Yes, too high and too low, despite how predictable ratings become (big chests, blondes always getting high marks), I am still surprised how often looks alone will get the ratings. I have seen quite a few models who I thought had incredible looks, and then when I watch their videos I wish I had never see them in the first place. Sometimes a model won't even do that well in a photoshoot either, so I never even watch her videos.
Attitude counts too, so just being "super hot" doesn't cut it for me. When I do really like a girl's looks it usually one or two things that that never fair too well in polls (like non-blonde hair color, or normal size breasts).
Ratings are not really a big deal until they affect content release; that is, if a model is not rated too well and less of her content is uploaded to a site. ALS Scan does this, and I think it hurts them because you never get to see a lot of girls' work after they been judged "not popular enough."
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+ ALS Scan quality: hot girls shot beautifully
+ Fast downloads
+ A bigger breasted version of their original site
+ Primarily solo girl content, but it's not soft
+ Girl-girl content is very nice too
+ Same insertion, speculum, Rocket, peeing, fisting standards
+ All Ladies Shaved: that makes them Angels to me :)
Cons:
- Videos only archived since Feb 2007
- Updates are not daily, average 3-4 times per week
- Same prices as ALS Scan, yet far fewer models and content
- Too many Euro models
- Yes, content can be repetitive and clinical
- Continues bad practice of not fully releasing all of a model's content if she's not "popular," thus some models have very few scenes or videos
- Same director's blog as ALS Scan
Bottom Line:
The bottom line is I love ALS Scan, but Angels...is just not the same.
I think the score of 80 is common because these guys just know how to shoot well, and make great choices in who they shoot. These are not bargain bin babes, or well-worn veteran models with decades under their garter belts, but gorgeous, and frequently amateur, models who only get as nasty as they feel comfortable doing. The action is not forced, and it helps to produce a fun and happy mood.
Despite their choices in models, I prefer the American ones over the Eastern Europeans. At ALS, about 1/3 to 2/5 of the models are Euro, but here, at least 50% of the 88 models are Euro. Don't get me wrong, these women are gorgeous, but I would love to see more Americans. It seems there should be plenty of choices in our 300 million+ population, but they still have a lot of Euro girls -- not nearly at the levels of other sites -- but still too many for my specific perverted tastes.
Newer hi-res photos get as big as 3800x3500, and new HD videos are available in 1280x720 DivX or MP4, or big 1920x1080 WMVs. Older pics and vids are considerably smaller, and sadly, they only started archiving their video releases subce Feb '07, so there is nowhere near the amount of video content as on their sister site, and the releases only come about 3-4 times per week.
Other reviewers have adequately explained the routine monotony of photo shoots, but these can still produce hot content. It's just that a lot of stuff is BTS and you can get lost in the repetition of it.
This site says it "presents the more mature looking models with generally larger breasts" in comparison with ALS Scan, but beyond that there is little difference, and "mature" is frequently only a few months more so, and the "larger breasts" are about the only thing that keeps these models out of the petite teen pack found at the original site.
Devout ALS fans have no doubt checked out this site, and it is worth it for at least a month to collect stuff from models only mentioned on ALS. Those who are brand new to the world of All Ladies Shaved may want to check out ALS Scan, unless larger breast sizes are an absolute must in a membership.
I would say "None" because it's the girl that makes something "attractive," not the device.
I have seen quite a few videos with girls using the Hitachi Wand, that damn personal "massager" that looks like an over sized hair dryer with a long cord and makes lots of noise. It's such an eyesore by itself that I am always amazed how hot a girl can look using it.
Oh, and how are fingers and tongues considered toys? The FCC doesn't need any more suggestions on what to censor, plus moral crusaders worldwide have enough trouble keeping up with the parts of the body they already consider "filthy."
I've only directly submitted to ALS Scan, but they are about the only site I trust, plus it's not as if they are some overseas "company" thousands of miles away that you may never be able to contact.
No, but I hope I do in the future: that is, seeing someone I know personally on the web and getting to personally know someone I have seen on the web (but preferably the girls).
