Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
User Review A review of the site and any replies from other users.

Visit St. Mackenzie\'s

St. Mackenzie's (0)

Active
74
Cryton (10) 04-30-10  12:39am
Rookie Badge TRUST USER?   YES (18), NO (0)
Status: Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros: Incredibly beautiful models
Regular updates, usually every other day
Exclusive content
High resolution photos, typically 3500×2329px
Thousands of images currently totalling ~4.95GB (as of 04/30/2010)
Excellent quality HD videos: 1280×720px, 29.97fps, 5,000Kbps
No DRM
Cons: Disappointingly soft-core
Blurry, out-of-focus photography
Only 47 videos, of which only 13 are HD (as of 04/30/2010)
Poor, shaky SD videos: 640×480px, 30fps, 928Kbps
Excessive audio bandwidth in HD videos: 410Kbps, 96kHz
Download managers do not work with video clips
Not all models have video clips
Content organisation could be improved
Same video/photos appear in multiple model profiles
Bottom Line: The idea is good, a school full of hot female students and equally hot teachers. It's the porn world's equivalent of St Trinian's, a place where the students wear the typical fantasy uniform of white shirt, short skirt, stockings and heels. They've often been naughty and often need punishing, which usually involves them having to strip. OK, the various scenarios are fairly repetitive and a little contrived, but...

...if you thought Talulah Riley, Gemma Arterton and Tamsin Egerton were something else in the films, then the models of St. Mackenzie's are their equal, and then some. Many are simply gorgeous, in fact it's hard to single out those who aren't. Candice Collyer, Faye Tasker, Holly Newberry, Faye Taylor, Lucy-Anne Brooks, Kate Stroud and Big Brother UK contestant Amy Alexandra are amongst the stand-outs.

The teachers are equally stunning; Miss Elise, Miss Lilly, Miss Millicent, Miss Nicola and Secretary Rachel, who has the most incredible breasts I've ever seen.

All of this has the making of a fantastic site, but for various reasons it's soft-core only and really soft at that. Rarely do photo sets include pussy shots and when they do, usually only fleeting glimpses. Some models have been a little more revealing of late with the occasional open-leg shots, but there's no spreading whatsoever. The site could be exceptionally erotic from a lesbian standpoint, but girls hardly ever kiss let alone get up to anything naughty. Likewise, while most of the teachers are of a similar age to the students, there's also the potential for some hot action between younger/older models set against the taboo background of a boarding school, but the site's owners maintain the notion of such a thing being inappropriate. Clearly, someone needs to realise that St. Mackenzie's isn't a real school.

The lack of more revealing content is a hot topic on the site's forum. The official line: "Most UK models only work to topless/soft nude. So finding 40+ models of a high standard (which you all expect) that do 'girl thingy' shots would be impossible."

Really!?

As for the quality of the content, the video falls into two camps. Horribly shaky, poor quality SD clips and fantastic-looking, steady HD sequences. The latter are a joy to behold because the data rate is sufficient to eliminate blocking and reveal lots of detail. The photos are a different matter; the resolution is huge but many of them are blurry, out-of-focus, or both. The EXIF shows that most were shot using a Nikon D3, but the results are so bad I can only assume it's either faulty or the photographer is really, really hopeless (the use of up to ISO 2000 pointing to the latter).

Personally, I absolutely love the beautiful models but find it totally infuriating that the action and photographs are so tame. The poor standard of photography also detracts from the fantastic-looking teachers and students. The site could be exceptional, but it needs to get more daring and stop taking itself so seriously.

Reply To Review

Review Replies (7)

Replies to the user review above.

Msg # User Message Date

1

Tom SawyerR (2) Good review but I still think the grade it too high. The models are definitely hotter than I portrayed in my earlier post. My only ongoing disagreement is with the quality of the content. Pics were tolerable but C- at best (only if you understand that the site is MEGA soft-core - If you thought you were getting a site with nudity, the whole thing gets a HUGE F) Picture quality aside, Variety also get a big F and there is absolutely no reason I would have joined this site to experience the videos. I would have loved this site if it came even close to getting "school girl naughty"...isn't that the point of the genre? I might have even tolerated the girls taking turns using the camera not knowing how the "auto focus" worked and looking like they'd "never wanted to do this in the first place".
04-30-10  02:00am

Reply To Message

2

Drooler (220) Thanks for this excellent review. I was thinking about joining but noticed how blurry the photos were at times in the visitor's section. Now I know I'll pass on it.
04-30-10  04:03am

Reply To Message

3

ace of aces (179) fine review. think i won`t join that site next time.
04-30-10  06:09am

Reply To Message

4

Cryton (10) A brief update on the quality of the photos. I asked about this in the user forum where "Headmistress Mackenzie" is quick to answer member questions.

She writes: "It is mainly because the photographer shoots so fast. He has had some camera problems to but they are sorted now. Can only apologise for the blurry pics already on the site."

If things improve I'll update the review, but it'll still mean that the majority of shoots suffer from these problems.

04-30-10  10:19am

Reply To Message

5

Cryton (10) REPLY TO #1 - Tom SawyerR :

>I would have loved this site if it came even close to getting "school girl naughty"...isn't that the point of the genre?<

Absolutely, which is hopefully something that came across in my review. The potential is there, but the selection of models (many of whom will only go as far as implied nudity) and the site's determination to keep everything soft really holds it back.

The appearance of the models gave a positive bias to my score.

04-30-10  10:24am

Reply To Message

6

Tom SawyerR (2) REPLY TO #5 - Cryton :

You're right, I think I'm being a little harsh in my assessment of the site and your review was very thorough and pretty spot on.
04-30-10  09:32pm

Reply To Message

7

kieron4546 (0) Utterly spot on review I think. I joined four days ago and just unsubscribed. I joined on the stregth of one models photos (Matron Jenny aka Jenny Baker) that I saw on another site, I thought 'WOW', and joined up expecting, at least, some nudity, but hoping for more. How sorely dissapointed was I?

To be fair, the site content in itself is quite sunstantial, but nothing compared to other sites, and the models are completely stunning to look at, but that's really where the compliments stop. The videos are, well, amaturish at best, badly shot without any sort of steadying apparatus. I wasn't expecting Hollywood production type videos, but again, at least a modicum of quality for the money. The photosets are boring and repetitive, look at one and you've seen them all basically. As stated not all the girls have videos, and in my opinion, the site could really do with photosets to go with the videos.

And as for their claim they cannot find models to do 'girl thingy' shots, absolute tripe, killergram and smokeymouths, to name but two, have no problem whatsoever, I think the problem lies with the type of look they are going for in the girls rather than what the sunscribers want.

I have mailed the site owners to express my personal dissapointment in their site, not expecting anything, but they should know that to survive, they're going to have to up their game or give it up. I will edit this reply if I hear anything back from them.

01-23-11  02:34am

Reply To Message

*Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies.

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.

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.

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


Loaded in 0.01 seconds.