| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
876
|
Hot Adri
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Denner:
(Drooler's Reply)
I had no idea about her background - just got a bit fixed by the site and its presentation - so yes, this may show how imported a good preview is....
And agree, there's a lot "of doll" about that girl.
|
12-09-07 11:39am
|
Reply
877
|
Hot Body
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from mbaya:
(Drooler's Reply)
Actually original recipe. The only reason I gambled is that the price was so low. Oh well, that was the quickest I ever got turned off by any site. I should have taken your advice.
|
07-14-09 06:26pm
|
Reply
878
|
Hot Body
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from mbaya:
(Drooler's Reply)
Thanks for your information. This is what I fear from an older site. How were the videos?
|
07-10-09 01:02pm
|
Reply
879
|
Hungarian Honeys
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from Denner:
Worked ok from for me - but that's not my main thing here - it's just a thanks to Drooler for getting my attention to this old, old site again.
It looks like they've some done serious updates - also concerning my fav-issue: the videos.
Still it seems that they keep on placing non-exclusive content - also on those newer bonus sites (and by all mean the clone-site Honey School - what's the purpose on offering a bonus-site with exact same content, btw?)
They also offer a bonus site HQ Flix - judging from the preview: no exclusive stuff here.
Still the 5-days fulltrial looks ok - and a way to grab some stuff which in most cases comes more expensive at other sites with mainly easteuro-models....
|
06-10-09 06:15am
|
Reply
880
|
Hungarian Honeys
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from lk2fireone:
Every so often I get a popup message from my Firefox browser stating a URL I am trying to go to is a dangerous site, and do I want to continue? Normally, I don't continue, but stay away from that site.
But I get no warning message if I go to hungarianhoneys site, nor do I get any warning message when I go to the hungarianhoneys models page.
Maybe you can try going back there again, to see if you get any warning message. They have some good-looking models, but I've never been a site member.
|
06-09-09 07:36pm
|
Reply
881
|
Hungarian Honeys
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from Khan:
Maybe a temporary thing. I say that because I just went to the site and it loaded fine ... and no virus warnings.
|
06-09-09 06:55pm
|
Reply
882
|
Hungarian Honeys
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Denner:
(Drooler's Reply)
Jeeez.... Drooler, I had to look that "ilk"-word up.
But quite right - too much shit going on with too many lousy sites.
Or like Paul Le Mat put it in George Lucas' faboulos "American Graffiti" movie referring to the variation of girls on the Strip:
"The picking is really getting slim".
For lovers of good porn-sites (soft or hc) the picking is also getting slim. The really good ones with new stuff are way too few and the majority are bad ripping off customers with a ridiculous price for shit.
|
09-08-07 01:42pm
|
Reply
883
|
Hustler Unlimited, formerly Hustler
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from jd1961:
(Drooler's Reply)
Thanks Drooler, I didn't mean to second guess you, but I just don't trust this site, although I'd like to join. Another good way to determine DRM status is to open with a non windows player.
Thanks.
|
09-24-09 08:39am
|
Reply
884
|
Hustler Unlimited, formerly Hustler
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from jd1961:
Drooler,
Is this still a DRM site?
|
09-24-09 08:09am
|
Reply
885
|
Idols 69
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from WeeWillyWinky:
(Drooler's Reply)
Yeah, it was Epoch. Site replied to my query with automated response. Real response should be in a few days.
Another lovely thing: On their contact page, you get a form-email to fill out, and then you have to answer the question in the box to prove you're human. So far so good. The question was "58 - 7 = ?" I entered 51, and was told this was the "wrong capture, please go back".
Had to finally re-open the page, re-type email, and answer the new question. This was "93 + 8 = ?" This time my amazing mathematical skills were successful!
Oh, and by the way, the naughty bits (vag, at least) are blurred out even in the pictures here, at least with the older sets, which is thus far all I've looked at. I thought this was only with the videos.
|
09-24-09 04:31am
|
Reply
886
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from PinkPanther:
(Drooler's Reply)
And very little of that in the last year
|
12-10-09 05:33pm
|
Reply
887
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from JENNY:
(Drooler's Reply)
I LIKE PUSSY AND TOYS.IF YOU DONT HAVE THAT WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE?
|
04-15-09 11:28am
|
Reply
888
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from jd1961:
OMG, The New Riders Of The Purple Sage appear on Porn Users!
|
02-09-08 10:07am
|
Reply
889
|
In Focus Girls
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Comment
from RagingBuddhist:
You mean you weren't absolutely thrilled with what has to be the only site who's photography directly contradicts it's name? : - )
|
02-08-08 07:40pm
|
Reply
890
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from LPee23:
(Drooler's Reply)
Couldn't agree more, I too would love to zoom in more on some of those shots.
|
09-16-15 06:37pm
|
Reply
891
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from LPee23:
(Drooler's Reply)
Not all photos of a given resolution are the same. For example, for a grainy and poorly lit photo, the resolution could be 3000x5000, and it would still suck. At the same time, I still appreciate the best photos from over a decade ago that were shot skillfully and released in 600x900.
To their credit, ITC makes good use of 2400x1800. Their photos are sharp, the subject is in focus, there is no grainyness, and they are well lit. They generally go for a high depth of field too to get the entire model in focus, and they go to the wide angle lens more often than most sites.