Uh, sometimes...but I am sure if I was running a porn site (if would be girls only material) I would be getting so "involved" in my work that I am sure I would frequently lose pics and videos.
Most of the time though I think it is a bunch of hype; just like all the other so-called limited time/collector's edition/previously unreleased junk that gets promoted. Come on, why would all these guys (and girls) shoot stuff just to never release it or "lose" it?
I generally like things outside the mainstream, though that's not my sole reason for enjoying porn, but it's still a nice aspect. The more mainstream it gets, the less I tend to like it. That's why people like Jenna Jameson, or things like Playboy (if you consider it porn), just don't appeal to me. They are too popular to have much meaning or pleasure.
Two? Probably a lot more, unfortunately. I would consider the lifestyle, or lack thereof, that Playboy has tried to effect -- from the breasts, to the materialism, and beyond -- all worse than the "harder" porn that I enjoy over their magazine.
I lived in Germany for a few years as well, and saw quite a bit of nudity displayed: billboards, weekly magazines, TV, film. But it was almost always for the purpose of selling some product or another, so it wasn't really sexual, just purely commercial.
Here we use sex, implied or otherwise, to sell just about everything, all without the benefit of full nudity. It gets ridiculous how we will be up in arms, in a sort of Puritan way, about how something goes a little too far with the sex or the nudity. No one cares about being enslaved to a product or company, but hint at a little nudity and suddenly the apocalypse is nigh!
I would have to disagree with Denner here; I like a lot of solo porn -- focusing on one model at a time -- and it is intended to be porn and nothing else.
Even though Playboy may be seen as nudity and nothing more, its intent still seems very sexual in nature, and not "art." I doubt many subscribe to or read it simply because it has good photography, or care deeply about what the models say. Yes, it is very mild by what creative perverts dream up today, but I don't think that suddenly makes it much more than good ol' smut.
The problem, of course, is that they publish a lot more than just a few photos of nude women every month, but whole articles, interviews, etc, very unrelated to porn. Honestly, I can remember more of what I read than what girls I saw last time I looked at a Playboy.
Was a member approx. 1 month prior to this review.
Pros:
+ Large quantity of DVDs (claimed 4700+)
+ Nice variety as well, lots of categories
+ Downloads were reasonably fast (around 500 kb/s)
+ Ability to stream videos quickly and easily
+ Scene breakdown with lots of thumbnails
+ Does not allow user comments/"reviews"
+ Free to preview their whole collection
+ Full access trial available for 2 days at $4
Cons:
+ Price is way too high compared to competitors ($30 monthly)
+ Inconsistent download standards: older vids are WMVs, newer ones are DivXs
+ Search feature needs improvement, many vids are tagged with content that they don't have, and many don't have actresses listed
+ Annoying watermark on all videos
+ Older WMVs are DRM protected, though free license is provided
+ Like all DVD sites, content is non-exclusive, and is not hi-def (max definition around 480x360)
Bottom Line:
I have been a satisfied member of VideoBox before, the favored DVD site of PU, but I still wanted to check this site out. It offered a few videos that they didn't and I figured it was worth checking out. I was not disappointed, but nothing here really stood out or hints that they have the power to pass their top competitor. Why?
Well, price is simply not that nice -- $30, monthly -- twice what a PU discount gets you at VideoBox for 1 month of "DVD quality." If you use their slightly lower quality $10 membership, then VideosZ is 3x the price!
Dollars aside, the site is nicely laid out and organized enough to find much of you want. Unfortunately, many scenes do not have any actresses tagged, or labeled with content that isn't in them. Plus, the same problem I had with VideoBox, they don't consolidate and cross reference models' different stage names, so clicking on a girl's scene list will bring up other videos with different girls who used the same names -- irritating. For bigger actresses this isn't a problem, since they generally stick with the same name, but I like quite a few lesser known girls and trying to find their work got frustrating.
