It's often hard me to decide how good the anal-sex is in a porn scene, even after I read a review of it. Because the reviewer often describes the sex-action only in general and voices his personal opinions. I think porn-film reviews should describe the sex-action more specifically, in a way that lets the reader decide for himself how good the sex-action is. Because unlike in other types of films, giving away the porn-story only makes you want to see the sex-action more. Porn-words cannot substitute for porn-video, because porn words don't show you the sexy lady. You need to see the video to get off on the action. I think good anal sex is when the horny guy puts his nice lady's ass to the test in terms of deep penetration and endurance. And for this reason, I'd like to know whether the guy ever goes balls deep on his lady's ass during the scene? I'd like to know whether it's nice-and-slow or hard-and-fast between her cheeks. I'd like to know whether the guy tries to go for maximum penetration on the lady's ass with each stroke or not. And I'd like to know whether the guy ever gives his lady an anal endurance test by banging her ass hard-and-fast for a good length of time without any interruptions?
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Dec 12 2010 : 2:22PM
And here I always felt that I probably wrote too much and was too descriptive. Go figure. Try Rog's site. He's pretty descriptive, and was always my go to guy when I wanted the "feel" of the video.
Yes, I like Rog's reviews. Although even Rog's reviews often don't say how deep, how hard, how fast, and how long the horny guy does the nice lady's ass. Actually, I don't like reading long reviews. I like it nice and short, Gonzo style. Only a mention of who is who, and a description of the hardcore sex, and nothing else. When I see a lady I like on the cover. Then I basically want to know how many guys she takes on in the film and how good do these guys bang her nice ass, if at all? Anal sex is a kind of the ultimate debauchery in porn. Because anal sex is off limits for many porn-ladies. They are anal virgins. Anal sex is a kind of forbidden fruit that lingers in your imagination, especially when you get to see how nice the lady's ass is. And when the sexy lady lets her guys ride her ass, then your imagination is basically satisfied. There is nothing more left to imagine for a lady who lets her guys have all 3 of her holes. Her debauchery is total and complete. But anal sex is more difficult to perform well than most other sex acts. Not everyone does it well. And for this reason, film reviews should describe how the anal sex went. Anal sex quite often is the highlight of the scene. And depending on how well the anal sex went, it either makes or breaks the scene.
Edited by - Dan on 12/13/2010 7:35:39 PM
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Dec 14 2010 : 11:37AM
The only way you're going to get the type of review you want is to do it yourself. Putting words to paper, so to speak, especially when it comes to reviewing porn is a little more difficult than it looks. As it's mentioned in the guidelines here, you can't just say; "this movie sucks" you have to give reasons why it sucks. You're more or less an employee of the site with compensation being in the form of screener copies. And as such, you have to write for the masses, not for yourself, plus its all subjective, I like messy lower face/mouth popshots that run down a girl's chin onto her tits, while others want a swallow. The only saving grace about reviewing porn is that you can review the type of porn you want. After you've cranked out 50 or so reviews you'll get into a groove and your style will come about. You'll also start to notice whose tastes are similar to yours and can rely on their opinions and not be disappointed. As an example, I don't even have to read a review put out by Captain Jack or Fu_q, all I have to do is look at the overall rating and number of stars given and I know whether I'll like it or not. I'm sure they'd say the same about me also.
As a reviewer myself, I try to always cover the insertion details if it is necessary. If the scene had just cut to the anal, I definitely would have made mention of it.
The problem with relying on the opinions of some porn-film reviewers whom you like is that there are too many porn films to review for any one person. You end up with a lot of porn-films that don't have reviews you can rely on. And the way to correct this problem is to make porn film reviews less subjective and more objective. A factual and detailed description of what actually happens during the hardcore sex is something all readers would appreciate reading. Because this kind of detailed and factual description allows the reader to make up his own mind whether this is something he'd like to see or not. People who watch porn have a variety of tastes, likes, and dislikes. And the only way to write a review that is useful for everyone is to describe the sex-action in detail, the way reporters report a news story without expressing their personal opinions. Because such a detailed and factual review lets the reader decide for himself whether this is something he'd like to see or not.
You want the anal to be extremely detailed, but if the reviewer does that they'll quickly find out that someone wants the blowjob done the same way, and there'll be those who want the vaginal done that way too. I've written a few reviews, and to me writing it as detailed and objective as you suggest a) is very dull work and b) takes ages. In order to be very detailed you have to keep pausing, rewinding a moment or two, playing again, pausing etc. It means distinguishing between deep, very deep and balls deep every time there's a change. And between hard, fast, pounding, jackhammer etc every time that changes too. In one thirty minute scene can you imagine just how many words would be used to describe everything in the sort of detail you're after? Probably 10,000, and that would take half a day. Just for one scene. I can only recommend that you find a scene and write the whole thing out in the style you're after. Not asking others to do it with generalisations like 'be more detailed' but actually write one yourself showing us exactly how detailed you want a thirty minute scene's review to be.
