Good reply. All of those things you mentioned are very important. It also shows you are thinking and using your own guidelines, which is more than can be said for some of the reviews. Clearly the site is customer friendly. I like your reviews I just hope you take the content a little more into consideration in the future. Even if you don't I would not argue against your right to set up your own criteria when reviewing. It is part of what makes the site so interesting. The only thing I would say is what about if you had all the great stuff that Brazzers has, and then has stunningly beautiful girls as well? Surely it would deserve more than 2 more marks. This isn't meant as a harsh criticism, more a continuation of my theme a few weeks ago about not marking too high, because then what do you do if a truly sensational site comes along? Okay I know - dream on, it probably isn't going to happen.
Well I can't say it isn't a thorough review, but 98!? Noooooooooooooo........
Okay I know it's personal taste and all that. To me this site is a total turn off. The reasons are, too many breast jobs, everything looks the same from what I can make out, too many tattoos, and too many over 40's girls. Once again it's those over made up girls with phony breasts.
There seem to be 2 types of girls. The blonde, looking orange from so much makeup, well over 35, with fake breasts so unnatural they create sagging lines from pulling all the natural flesh out of its normal position, so many tattoos they look like they've been in a bar fight with Mike Tyson, and won, looking like they are 50 trying to look 18 but ending up looking 70. Or there's the brunette, looking orange from so much makeup, well over 35, with fake breasts so unnatural they create sagging lines from pulling all the natural flesh out of its normal position, so many tattoos they look like they've been in a bar fight with Mike Tyson, and won, looking like they are 50 trying to look 18, but ending up looking 70.
Okay, you disagree and love the site, and its just taste and all that - but you have noticed these things from your review. 98!!?? NOOOOOOOOOOO.
Like you I visit tube sites. Most of my memberships over the past two years have been inspired by checking out material there. 320x240 is ridiculous, and is a waste of some attractive girls. They are clearly not customer oriented and aren't going to be selling many memberships.
The one argument for not going to tube sites is because of the poor quality. If the quality isn't any better on the original site, that's one group of potential customers gone before they've started. They should be going for better, not worse quality.
Admittedly free download forums will have the same quality as the original, but if the webmaster chooses to fight piracy by producing something no one wants in the first place, he could be in the running for a Darwin award.
Another great review admiral. I like this sort of material myself so was tempted by this one, but the quality sounds absolutely awful! Looks like another place that has been left to die.
I would say avoid any site with download limits to stop this sort of thing happening. If you don't pay your money they can't lock you out of the account.
What I meant to say, and should have said, was the overall quality of today's material is superior to the overall quality of older material, but for me, Buttman's movies still stand head and shoulders above almost anything that's ever been produced. I think the reason is although he focuses on the butt, he doesn't forget to include the whole girl. Too many of the others turn it into a gynaecological show.
Cheers Admiral. Yes I love those old Buttman movies. They were broadcast over here on porn satellite stations 10-15 years ago so I have quite a few of them on video. Ah them were the days!
Although some of those Buttman movies were sensational, I think the overall quality of what we have today is superior, but what Buttman did was to produce erotic porn which made the girls look sexy and gorgeous. Given the inability of most porn directors to do that, it can't be very easy. In my opinion too many have failed to make attractive girls look sexy. It should be easy, but obviously isn't. Buttman's an original. Not many of those in any walk of life.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
Excellent camera work, with some very attractive talent, professionally lit and shot. This is the way to do it.
No DRM or download restrictions.
No pre checked cross sales.
Large choice of download and streaming options, with some very high quality offered.
Good offers available either through PU/TBP.
Lack of condoms.
Some unusual and individual content.
Good looking home pages with easy navigation.
Good download speeds.
Access to a number of other Evil Angel sites, which are updating across the network.
Cons:
A few too many battle weary, hardened pros, old before their time with, too many tats and fake breasts.
Regional discrimination.
Occasionally the material slips into the internal and over the top gross, and can be samey.
Poor for photo fans.
Very anal oriented, so not good if you have lighter porn taste.
Sometimes over lengthy clips, so file sizes can be large.
Bottom Line:
I suppose this should be entitled In Praise Of Buttman. I'm going to disagree with a few on here about the current state of his material, because when compared to Mike Adriano, who I consider to be one of the most infuriating of directors, Buttman shows how it should be done. In fact he still stands head and shoulders above most porn directors. It's the difference between Rambo and all the imitators.
Rambo might be trash, but it's entertaining trash, because it draws you in and entertains. It sells illusion and takes you into another world because it gets the angles, the pacing, the lighting, the performance, and the direction, right. It looks easy until you see how awful all the imitators are in comparison, who get everything completely wrong.
