's not just another thing you can toss a round like a joke. Those fat people you make fun are in fact people. Try for once to understand just what it is that other people go through. You know, empathy, understanding. Try it out sometime. And f*cking pay attention instead of repeating the same sh*t over and over again. Thanks.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:12:43 PM

Ranger, I hear what you're saying but the only way I have EVER slimmed down was through reducing my caloric intake. Everybody has a theory, but I do know the law of thermodynamics, and it says that matter can neither be created nor conserved, and that means that if you're burning more calories than you're taking in, and that's the key here because some people have genetically pre-determined metabolisms, than you you're going to lose weight. Its basic physics.

The only way I have ever slimmed down was through dieting. I ate less and exercised more. I went from 215 to 180. No, I didn't fast, but that has also been to show to reduce weight. The thing is people can't deal with the hunger pangs. That's why they suggest grazing, not because it is more effective at reducing weight.

And again, I state it one last time, all the people I have known that were overweight did NOT overeat. Someone close to me, not my grandmother, did her goddamned best to control her weight. She ate very, very little and was till fat. She only lost her weight one time by starving herself and using expensive dieting pills. Once she went back to eating NORMALLY (notice I said normally, f*ckers, not binging) she gained all her weight back.

The thing is, people don't want to accept that some obesity is genetic, that its an metabolic aspect of ingrained genetics because then they might have to rethink laughing themselves more stupid over other people's misery. They'd no longer have an excuse, and that nasty little bastard, the human conscience, just might cause them some grief.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:13:53 PM

"No, she didn't eat a lot, and not every f*cking fat person is fat because they f*cking eat a lot, so that does NOT give you a carte blanch to make fun of them and then excuse yourself because you can then say, hey they deserve it"

I really need to preview my posts.
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:23:50 PM

@mink - I hear you. It is also tougher for older people to lose weight that's been on them for a long time, as the body has a tougher time processing protein at older ages.

One thing you did mention to losing weight (along with cutting down calories) is exercise. Something you could more easily do than the elderly.

Also, generalize a calorie as a calorie, when they should consider if the calorie (energy) consumed is a simple sugar. We all (should) know that a calorie from a candy bar isn't the same as a calorie from a piece of fruit (no VD... not talking about you this time).

We (in general) eat more, poorer quality food and do a lot less than our grandparents did in their lifetime vs. ours.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:25:40 PM

"... yeah, I know, only that was at attempt at humor.

I wasn't really suggesting their government was planing on squeezing more people in there."

I wasn't paying attention. I was too pissed. Makes me angry when people pray on other peoples weaknesses like f*cking vampires. Everything in America has to be some sort of joke, or some form of entertainment, no matter what. Here you have some pricks making money off of fat people. Now, I'm sure the fat people on the show don't mind, but it's all just ghoulish and sickening. People will do anything to sell themselves. Do anything to make a buck. Like Scientologists.

Anyway, I apologize if I tore your head off.
Vin12 writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:27:42 PM

ranger its really sad you've got nothing better to do than to make fun of people you dont know on the internet
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:31:21 PM

Ranger, yeah, I know, a calorie isn't an independent unit.

People do eat a lot unhealthier these days, but also people do so because eating healthy is very expensive. I know, I've tried. Fresh fruits and vegetables not to mention quality meats are pretty darned expensive, so we eat a lot of carbs and sugars, which are much cheaper and which the body does not convert to energy as well as other foods. Lots of breads. Grains. Stuff that the body stores as fat. But that's the price to pay I guess for having plentiful cheap food, the side effect of the elimination of starvation in industrialized nations.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:34:55 PM

I shouldn't have said 'independent' as a ca calorie is just a measure of energy, like a joule.

A calorie is defined as the amounting of energy required to heat one gram of water one degree. I'll have to look into this though because I am sure when we talk about food calories, it's more complicated.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:38:50 PM

"so we eat a lot of carbs and sugars, which are much cheaper and which the body does not convert to energy as well as other foods"

Mink, carbs are the body's main source of energy. They're converted into usable energy almost instantly.