They are all about the close-up, and they do a good job at 2400x1800. The obvious next step for them as a leading "close-up site" it to up the resolution. I can't wait for the day I see 3000x5000 on ITC!
|
09-15-15 05:13pm
|
Reply
892
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Denner:
(Drooler's Reply)
'allo, 'allo..Ze Droolah
At least I got a fast answer (In the Crack): They were working on it - that currency deal - but I was welcome to pay in cash or money order!
No way I'll send cash in an envelope - and a money order to Canada would exceed the $47 - a lot, so.... In The Crack is on hold.
|
02-13-10 05:21am
|
Reply
893
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#10
from Davit:
(Drooler's Reply)
Very good point Drooler. The notes are very comprehensive. One thing that does get my goat though, is the number of times you see words to the effect 'this is probably one of the best anal scenes we've ever filmed' (for example). I must have seen that line a dozen times!
It also annoys me to read 'We must warn you that the lighting isn't very good/the orgasm looks fake/the girl has no passion' or whatever.
If it's that bad (and generally when the movie has a warning like this it *is* bad) then why bother putting the movie up there? Happily, these are still in a very small minority.
I also mentioned to the webmaster about the repetitive photos in the galleries. He responded by saying he takes lots of basically the same shot to make sure he has everything right about the shot when it comes to assessing quality, but then he can't bring himself to discard them so posts them all. I asked if maybe he could post both 'full sets' and 'condensed sets' but he said I'm the only one who ever complained about this and he wouldn't be doing that - which is fair enough I suppose. I'll just continue to 'prune' my own sets once downloaded.
|
03-08-08 08:09am
|
Reply
894
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#3
from Toadsith:
(Drooler's Reply)
Bah - I'm saving up for a 1080p HD DLP Digital Projector - image diagonal: 100 inches! Of course the downfall to this is that the system total price, when including the screen, the projector, the ceiling mount and the extended cabling means a price tag reaching into the mid two grand.... Yes, it may be a few months before that comes to fruition. So I suppose having a 22" display today has its benefits.
No matter - Blu-Ray won, must upgrade!
Cheers!
|
03-06-08 09:46pm
|
Reply
895
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#4
from Davit:
(Drooler's Reply)
Use a DM squire - FDM works great with In The Crack for movies, and DownThemAll is good for pics. Hopefully then, if a download fails, you can just pick it up again once the site is back up.
|
03-03-08 01:25pm
|
Reply
896
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#2
from homer:
(Drooler's Reply)
Well, after being offline, after video download interruptions, things worked fine... for a few days :( because their website is offline again!!!
|
03-02-08 05:08pm
|
Reply
897
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#1
from Davit:
(Drooler's Reply)
I've had a couple of problems since joining the site a couple of days ago, where the site has suddenly gone off-line. And I've found myself randomly logged out on a couple of occasions, which led to all my downloads in my FDM failing and me having to load them all in again once I'd logged back in. Must be that OS issue.
The site has just gone down again. Now there's service for you - it not only dishes up hot babes - it goes down on you too.
|
03-02-08 02:39pm
|
Reply
898
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#8
from Davit:
(Drooler's Reply)
Amen.
|
03-02-08 03:55am
|
Reply
899
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
REPLY TO
#7
from Davit:
(Drooler's Reply)
Haha! Good points well made... EXCEPT: (!)
The point about guys in porn being considered 'props' and therefore we guys are more 'objects' than the women are. That's not a good parallel, as the 'prop' thing is coming generally from other straight guys, not women.
Bet Paul McCartney would relate to the Robin Williams quote right now!
|
03-02-08 03:53am
|
Reply
900
|
In The Crack
(0)
|
Reply of
Drooler's Review
from Davit:
Great review, Drooler. The token system is now gone. I literally joined this site for the first time in the last 48 hours, and am just blown away by the awesome camera work, both motion and still. I've been downloading like its going out of fashion, I just can't get enough of this style of content (i.e. ass worship). The newer stuff is also superior to the older stuff.
Good point about the 'objectifying' of the women. But in a sense, I think this is less objectifying than, say, catwalk models who are just there to look good and hang clothes on, and are void of personality. I think feminists overstate the whole 'sex object' thing and place way too much relevance on it. Personally, I like my porn performers to have some character and personality, and all the best porn stars are not necessarily the best looking, but are the ones that have warmth and personality. That comes across a lot on this site.
The 'anal twitching' comment - absolutely agree. It's interesting for about 0.3 seconds, we don't need to see it filling our screens for 10 minutes straight!
You mentioned 200-350 pics per gallery. What you have overlooked (if I may say so) is that a great many of these shots are very repetitive. I'm not really into playing 'Spot The Difference' (7 shots of an open pussy in a row at ever so slightly different angles) so I tend to prune my pic sets right down to something more concise.
I'm still gonna give this site a very decent score, as it is just so unique, from what I have seen. I read you were disappointed in the site (although your 83 score suggests it wasn't all bad for you - and that's despite the tokens!).
I feel it's too soon now, but look out for my review in the coming days or weeks.
|
03-01-08 03:03pm
|