Downloads were generally fast for me; no bullet train speeds, but never slow. Streaming options on videos, both high and low, also started quickly for me. I usually ended up using the thumbnails to determine if I really wanted to DL a vid or not, and this worked out reliably. I use Free Download Manager and had no problems, but could never do multiple downloads, though there are no DL limits.
Since all these DVD sites use, well, DVDs for their sources, resolution is never great, at least compared to the massive 1920x1080 HD video many sites now offer. Their videos max out around 480x360 DivX, not quite the 720x480 DVD resolution, but satisfactory for my tastes. Format wise, they really need some sort of standardization here; they use WMVs, DivXs, and MPEGs. Many of the older WMVs are DRM protected, though a free license that you keep forever is provided. I hate DRM, so instead I just avoided these videos completely. I wish they would wise up and re-upload these videos once they had them DRM free, but it doesn't sound like it will happen anytime soon.
I liked what I found here, though it was never value priced, and I got bored pretty quickly, just as I did with VideoBox. Honestly, I would probably pay half the $30 monthly membership for half the time just because I lose interest in these DVD sites so soon. I wouldn't be spending any more money than I would at VideoBox, but I wouldn't spend a whole month there either.
For now, I recommend their 2 day trial, and sign up for a month only if you really have the money, and you end up finding a lot of stuff you cannot get elsewhere.
Recently, I had a 2 day trial and forgot what time I had originally signed up at and canceled with about 30 minutes left until a rebill.
If a site ends the membership when it would have run out (like they all should) and not the second you cancel it, then I will try and cancel early so I don't put it off and forget. How convenient that so many sites offer instantaneous access, but it can take days to "process" a cancellation!
They now offer a 2-day trial, full access, for $4.
A lot cheaper than one month, and even cheaper than VideoBox (okay, a lot shorter too), but it is a cheap way to join and download some videos that you may not find elsewhere.
WARNING: Make sure to UNCHECK the box on the signup page for the Brazzer's Network trial (1 day for $1, then recurs at a healthy $40 monthly). You shouldn't have to scroll any, but it can be very easy to miss, as it is in the same size and style font as everything else.
I have bought a few in the past that came with full length DVDs with them, though these are quite rare. They are good for computer-free situations when you need a quick fix.
Ahh! Hairy ape arm alert! Maybe's it just an extremely realistic wax figure. (Uh oh, weird prop idea.)
Actually, I really don't care about director's previews. In fact, they can make for some pretty hot photos. I just don't like it when there's a nice, relaxing solo masturbation video, and then some guy starts talking (and, really, who likes all the background talking?) and walks in.
Yeah, I emailed him and told him I wrote it. I sort of figured it would get posted, since he mentioned it last Friday.
Alex's response is what I was expecting, and ALS is proud of what they shoot, as well as how they do it (as they should be). If they weren't, all the girls they continue to select might not still be as shaved and hot as the ones were when they first started in the '90s.
I hate fake breasts and too much make-up equally, but pretty much all porn stars are wearing too much once they step in front of a camera.
But fake breasts really get too me because I might see a beautiful girl...then I see her breasts -- d'oh! I think I "got over" breasts about ten years ago because of this. We are so hung up on them that women end up thinking an A or B is a failing grade when it comes to size and see unnecessary surgery as the solution. Now, if I even have a preference, it's on the smaller size, since it almost guarantees the real thing.
I don't have much of a problem with tattoos, but they definitely have become way too trendy to considered anywhere close to "unique" -- today it's the rare model that doesn't have any. Plus, after a while they all end up looking the same: butterfly, flower, Chinese lettering; same handful of designs, different person.
I don't really mind lollipops and the things models do with them as long as they do not do it too much, or with every single model. She has a lollipop, alright, now move on.
I also forgot to mention the "meal" scenes, where a model "eats" a meal -- usually breakfast -- and spills something on herself or inserts some utensil handles; it is just too dumb and repetitive for me, and every one of these scenes ends up looking the same.
