Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
76
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Poll
The result so far (80% say either 'not my thing' or 'it's disgusting') proves how far removed porn producers are from the audiences. For me personally, it's a real turn-off. It's not only horrible to watch IMO, it's also usually pointless: why spit on a pussy just to lick it off, for example? And if the spit is just for lube, surely a good squirt of oil or cream or whatever is far far sexier!
I know it seems a bit prudish - but I hate to see spitting in the street, and by the same token, I don't want to see it in my porn either.
|
02-05-08 11:55am
|
Reply
77
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Poll
I have found the 10 minute limit a bit annoying on a couple of occasions. Admittedly, it's always been my own fault - missing a glaring spelling error, or writing something in the heat of the moment and regretting it half an hour later!
I think 10 minutes is just a little bit stingy, if I may be so bold! Half and hour would be nice.
(Yes, I'm still talking about the subject of post edits, in case you're wondering!)
|
02-04-08 03:58pm
|
Reply
78
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Could have done with an option for "I would prefer to see the face if she's not bad, but if she's ugly then yes, please keep it hidden, and still film her as long as she's a dirty little minx. But if she's neither pretty or dirty, then she's in the wrong job".
Just got to work out how to put that into a few words...
|
01-31-08 11:40am
|
Reply
79
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Poll
I just have one folder for each website that I've been a member of - modified to display the logo of the site (obtained by googling images of the website).
Then within each folder I have 2 sub-folders: 'Movies' and 'Pics'. And that's about it.
At one time I started to build up a separate folder of shortcuts by model name - but then I realised it was taking up a lot of my time, and was somewhat sad! So I deleted it and now if I want to find a particular model's movies, I just perform a quick search.
All my movies are named by model name plus an indication of the sourced site, e.g. Peaches-Zafira-SE.wmv (where 'SE' stands for Sapphic Erotica). That way if I make copies of the movies to store elsewhere, I can see instantly where they came from (without having to click each movie to see the on-screen watermark). I name my picture set folders in the same way. Solo girl movies/sets consist of model name plus site's description, e.g. Bridgett-mellow fruits-CS.avi (where 'CS' refers to Club Sandy).
|
01-29-08 01:50pm
|
Reply
80
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I think Pinche Kankun needs to take his pills and lie down.
Anyhoo, I reckon this poll is pretty evenly split. But forget all this deep-throat shit. And as for watching some stubbly-faced bloke licking pussy, that's an even bigger turn-off. I just don't get why any hetro guy wants to see naked guys in porn!
I wonder how split this poll would be if the question were: 'Do you like to see a girl deep-tongue another girl's pussy and ass'.
Now, that would be a no-brainer.
|
01-27-08 04:25pm
|
Reply
81
|
N/A
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Poll
I answered 'No', but I suppose I'm biased in that I don't get turned on much by porn with cocks in it. I do understand the appeal of seeing a sexy girl give a BJ to a guy, but for me, it doesn't matter how hot the porn is with a girl and a guy - it's always ten times hotter to me if it's a girl and a GIRL!
Each to his own though, as they say. :)
|
01-22-08 03:47pm
|
Reply
82
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
You get what you pay for. Trying to find worthwhile stuff for free is like searching for a needle in a haystack. And you're also risking all manner of viruses and spyware. The free sites also tend to be very dishonest. Links often will not lead you to where they claim to - often they just lead to more links, that open in more windows, and before you know it, you have about 10 windows open behind the one you are viewing.
The tube style sites are so rubbish that I'm sure the only people that get anything out of them are horny teenage lads that can't yet access the credit card authorisation sites.
