| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
1401
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Review
Good review (because it reflects, accurately, a lot of my thoughts).
The site is huge so it is impossible for anyone who has a life to check out each end every model. The boredom factor hit me as well because many (most?) sets were so similar that I got the feeling I'd seen the set before.
But the part I really appreciate about the site is elephant's observation that the site treats its models with total respect. That's a rare characteristic that shows up in very few sites.
As for me, I'm a video guy so I can't be a continuing member on a site whose videos are, mostly, recordings of photo shoots.
My other problem is that the models are identified only by first name and a number so if I really like someone and want to see if she appears on other sites, I cannot do that.
Last point. If you are into the harder side of soft core (insertions, pussy play, etc.) this site is not for you.
|
02-23-09 12:56pm
|
Reply
1402
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
elephant's Comment
I doubt that they'll go hardcore. MetArt is at the top of the softcore game and have a huge subscriber base staying soft.
Now that's not to say they may start a hardcore site but I doubt they'll do any kind of tie-in with MetArt. They will want to protect their brand.
[Now that I've said that, watch 'em do exactly that. ;-) ]
|
12-06-08 10:54am
|
Reply
1403
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
hondaman's Reply
If I recall correctly Playboy started with full frontal nudity in the late 1960's followed quickly by Penthouse and Hustler. Perhaps the labia displays began in the early 1970, not the late 60's, but my point is that Met Art's stuff is really of that era except that the Met Art models are quite a bit younger than those appearing in the mags of the 70's.
|
11-13-08 09:44pm
|
Reply
1404
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
Love the models, the quantity of content and the superior quality of the photos and the photography.
My one and onlt beef with Met-Art is that they view videos as a toss in, not a feature. Watchiong a model's photo session on video, the ptimary theme of most of their videos,is boring.
The few videos that are actual productions are quite well done but there are so few of them that a video fan like me tends to want to move on.
|
11-03-08 08:41am
|
Reply
1405
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
asmith12's Review
Great review, asmith12. I couldn't nail my problem with Met Art until I read your comments. Then it hit me. There is no real "fire" in many (most?) of the pics. Gorgeous babes shot beautifully, but something is missing.
And that explains why I found the videos to be unsatisfying; most of them are simply someone videotaping a photo shoot with all the emotion of an ice cube melting.
Private once had a series of videos of their hardcore shoots and it bombed out. Who wants to see a guy about to get a BJ being told to move over a little bit for a better angle, or a full vaginal insertion being delayed as the lighting is reset?
Porn is about fantasy and emotion. Met Art misses that element, IMO.
|
09-29-08 08:37am
|
Reply
1406
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
Mr Fountain's Review
As a previous subscriber and a subscriber to their free newsletter I received an email from Met-Art offering a $19.99 per month deal. I don't think the price is available to "walk-ins."
But if this genre is your thing, they have a $99.99 per year deal which is a Helluva deal in comparison to the month-to-month price ($8.33 per month). After 3-1/2 months you get the rest of the year free.
|
06-15-08 10:28am
|
Reply
1407
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
artnoir's Comment
I totally agree. The videos on Met-Art are awful in many respects; especially that most are merely videos of photo shoots with nothing at all enjoyable about them.
The trend at Met-Art is moving toward more suggestive (sexy) poses away from just figure model poses in various stages of dress but they haven't moved into any insertions of any kind nor have males ever made it into any of their content.
The superior photography and the superior beauty of the models has been enough to maintain this site's success, but it will have to move out of the 20th Century soft core suggestive stuff a' la Playboy to a recognition of the models' sensuality.
|
05-11-08 10:29am
|
Comment
1408
|
MetArt
(0)
|
|
11-16-07 05:14pm
Replies (2)
|
Rating
1409
|
MetArt
(0)
92.0
|
No Review.
|
10-02-07 07:44pm
|
Reply
1410
|
MetArtX
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
I wasn't clear. The crossover characteristic is, for me, an uptick. Met Art has some real knockouts that do more substantial things with their lovely bodies than showing off their assets.
|
09-16-17 05:30pm
|
Reply
1411
|
MetArtX
(0)
|
Reply of
LadyLover's Review
I found that there's a lot of crossover of babes from the original Met site and this one.
|
09-15-17 06:28pm
|
Reply
1412
|
Michael Ninn
(0)
|
Reply of
Nasos's Review
I agree. A very well done review. I look forward to yoir next effort.