I love this site and what it produces, but they have been doing some things in the last few months that need to be changed:
1. No more guys in photos or videos. They used to be pretty good about this, but now with "full" photoset releases (bloopers and outtakes included) they also have the occasional male assistant in some photos. I understand they work for the site and therefore help make it what it is, but I don't think it would too hard to keep them truly behind the scenes, or at least out of frame.
2. Cut down on the lollipops and baby oil. Lollipops and baby oil have been used by a lot of their models since the '90s, but they seem to really overdo it now. At most, they should only have one scene with a single lollipop or baby oil.
3. "Guest" photosets and videos. These are pretty rare, but I am not sure why they are there, maybe for some promotion agreement. They have only been from 1By-Day, usually with ALS models, but bottom line: it is just not ALSScan.
There are some great things they have been doing lately, and they need to keep it up:
1. New HD vid format. They now release new vids in an additional 1920x1080 wmv format – huge files, but huge videos…very nice.
2. Classic model remasters. These are great, especially since older releases were pretty limited in quantity and quality compared to today.
3. Hard with the soft. They might just be a girls-only site, but their hardcore is just as hot as the soft, and hopefully they won’t stop shooting it.
This is one of my favorite sites too, navigation aside. Their videos, including older standard definition, still look great, as well as the newer photos.
I do wish they would redesign some things though. Personally, I am not a big fan of everything being included in a single photoset (outtakes, goofs, etc.). I understand that this makes it much easier to download content, but it also just adds a lot of junk to downloads.
For example, their newest photoshoot releases are quite large, but it ends of being a lot of sloooow stripping and unnecessary shots with the male assistants in the frame. I like seeing just the model, not the dudes sweatin' between her legs with the camera and lights.
On the other hand, going through their older material (say pre-2000), and there is not enough content. Most of their earlier models are just as attractive as their current talent, but they have not released many of their photos or videos to prove it.
No, I think it's about the girl not the guys, even if there are a lot of them (or there is claimed to be). It's about what she wants or is willing to do, which in this case is multiple men.
Do we really care about the sex toys as much as the model who is using them, the cars they pose in, or the furniture they use? It's always about the girl(s) for me. If you really prefer, even "regular" guy-girl content usually shows more than enough of the male talent to suffice.
I am huge fan of Alsscan too but I am afraid you are probably right on some of these points.
1. It does seem slightly less extreme lately, but it's hard to tell if it really turns out to be softer content in the long run. Franziska is a good example; yes, she is really hot, and Alex says she is really popular but I have just not been interested, regardless of the braces or tan lines or whatever people thought was interesting. No fisting, not even a speculum scene (at least that I am aware of) -- pointless indeed.
I think it may be an excess of the fluff content rather than a lack of hardcore content that’s the problem. By this I mean all the cars, candy, and glamour shots they have started adding. If I wanted to see cars I would look on a car site, and the lollipops seem to be what everyone else is doing as well so it gets boring fast. The softer or glamour shots can be a little much sometimes and I think this was mentioned in relation to ALS Angels and in response they were adding some more establishing shots before a model goes straight for the toy or insertion. This is fine but it quickly adds a lot of boring repetitive stuff, especially now that they release a whole scene at once, including all bloopers and outtakes.
2. I disagree here, to me they release new models (or rerelease archived material) frequently enough, especially considering how big a release usually is, but...
3. ...I do wish they would release the majority of a model's shoot within 6 to 9 months. I hate it when there are random releases from a model they shot more than a year ago, then only to say "well, she wasn't very popular so we didn't release any of her stuff." I understand it can be hard to agree on whom, or what scene, is really the most popular -- even with a voting system -- but it is frustrating to see something on a promo page but nowhere else simply because a model is "unpopular."
This is still a great site and I think it can remain that way with a few tweaks to the formula.
Yes, but it's really been more frustration and boredom with the unenthusiastic, cookie cutter crap being mass produced every hour of every day...
There will always be the good (rare), bad (most stuff), and ugly (the “sick,” but at least it’s different), and especially with the increasing availability of technology to allow any horn dog with a camera and some skills on this interweb thing, there will be more than enough to choose from.
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
