Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!


Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : host2626 (0)  

Feedback:   All (33)  |   Reviews (0)  |   Comments (4)  |   Replies (29)

Other:   Replies Received (19)  |   Trust Ratings (3)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 26-33 of 33 Page :    < Previous Page

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Visit Pure Mature

Pure Mature

Not much different from the rest

Looking at the preview area, I got the impression that the site was exceptional. Yes, I am familiar with the major players like Brazzers, RealityKings, Bangbros, DDF, 21Sextury, etc. PureMature had this aura of sensuality and passion in stark contrast with the fake cries of "yeah fuck me with that huge cock" and anal piledriving that seems to fill said major players' sites.

Most of the movies' large thumbnails showed what I would call "true POV". Not that commonly referred to "POV" where a single guy does everything including holding the camera, that would be the POV of your eyes if they were coming out of the navel - that is just some dick and face closeups. No, these movies thumbnails show the whole of the girl's body, legs spread, taken at the level of the head or higher, which gives an impression of intimacy. This, and the beautiful sweet lighting.

Unfortunately the actual movies are a letdown. First the quality. The HD formats include:
* MPG 1280x720 2600Kbps, yes, actual MPEG (MPEG-PS) video streams
* MPG 1920x1080 10Mbps MPEG
* WMV 1920x1080 9Mbps VC-1
The industry has moved to AVC in .MP4 container, MPEG is way too inefficient. The MPGs at a higher bitrate and and 15% larger size show more artifacts and less definition than the WMVs. But since the movies seem to use a lot of white natural light, even the latter at 9 Mbps don't show enough definition. Video quality is definitely much worse than that on the major sites listed earlier.

Now the contents. Well, the thumbnails were misleading. The camera work is the same as everywhere else. Positioned somewhere randomly on the side, or long face and boobs closeups, or the navel POV (dick and face closeups). The "true POV" shown in thumbnails is of the accidental kind that lasts a couple of seconds when the camera is moving, like everywhere else. The thumbnails are way more exciting than the movies themselves. So they know which shooting angles to use to entice people, yet fail to use said angles in the movies? (They even photoshopped out Tanya Tate's ugly belly tramp stamp on the thumbnail, I thought she finally did something to look like the classy woman she would have looked like without.)

So the only thing that sets the movie contents apart from that on the other sites is the lack of "fuck me!" cries. Only the guy from cougarsinheat.com had enough patience to stay for more than 5 seconds on the same spot (too bad the site is dead), the rest are just ADD afflicted guys randomly moving the camera, and puremature.com is no exception.

I felt the same way when I subscribed to orgasms.xxx expecting to see... wait for it... don't laugh... female orgasms :).

10-15-12  11:00pm

Replies (4)
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
Reply of Vegas Ken's Comment

Nice promo, thanks for this.

Now, when I was subscribing (through Epoch) it also said that after this first month I will be automatically rebilled at the same reduced rate of $9.95/mo (or today's equivalent of 7.83). Do you think they will honor that?

03-31-12  01:08am

Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings

Finally some HD content?

I went to the site today and saw that they have started putting small "HD" logos on their movie screenshots on the updates pages, starting Sept. 1st 2009. Is it just for streamable content? Or do subscribers now have the option to actually download HD movies? If so, does anyone just sign up and get instantly access to downloadable HD movies, or is there a restriction like Brazzers' 6 months of uninterrupted membership?


10-05-09  12:03pm

Replies (2)
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
Reply of morgentau's Comment

Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not getting in until they give proper HD downloads and without Brazzers' "6 months of uninterrupted membership" crap, I don't care about streaming at all. Last time I checked RK, some time this summer, their SD content was of too low a quality even compared with non-HD sites. There are at least a dozen sites nowadays that provide HD downloads, some for more than a year now, and once you've been there there is no coming back.

09-08-09  09:02am

Visit Sex Art

Sex Art
Reply of Parsnip's Reply

WTF do they even mean by "closed mind". Do we go there to discuss some opinion pieces about society, economics, etc., or do we go there to get sexually aroused and relieve ourselves? If I am not excited by things being thrust into crappers and maybe even being turned off by it, no exhorting will make me get excited. What next, introduce TS stuff with guys sucking dicks and ask people to open their minds even wider?

And having a fake model interview is even funnier. Sure, she doesn't want to come to work, do something quick and harmless and go home. She definitely wants to have her asshole pounded "at the office", because of course, these guys are all about her pleasure, they do everything to have each model orgasm ten times per shoot. Sure.

And it's not like they are getting into an empty niche. The vast majority of sites is at least half anal nowadays.

12-06-14  03:10am

Visit Sex Art

Sex Art
Reply of Parsnip's Comment

I hope that there was an exit form and that you made it clear that it was because of it, not because there wasn't *as much* crapper sex as in almost every other site.

12-01-14  10:22pm

Visit The Sandfly

The Sandfly
Reply of TheMoreYouKnow's Review

Wait, so the videos are at 720x576, and it is touted as a huge step up from 640x480? I don't disagree, it would have been a revolution if we were having this conversation 15 years ago. At least it is more honest than what beachhunters do: take these low res videos, re-encode them at a higher screen size and a slightly higher bitrate and label them as "HD". But you can't violate the "Turd in, Turd Out" principle so you end up with a low definition clip at a much higher file size.

None of this is acceptable in 2014, it hasn't been for a few years already. Maybe the site should pay its contributors more so they can afford better equipment? ;) It's not like its impossible in principle to make nice HD beach voyeur videos. Check out jackassfiles.com or ilovethebeach.com.

05-22-14  10:05pm

Visit Try Teens

Try Teens
Reply of joekramer08's Review

Half the review is about the 25 fps thingy. You are surprised that noone else mentioned it? Here is why: 25 fps is the standard frame rate for the PAL and SECAM standards, used almost everywhere outside of the Americas. It is far from "unacceptable" and is totally smooth, otherwise the rest of the world wouldn't be watching digital videos, TV, DVD, BRs, etc., at 25 fps. Heck, the NTSC-movie standard is 23.97 fps, and nobody ever complained about choppiness.

It can play choppy for many reasons, a problem with your system or codecs, processing speed, encoding issues, whatever. However, TryTeen movies at 25 fps play smoothly on my system.

12-07-11  01:34am

Shown : 26-33 of 33 Page :    < Previous Page

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

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.


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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.

Loaded in 0.56 seconds.