Your tastes look like they may match mine when you say your next review will be Holly Randall.
|
08-17-13 10:33pm
|
Reply
1413
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
I agree. These guys will be out of business reasonably soon.
|
04-03-16 10:03pm
|
Reply
1414
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
rearadmiral's Reply
Ditto that. I first joined back when they started up at $10 per month and generally liked what they offered. I'd rejoin periodically even at higher prices. I do recall that they've always had the lousy check crap because so many sites do that so it didn't frost my cookies.
However with the plethora of really great stuff out there I haven't re-up'd in at least 2 years so if they are streaming only, I'm done.
Remember back in the day where porn moved from slimy porn theatres where you'd run into folks like PeeWee Herman to video rental shops where you could rent (or buy) VHS porn? Back in those days you could easily copy stuff by using 2 VCR's hooked up with each other and almost never run into copy protection as compared with main stream movies which always had copy protection.
At least the porn producers back then understood that their market insisted on a "download" capability. Mofos will be changing policy back to permitting downloading or will be shutting down.
|
04-03-16 09:58pm
|
Reply
1415
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
jook's Review
I suspect the lousy billing experience helped bring the score down to 55.
Any site that wants to make money must treat its customers honestly and fairly. That has become my new standard. If IB get the respect of the site's webmaster and/or support staff, and I like the content, I'm good to go. (personal examples, DDFProd; FTV Girls, Perfect Gonzo)
If I get dissed by the site's webmaster and/or support, it's adios baby, never to return. (personal example, 21Sextury)
I was once a member of Mofos when it first launched and had some issues with navigation and excessive body ink, so I canceled after a few months. Had no problem with the cancellation but now with this review, I don't think I'm ever going back.
|
05-11-14 05:29pm
|
Reply
1416
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
atrapat's Reply
Thanks for the news, atrapat. Sort of like some TV promos where they advertise upcoming shows long before they broadcast them. But that's a lousy way to run a porn site.
|
04-18-09 09:24am
|
Reply
1417
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
Monahan's Comment
UPDATE - 4 eamils to support so far, and only autoreplies promising a reply in 1 to 3 days. It's now 6 days with no replies from the support desk.
There's still time left in my month so let's see if there really is a support function for MOFO's.
|
04-18-09 09:21am
|
Comment
1418
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
|
04-12-09 10:54am
Replies (5)
|
Reply
1419
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
wiild1's Reply
FYI, Brazzers members can sign up for Mofos for $10.00 per month, presumably renewable at that price. That means that Mofos is an extra-cost expansion of Brazzers.
As a Brazzers member I will sign up for Mofos at the $10 price to see what's there and drain off the good stuff. I'll write a review after a month's experience with it.
|
04-11-09 11:15pm
|
Reply
1420
|
Mofos Network
(0)
|
Reply of
Denner's Reply
I had the same reaction. Just logged onto Brazzers and saw the announcement. Looks to me that they're simply attempting to bring in a few more bucks.
I've been considering bitting Brazzers an adieu because I'm tired of seeing so many of their updates featuring babes with aftermarket bumpers added to their chassis. I like 'em all natural all the time.
This move may be the final impetus to drop them off my list.
|
12-23-08 11:52am
|
Reply
1421
|
Mommy Got Boobs
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Reply
$10 Brazzer? Wow. Was that a "please stay" special?
|
06-23-08 04:19pm
|
Reply
1422
|
Mommy Got Boobs
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
I have Big Naturals on my A list of sites that I'm signing up for when I cancel my membership in a current site. The PU reviews are great and I like the public site.
|
06-18-08 03:48pm
|
Reply
1423
|
Mommy Got Boobs
(0)
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Review
Just to let folks know, the network is Brazzers.com. I'm a current member and agree with much/most of the review. My only beef is that many of the current updates of this and other network sites are babes with oversized aftermarket boob enhancements. I'm an "all natural" kind of guy. That said, this is a very good site that has, in my opinion, overtaken Bang Bros. in its genre.
|
06-18-08 11:56am
|
Reply
1424
|
More Gonzo
(0)
|
Reply of
exotics4me's Reply
I checked through indexxxed.com and found that, according to that Dev8 site, only four of their sites updated in 2009, Ass Traffic, All Internal, Fist Flush and Give Me Pink. It also said that Prime Cups last updated in November 2008.
You may be right that they are taking a break and will be back to a normal updating program. On the other hand, if they've stopped producing content their membership will be dropping like a brick.
We'll see.
|
04-27-09 10:09pm
|
Comment
1425
|
More Gonzo
(0)
|
|
04-27-09 12:01pm
Replies (2)
|