I think it's possible to describe physical action in very few words, if those words are carefully chosen. For example, you can say: Doggy anal. Slow at first. Faster as she gets used to it. She reaches for her clit and masturbates it. He increases his speed. She takes him well. And he moves himself more on top for greater leverage and deeper penetration. Balls deep, hard and fast he goes on her nice ass. There is no holding him back. This guy has found his true calling between her ample ass-cheeks. And she seems to enjoy it too with a furious hand on her erect clit. The main meaning comes from verbs and not from nouns. And the way to make it short and meaningful is to use very descriptive verbs, while cutting-out nouns and adjectives as much as possible.
The point of a review is to inform you in as few words as possible about the film, so that you can decide whether to watch it or not. If you want entertainment, then watch the porn film. Because that's not the purpose of reviews.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 16 2010 : 10:15AM
A review cannot be a recreation of a scene moment-by-moment, sorry. Time is too precious a commodity for either someone to waste writing that, or someone to take the time to read it.
A review can be anything you want it to be. People are free to write their reviews in any way they want, within reasonable limits. But it's best to write reviews in such a way that they are useful for all readers, regardless of their tastes and preferences in porn. And the way to do it is be objective and short in your description of the action. Because people of all tastes and preferences in porn get to read these reviews. Edited by - Dan on 12/16/2010 10:21:39 AM
I never trusted that Rog was writing his reviews for the porn viewing audience but spinning acceptable copy for the labels sending him screeners. Especially when he refused to note condoms during the Post Wallice Condom Wars period of the mid to late 90s.
Because of too much product, too little viewing time and general Porn Drift. What I really want to know is: "does a girl I fancy do anal in this flick?". That's why I go to Den. But there is another guy who I don't remember but puts a scorecard on what sex acts occur by each girl in the movie. That cheat sheet is helpful. but description of the quality and reaction of anal scenes, creampies and facials always enhance my reading of a review. Also I tend to glaze over and don't come bgack to porn reviewers who revel in cliche's like "baby batter" or "population pudding".
So, Dan, why don't you write a review of a 2 disc gonzo title with plenty of anal in the way that you described? Good luck, you'll finish it sometime next year.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Dec 16 2010 : 8:53PM
In a perfect world maybe that would happen; however, Ebert & Friends get paid by the column inch and quite nicely at that. We on the other hand aren't, and as any regular reviewer will tell you, it's not that easy. Plus, if you become too wordy, you lose your reader. Thus, unless a scene is so over the top hot and horny, you're going to get the basics to capture the essence of the scene; body display, positions, popshot location. Hemingway or Faulkner we're not. Don't believe me, do just as TomBone says, get a release and write the review you want to write, then come back and let us know how it went.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 16 2010 : 10:03PM
Most others here have already covered most of it, but I don't see how anyone can really write an 'objective' review or how that would be useful for 'all readers, regardless of their tastes and preferences in porn.' Your very request reflects your own subjective demands and assumptions about the kind of porn you like and want to see. For example, what about fans of features who want to know about the storyline, acting and camerawork but meanwhile you're lingering over ever inch of the woman's butthole? Or those who value chemistry in a scene over particular sex acts or positions (I fall under this category myself).
With respect this kind of sounds like a sports broadcast - football or cricket anyone? Dan wrote "Doggy anal. Slow at first. Faster as she gets used to it. She reaches for her clit and masturbates it. He increases his speed. She takes him well. And he moves himself more on top for greater leverage and deeper penetration. Balls deep, hard and fast he goes on her nice ass. There is no holding him back. This guy has found his true calling between her ample ass-cheeks. And she seems to enjoy it too with a furious hand on her erect clit." They go for goal, no he shoots! she misses... the crowd go mad! Wild applause. The umpire says "play on." Reviewing porn is hard work - I had to give it away.
First: that's good description and I have no trouble saying that many writers here can do just as well. However, I don't think you took up the challenge of actually doing it as a review of a real scene, you just made it up. That's easy. I can do that in thirty seconds. What takes time is writing an accurate description, as I said before, because it means looking at the screen for ten seconds, pausing, writing a phrase, playing for ten seconds, pausing, writing a phrase, playing for ten seconds, pausing, writing a phrase, rewinding to check exactly when she removed her shoes, pausing, writing a phrase, etc. Come back when you've done that for an entire half hour scene, with everything from the intro the cumshot. Second: you wrote about 80 words and you've covered one position - doggy anal - which might last a few minutes. If you're doing that level of description for all readers, not just the anal fans, multiply that by ten or fifteen and you've got a half hour scene (around 1,000). Now multiply that by five or six and you've got a whole release (5,000 - 6,000). Now add the description of clothing, tease, dialogue, music, lighting, camerawork, makeup, a little info on the stars and maybe the director, something on chemistry, the theme/s of the release, plot if there is any and anything else the reading public wants and yes, you've got 10,000 words. And just imagine if it's an orgy scene and you're trying to describe what's happening when you can see three couples and a DP in one shot ...
There really are different schools of thought, and interests, and as much as I appreciate your opinions in this respect, its been my experience the outspoken majority attend the other school. I however sit nearby, under the circus tent, directly beneath the high wire trapeze act, looking on for the unexpected mishap to occur, and while freak shows with bearded ladies belong under another tent entirely, midget acts are always entertaining. My preference would be for the writer to highlight any significant feat, remarkable detail, or notable impression they found uniquely intriguing in the scene, and little interest for much else, as little else ever differs.
Anniversary Lessons - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Dec 12 2010 : 12:31PM