There's enough pay sites that are utter rubbish, without me wasting more time with free ones!
|
01-19-08 04:22pm
|
Reply
83
|
N/A
|
Reply of
jd1961's Poll
We all know what the word 'amateur' literally means - but I think what the term means when applied to porn is 'amateur *looking*' - in other words, 'girl next door' image, simple but effective production/direction (often one or two cameramen filming in a bedroom) and a generally unpretentious look. That's my take anyway - I'm probably completely wrong!
|
01-17-08 10:21am
|
Reply
84
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Pinche Kankun's Reply
1 inch in diameter? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! ;)
|
01-14-08 01:49pm
|
Reply
85
|
N/A
|
Reply of
surferman's Poll
And another thing. Most talking in porn is just relentless and boring: "Oh yeah, just like that, just like that, right there, right there, spit on it, oh yeah I'm cumming, right there, just like that. Oooh, look at that. Right there".
Who the hell enjoys listening to that crap?!
|
01-12-08 05:41am
|
Reply
86
|
N/A
|
Reply of
surferman's Poll
The real question should be: are you convinced by the acting skills of most girls who talk during sex scenes?
My problem with talking is: it almost never sounds believable! It's always either over-the-top or completely lacking any real emotion. I think the only people who are convinced by it are guys that have never had a real girlfriend.
So, given that the majority of girls are terrible actors, I prefer them to just shut up!
|
01-12-08 05:25am
|
Reply
87
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
JBDICK's Review
Interesting that the bad camera work wasn't mentioned (i.e. how it wobbles and jerks and zooms all over the place). I like movies to be shot with a steady hand. Just my $0.02.
|
09-06-08 05:45am
|
Reply
88
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Davit's Review
Well, I said I'd had enough of this topic but felt I had to comment as once again, we see laughably bad filming from 1 By Day.
I'm gonna carry on bringing this to the attention of potential customers until the webmaster acknowledges it and agrees to look into it. I'll be specific so it is clear I am not giving it BS.
The latest Julie Silver-Vanessa one. What the hell is going on? The cameraman has multiple opportunities to get some decent oral shots - and misses every one (except for the odd few seconds, literally)! There are times when the brunette is licking the blonde from behind, and the cameraman (shaky as ever) is filming from above her head, so you can see the top and side of her head OK, but that's not what we want to see in porn!
Then the blonde climbs on top in a 69. Just as the cameraman seems to get a potentially good angle - he moves away, and zooms out!!! What the fuck! And this goes on - he finds a reasonable angle for all of 3 seconds, then moves away! See how jerky the movements are? See how unnatural the editing is?
And this is NOT subjective. This is NOT personal taste. This is objectively pointing out the obvious! 1 By Day may have some decent cameramen - but they clearly have some absolutely useless ones too, and this movie is just one more example.
And when the blonde is facing the brunette on the bed and rubbing the blue dildo along the brunette's pussy - I would swear the cameraman is having a wank the way that camera jerks and shakes! Just watch - around 8min25. The instant the dildo makes contact, the cameraman has an epileptic fit! Eventually he zooms in again, and holds it - for about TWO SECONDS! Then there's another edit.
It seems to improve shortly after, with some good dildo ass-fucking - but not for long. Our friend with the camera can't keep still for more than a few seconds again. by this time, I'm so pissed off with how this guy ever got this work, I can't be bothered with the rest of the movie, and turn to something on my hard drive with a more professional look.
It's a shame - these girls are HOT and really sexy together. But wasted on any porn supplier that uses this cameraman.
|
01-06-08 05:05pm
|
Reply
89
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
OneMan's Reply
Thanks for that, OneMan - I guess that makes us TwoMen around here that agree on those points! The only thing I would disagree about is the tripod comment. But everything else you said is spot on as far as I'm concerned.
Happy New Year to you too mate.
Davit
|
01-05-08 11:02am
|
Reply
90
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
Hi Toadsith
No, I never said I'd only seen 6 movies, and I never said I based my opinion on just 6 movies. I was saying that I had just - at that time - sat through 6 movies that all had the same range of problems.
As I said earlier, I originally downloaded over 100GB of movies (although have deleted many now as they are just not very good, IMO). I have seen substantially more than 6 movies that I consider to be badly produced/filmed. Some are excellent. But far far too many are just bad (having no decent angles, and suffering constant shaky wobbly jerky camera movements).
Check out the one example I gave - and then check out others. There are MANY more. It's an issue for me (although I acknowledge, it's not an issue for most on this site so far). Kind regards. Davit
|
01-05-08 02:24am
|
Reply
91
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Bela
* If I didn't mention about 1 By Day having archives of those other sites, it's because I didn't KNOW. It's not advertised is it, and we both know why.
* The archive stuff from Lesbomat/Lesbo Machine had already been paid for by me when I joined those sites. I will not raise my score just because they appear again on 1 By Day. Same for any other recycled archive material, as long as the original sites still exist and still take subscriptions.
* I cited the Black Angelica movie as an EXAMPLE, I didn't say I based my entire review on it. I could give many more examples - but seeing your attitude - what's the point?
* Until now all you have ever done is come back with sarcasm, insinuation, arrogance, childishness, and wilful misreading and selectivity of my comments. You have not acknowledged that any of my points might possibly be valid, especially the wobbly jerky camera work. And no, I'm not talking about the older ones. And I'm talking multiple dozens. For me, that's a major issue. Thanks for saying you'll look into it now. I wish you'd said that at the start. It doesn't concern me now though, as I've already cancelled my membership.
* Your arrogance that no one could possibly prefer the other sites I mentioned over 1 By Day is a major part of your site's problem (as I see it).
* I was actually quite lenient on the score. After the horrible treatment I've had from you, I nearly lowered it a lot more, based on so-called 'customer service'. I have still kept it in the 70s.
* Stop telling me about the 'average' or 'majority' opinion. My opinion is my own. I have no bias other than what I consider to be good. You cannot say the same.
* I'm bored of this now, and have had enough. Write what you want.
|
01-05-08 02:09am
|
Reply
92
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Reply
Hi Elephant
You misunderstand me. I didn't base my score on just 6 videos. I was just telling Bela that at that particular time I had sat through about half a dozen movies, that's all. My low score is base on a combination of things, mainly bad camera work - and it's on a lot more than just 6 videos.
|
01-05-08 01:27am
|
Reply
93
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Bela, I speak for myself, my opinions, no one else's. I do not think anyone 'dumb' for having a different opinion to mine. In fact, I respect everyone who has respectfully disagreed with me, and I'm happy to say I've been shown a lot of respect generally also, which I appreciate.
By the way - to offer something positive about DDF - I've just found a couple of their really hot movies on my hard drive. They're probably a little bit old (I don't mean ancient) because they're lower res and split into parts.
But there's Jasmin with Liz Honey, which despite having a music soundtrack (nooo!) it's still very very good (IMO), and also Nataly with Prada. Both have very very good camera work - the camera is rock steady, and when it moves it 'glides' rather than jerks, and it finds great angles and holds them. I think I may have downloaded them from Lesbomat, but I think they should be on the 1 By Day archive too.
I recommend anyone to check these out.
Bela - I hope you will seek these out just to compare with, say, the latest Black Angelica-Nancy Bell movie. I just offer these examples to make my case. The camera work. If you disagree, that's cool. Just giving my opinion.
I half-expect another sarcastic reply (!) but I hope we can both be civil! Thanks. Davit.
|
01-04-08 11:53am
|
Reply
94
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Davit's Review
Just checked out the movie of Black Angelica and Nancy Bell (uploaded to the site in the last few days).
To emphasise my main point, there's a bit where one of the girls is getting fucked with a dildo from behind, and you can see the other girl's spit coming from her pussy, very sexy. She's loving it. Lovely! But does the camera find a nice shot and hold it? No! The camera shakes and wobbles (maybe the cameraman was having a wank, I don't know) and it zooms this way and that in a really jerky fashion and can't keep still for 5 seconds. THAT'S what I'm talking about folks! See what I mean? It's THAT style that I personally hate. Reminds me of NYPD Blue.
|
01-04-08 10:51am
|
Reply
95
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
And as for me spelling Lesbomat with a 'z' (now corrected) - I spelt it the same as I spelt 'Lezbo Honeys'. So I didn't memorise the different spellings. You find that suspicious? All you had to do was politely point out the error, and I would have happily changed it (which I have now done anyway).
The slight lowering of my score is reflected in my list of negatives, which I feel is valid.
|
01-04-08 10:19am
|
Reply
96
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
And like you, I work in customer support too Bela (a call centre in my case). And when I'm having a bad day, I don't take it out on the customers.
|
01-04-08 10:07am
|
Reply
97
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Hi Bela
Thanks for the apology, which judging from your last remark doesn't account for very much.
I think the reason why you 'can't conceivably see why I prefer Lesbo Honeys/Club Sandy/Dirty101 to '1 by-day' is the whole problem.
I explained EXACTLY why those sites movies are superior (despite the lower res). I've just sat through watching about half a dozen 1 by-day videos and they all have the same principle problem - damn awful camera work.
It seems to constantly wobble (makes me feel sea sick), is way too over-active the way it jumps around and zooms in and out all the time, and the editing looks unnatural - makes me think it was all shot on just the one camera, the way the cuts look. And the camera casts it's own shadow on the women when it's close up much of the time. AND it rarely gets a great angle with two women - it always seems to be filming from an angle that misses the really hot contact. AND the sound on the videos that are not HD is awful too.
I'm sure you've noticed I'm not holding back on the criticism. Well, if you're the support guy then you should handle it professionally or you can choose to disregard it. But the reason I joined this review site was so that I could get my own opinions across (just like every other reviewer does).
Just compare the 'Sandy's Fantasies' movies with the Club Sandy ones. They're probably similar resolution, but the Club Sandy ones are in a whole other league in terms of the way the movies are shot and cut, and the action and images that are captured.
I can't conceivably understand how you can't see that - oh wait, I can. You're biased! Sorry Bela, but by definition, you are.
And I see you haven't lost your sarcastic touch with the 'surely coincidence' remark. So much for the earlier apology. I find your attitude as a 'customer support' guy pathetic.
|
01-04-08 09:52am
|
Reply
98
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
Thanks for the support PP, I really appreciate it. I still stand by my main criticisms -
1. The camera work is far from the best I've seen (too wobbly and all over the place, and doesn't get enough revealing angles)
2. The lighting is often poor, resulting in loss of detail
3. The large-file HD movies are actually less sharp than many non-HD movies that I have (e.g. from Sapphic Erotica)
But this is not some kind of vendetta against Bela. I have criticised loads of sites before (not necessarily here) and have also emailed PornUsers to get certain poor sites reviewed so I can add my scathing review! There are far worse sites out there than Bela's, which at least has exclusive material and gorgeous girls, and is nicely designed, and has a huge archive. That's a lot more than you can say for many of the rip-off sites out there.
|
01-04-08 01:30am
|
Reply
99
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
SnowDude's Reply
Thank you so much for that, Snowdude, I really appreciate it.
|
01-04-08 01:18am
|
Reply
100
|
1 By Day
(0)
|
Reply of
Bela's Reply
Here's a classic case in point. 1 By day's movie of Dorothy Black and Eve Angel. The camera can't keep still even for a few seconds. And when it zooms in on an interesting area (e.g. one girl licking another's pussy or ass, or fingering pussy) it constantly wobbles left and right and up and down, and zooms out and in and out again and away then back, etc too often for me.
I'm not saying this is 'wrong', it's a matter of style, and obviously most people like it. But my review has to based on what I think is good or bad. And I don't personally like this style. I like the camera to find a really hot shot, and hold it still for a while so I can soak up the scene, and I find other websites do this adequately for me (and I think it's fair for me to mention them as examples).
Additionally, it's not the sharpest picture for HD. I have Sapphic Erotica movies at 960x540 that look sharper than this with more natural looking colour. I'm not too bothered about HD, but if something is HD and has a large file size, I expect it to look great.
Agree or not, that's my opinion. And you can reply with whatever insults or accusations you like, Bela, if you can't take my criticisms. Regards.
|
01-03-08 03:27am
|
|