Mike Adriano is infuriating because he wastes some amazing talent. I hope Pat doesn't mind me quoting him in this review, but he gets it spot on when he says "but once you remove the fact that the woman is hot. You are left with a lot of close-ups, very few change in camera angles, a check list of sexual positions he will make the women take and finally more F...king spit and drool than any sane person wants to see in his life." Sums it up perfectly.
So why in earth do some get it wrong while Buttman gets it right? Maybe it's simply because he actually likes what he's doing, or maybe he has a genuine talent for shooting porn. Whatever the reason, and it is just opinion, Buttman is still one of the best directors, allowing the girls taking part in the hardest of mainstream material, to look absolutely stunning.
You mostly see attractive models on this network, but they do, on occasions, slip over into the battle scarred, weary, hardened pros type, old before their time with, too many tats and fake breasts. That's not surprising given the hardness of the material, which sometimes slips into the gross, with too many internal bowel scenes.
Sadly, they don't cater more for pic fans on Evil Angel because the photo facilities are almost non existent. When you see what great angles Buttman obtains in his videos, it's such a shame he doesn't take the time to do the same thing for photos fans.
Buttman moves the camera around just enough to get some great angles, but not so much, you get a headache from a constantly shifting spinning camera. Seems a simple thing to do, but he seems to have an eye for the erotic and for making attractive girls still look attractive no matter how hard the scene.
Although the Buttman and Evil Angel content is original, it is a selection of clips posted from their dvd's, some of which are already available on dvd sites like Video Box. If you count EA as a network, it has has some edgy mainstream scenes, with Buttman's site as the flagship. He gets it mostly right, and considering how hard the material is for mainstream taste, still manages to put out some highly erotic content that shows off the girls' beauty.
Stagliano is still the boss when it comes to ass oriented porn. He makes it look easy, but that's possibly because he enjoys what he does.
Another dertailed informative review. One of the reasons I never signed on there was the download limit. I presume that still applies. It looks like it's virtually dead.
Yep, that's why I always give trials a misss. Same for sites with pre checked cross sells. If it looks like a site that is likely to try and trick you out of your money, it's best to give it a miss.
I'm getting that way myself. What looked great a couple of years ago now looks merely okay. Some of the modern higher resolutions look gobsmackingly sensational.
Another excellent review. This is another one which has been on my shortlist for about two years, but I've never got around to joining. Your review at least gives me an idea of what I'm buying, so thanks for the info.
Good review Toad. I agree about the quality. For me 21 Sextury are the best network. I also agree with you about the one thing that needs improvement is the layout and navigation.
Nice job of reporting JD. That's the beauty of it - you can let everyone know what a bunch of shits they are, and that this sort of behaviour will cost them customers, and so it should. They sound like a typical shady bunch of rip off artists, with customer service that is just there to con you, and once they've done that they tell you to go screw yourself. There's no way I'd touch that site with a barge pole. Hope everyone reads this and it costs the site money. This means that PU improves porn quality in the long run as it helps to send money to the better sites.
Very annoying. It's all supposed to be so easy, but the amount of time you spend trying to iron out all the various crap that happens on the internet is very frustrating. You give your credit card and username plus password, what could be simpler? Yeah right!
Well thank you for your reply. Sad thing is there's a lot of great stuff buried in there. It's certainly different, which has to be appreciated. Some changes and I would keep up a membership for several months.
Thanks for the comments. I think it is supposed to look like amateurs doing a porn home movie for fun. Trouble is, it does. But even on the supposedly professional sites in the network, they often have horrible lighting.
When it's good it is worth viewing, but it takes so long to find the worthy stuff that I gave up just over half way through my membership. There is undoubtedly great stuff on that network, and a lot that I have missed because I couldn't be bothered to wade through it all. It could do with some professional edtiting, lighting and camerawork, then it could be something worth recommending.
Was a member approx. 2 months prior to this review.
Pros:
Big $15 discount joining through TBP/PU.
No DRM, download restrictions, pre checked cross selling, or dirty tricks.
No regional discrimination.
Join through reputable billing agent (Epoch).
Genuine network, each site has its own identity.
Streaming available.
Original content that is individual and a little outside the usual cookie cutter mass produced porn.
Cons:
Little ethnic or size diversity.
Awful photography, camerawork, and lighting.
Videos are so unbelievably long they have to be cut up into 4-6 (sometimes more) 25 minutes or longer segments. That would be okay if it was action all the way, but it is most definitely not. It could simply be edited down to one 30 minute clip. If they did that, they wouldn't get to say they had 398 scenes instead of 80.
When the cameraman finally does focus on someone having sex, it is far too often in gynaeclogical closeups where all you see is two groins. Not only that, there is an inability to keep the camera still.
There is only one download option for WindowsXP and Vista, and one download option for the pics.
Customer sevice was awful. As reported in a forum post, I was locked out of the site for a while due to possible hacking of the membership password. I received no answer to four emails sent over 24 hours asking why, and was only reinstated after Epoch intervened.
Bottom Line:
Videos 1024x576 and 768x576
Pics 768x1152 768x1024 768x1039 1066x1600
There are supposed to be various mobile formats available. I don't use them but the following are listed - ipad/ipad2, iphone4, iphone3/ipod, Android.
This is a clone of Student Sex Parties available through Chicki Porn, the difference being you get extra sites through WTF and a $15 discount from joining through TBP/PU.
I found streaming facilities to be reasonable. Here in the UK streaming in the afternoon is often very difficult.
Models are mostly all the same type, namely young and thin. If you are looking for ethnic, size, or age diversity, you'll be out of luck.
Navigation is a little irritating. If you go to "view all scenes from College Fuck Parties," then click on several clips from the same video, there is no way back to the College Fuck Parties home page, without going back to the WTF Pass home page, then clicking on College Fuck Parties. You have to click several back buttons until you get back, or go to WTF Sites. In fact WTF Sites is better than the rather poorly laid out WTF home page.
It's a shame some great models are thrown away due to awful amateur camerawork and photography. You would think being a porn cameraman isn't that hard. It doesn't have to be spot on perfect, as they aren't working for the likes of Terrence Malick, Stanley Kubrick, or Jean Renoir, and never will, mainly because two of them are dead. All you have to do is point the camera in the general direction of the couple, or couples having sex. That's it, that's the job.
Maybe they are trying to make it look like a home movie, but realistically we all know these are professional porn stars. It's a shame because the performers are really good looking, and there is genuine group sex action. I just get the feeling the bits the cameraman has missed out while focussing on the floor, wall, ceiling, or shoes, are all the best bits. Thirty minutes of action with two hours padding, then the cameraman misses all the best bits, or the lighting is so bad, you have to squint to see what is going on.
Lighting seems to be one of the problems across the whole WTF network. For instance there is a video and photo set of one beautiful girl taken outside, where the sun's shadow across railings completely ruins the whole thing. It was like some 9 year old's first video or photo attempt.
The non porn bits take up hours of time. Then finally finally something happens, they are getting their kit off and it's time to wake up. Just as they are about to have sex, for some inexplicable reason the cameraman moves on to show the floor. Very video verite. If there are two or three couples indulging in group sex, the cameraman doesn't know where to go, so focuses on the wall instead, or on another couple who aren't doing anything.
To give you an idea of the padding and rubbish bits, you could watch three episodes of CSI (minus the adverts) in the time it takes to watch all the rubbish. Or to put it another way, think of the padding as the CSI episodes, and the adverts as the quality bits. That's how frustrating and annoying the episodes are.
As a bystander and observer my immediate feelings are to shout at the cameraman "oi you, there are people having sex over there...yes over there....NO, over THERE you fecking idiot, not here!"
Two people having sex, no that's not very interesting, let's have a look at the floor. Even when there is only one couple having sex and nothing else going on, the cameraman cannot keep the camera still, it is beyond his ability. He HAS to move it, he cannot keep his camera pointed in the general direction of two people having sex for more then two seconds. Two seconds, that's it, moving on, nothing to see here, must be something more interesting over there, if not, move camera to side, up and down, jump up and down, or tip diagonally, then back again.
The score of 78 is for basically remembering to remove the lens cap, and for pointing the camera in the right direction some of the time, and for the models.
Every network has its idiosyncracies. One of the annoying ones here is that for some reason the male performers continually pummel and pull the pussies of their female performers as though they were unblocking a sink. Are we supposed to think this is what female partners really find sexy? Only if you're 14, and at that age you're supposed to be too young to view this sort of thing.
Some of the orgies inside are badly lit, but even those on the outside quite often get it wrong. Many times dark shadows across the pics spoil the view. That's okay if you're Ridley Scott.
It's worth a membership for one month, due to the reasonably original, non massed produced material, and for the beautiful, newish porn models. It could have been so so much better.
This one could be good. I have a feeling there aren't many previews because there aren't many videos. They look to have a good Exploited College Girls type of site as one of the three or four available. I received a spyware/virus warning on this site concerning dangers about giving your details. I'm not brave enough to subscribe to a potential trouble site.
"To be frank, pat, I really dont understand your need to raise the score for DDF, a site that in some sense tries to cheat its customers by unsecure billers and a customer support that sucks when their customers ask for help to cancel."
This we both agree on. Not that there's now a shortage of sites out there who are wiling to cheat customers. Nowadays signing up to a pay site and giving your credit card details is a highly risky affair. DDF don't deserve more than that score given the experience you could have with them.
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.