But I get what you're saying. And there's some truth in that. When one eats exaggerated portions, that end up not being consumed during physical activity, they're stored as fatty tissue. Carbs take some processing before that happens, fat is stored almost in the same way as it was consumed, since its matter in food and in human fatty tissue is very similar.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:41:28 PM

"Also, generalize a calorie as a calorie, when they should consider if the calorie (energy) consumed is a simple sugar. We all (should) know that a calorie from a candy bar isn't the same as a calorie from a piece of fruit (no VD... not talking about you this time). "

http://www.caloriecountercharts.com/chart1a.htm

Here you have a chart that shows different food calories. Some have more, some have less.

Basically the body stores as fat whatever you do not expend as energy. So naturally, if you're just lounging around eating, yeah then you're going to get fat. But like any other machines, variability exists and people burn calories differently and at variable speeds with variable results.

Simply saying "you're fat so you must eat a lot and do nothing" isn't necessarily apt for every single person, and I like how people say it is even though they can't demonstrate how or why. How convenient for them.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:51:13 PM

"Mink, carbs are the body's main source of energy. They're converted into usable energy almost instantly."

Carbs are transformed into glucose. Even still, you shouldn't let your entire rely on carbs.

But f*ck it. I can't even find constant data. One place claims carbs contain equal amounts of calories per gram, another place says carbs have less calories. Whatever.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:52:19 PM

..entire DIET..f*ck.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:56:34 PM

Here's a page that really explained some 'food science' concepts.

http://tinyurl.com/nw9dk
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 4:56:54 PM

Carbs ARE glucose, and vice versa, roughly speaking.
minkowski writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 5:11:18 PM

Carbs get converted into glucose. IIRC, carbs are a CLASS of molecule, whereas glucose is a specific molecule. basically the atoms of a cab molecule get converted into glucose molecules and then cells absorb the glucose for energy.
Ranger writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 6:59:36 PM

And sh*t is converted into Vindy.
Peter Parker writes:
on December 14th, 2009 at 7:27:34 PM

... that's why I said "roughly speaking".

Carbs, glucose (also glicose) and sugar are words commonly mistaken, but usually referred to as one of the three macronutrients, the carbohydrates. The difference in names relates to the stage they are in the digestive process, with the respective differences in molecular composition.

Out of the three macronutrients, they're not the main responsible for people gaining weight, dietary fats are.

The "typical" American diet is very rich in dietary fats and the large majority of Americans tend to indulge themselves in eating large quantities of food, junk-food, often. That's what's making Americans fat, associated with their sedentary lifestyles.

I worked my way through college working as a fitness instructor, so I take special interest in this matter.
Had this conversation hundreds of times and heard all types of explanations (frequently, excuses) in my early 20s, when I worked with (for) people that wanted to shape up.
Willingness and determination are always the decisive factors for somebody who conscientiously intends to lose weight. No client of mine ever lost a significant amount of weight without being well informed of the processes that take place in the body while losing weight and, most importantly, without being willing to sweat those pounds off.
Cliches like "no pain, no gain" are surprisingly accurate when undertaking a serious weight loss plan.

So again, like I said before, and taking us back to your initial point, the minority of people that suffer from medical conditions preventing them from losing weight, don't constitute justification for the the majority who got fat by eating like hungry pigs.

I truly feel sorry about people like your grandmother, though. I've seen good folks spending true fortunes to fight health issues they were born with. It's unfair.

But, in all honesty, I can't feel sorry for self-indulged, weak minded people that are eating themselves to the brink of having a heart attack. It shocks me more than it makes me laugh.

I do enjoy a good round ass, though!
Ranger writes:
on December 15th, 2009 at 1:23:00 AM

No Vindy... not yours!
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on December 15th, 2009 at 11:37:27 PM

Only half of the American population PP? I'd say 70% is more like it.
HorrorJunky4Life writes:
on December 15th, 2009 at 11:39:39 PM

Freudian...when you can't REACH your fun parts to rub one off is when I would start to back away from the fridge.

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved