I separate forum postings from my reviews because I just started posting here in September 2001, and was doing reviews (though not the best) before that. I never really knew that this forum was so informative, so that is the main reason I don't mention forum post.

I look for honesty in reviews, not just "this is so great, go out and buy this" type comments, that is why I have changed my style of review.

I've gotten some e-mails from Industry people who appreciate my honesty.

So I guess my style of review is evolving, I truly love "watching" good porn DVDs, and if it's great, all the better to praise it.

---BIGmike, over and out!---

[Link]

Hardware

"Remember crew..you're only where you think you are!" the Pagfeek Papers

[Link]

Even when I write a positive review, I will include criticisms or negative comments if warranted. Impartial truth is important when writing a review. I pay for all my videos and DVDs, and I am not beholden to any studio in any way, shape, or form. A few negative comments to a positive review can add credibility. I will sometimes provide caveats that my comments are based on my values or taste and not everyone will agree with me.

When being negative, the tone and mood can mitigate the impact of the negative comments. If the female/male talent is dog ugly (no names so I will assume that this is not hurtful to anyone), I can refer to her/him as unattractive in my opinion or somewhat unusual looking instead of calling the talent a skank. If the female talent is "overused" and "worn-out," I can call her slight past the optimal shelf life instead of calling her a has been, a road-kill, or worse a living carcass. I am not going to call somebody unattractive, beautiful obviously, and for most porn buyers looks count a lot. I would guess that looks, not chemistry or sex acts, is the most important factor for the average porn buyer (no intention to flame remembering our previous discussion but this is my best guess). Anyway looks are a matter of taste and someone’s somewhat unattractive is another’s drop-dead gorgeous. A few snide remarks in the context of humor are fine in the review but too much and the tone becomes overwhelmingly negative. I have used snide remarks to call attention to the character the performer is trying to convey and so I am actually indirectly complimenting the acting as well as interjecting humor.

Writing a good accurate review is very time consuming and this mission becomes more difficult when the release has major problems. After all, the purpose of a good review is to provide the service of information to the buyers, and by being accurate, the service is rendered to both the buyer and the studio. The studio benefits because the comments (hopefully) will help improve future releases. We review adult releases because we like the genre and want to spread the gospel. We should try to make our reviews relevant to our audience. I have found that when reading the reviews of others, good descriptive reviews were the most useful to me because they allowed me to make my decision based on information. There are reviews from some sale sites that I ignore as they tend to be overly glowing. I have also found that certain reviewers in RAME are invariably uninformative and I do not give their reviews more that a cursory look (if that). What I want most is accurate information. Added humor or an interesting writing style will make the review an interesting read, but it will not necessarily provide buying help. Taste varies and I try to find reviewers with like-minded tastes. If I read a glowing review from a like-minded individual, I will buy the release because there is a high probability I will like it.

So my overall view is the reviewer has to be honest with himself/herself and write based on thoughts and feelings. Playing around with words can make the review funny/interesting as well as mitigate any negative comments. There are ways to make something bad come out looking bad, but yet with the right tone, still sound smooth and sweet.

Ron

[Link]

Regarding the question of looks, however, I would be curious to know what you would consider a polite way to describe [ invalid url ] from the aforementioned DVD? I notice that they did not choose to include her on the cover.

In this Solo Girls DVD every other scene seems to feature a youngish woman, while the rest are middle-aged housewife types, or undefinable, like the one in the picture. There are definitely too many scenes - there were 19 women in 100 minutes, which leaves only 5 minutes per woman - way too little for some and way too much for others. (The kind of solo DVD I would like to see, on the other hand, would feature just a few good looking women and longer scenes - at least 20 minutes per scene.)

Edited by - Reason on Apr 13 2002

[Link]

Guys, on the other hand, I will take shots at. I figure they get the benefit of fucking some damn good looking chics. If they read the reviews and they are somewhat smart they can always figure there is a bit of jealousy.

Though I really love my slam reviews, for the most part, I don't feel that I am the type to throw bitter insults unprovoked. When I get a bad product, I will take aim. Let's face it, some titles are very insulting to the buyer. When I get a title that is a piece of crap, I feel insulted. I imagine a bunch of guys in suits saying "Porn buyers are such morons. They will pay $23 for anything". I will take relentless aim at that.

Sometimes the urge to abandon all tact is strong in me. Admittedly, I felt a little embarrased when I took a jab at Tricia's husband. I probably would have been more subtle if I had known at the time it was her husband.

Hardware wrote:

[Link]

Constructive criticism is the key, nearly everything about criticism depends on the attitude behind it. Some people hate everything in the world, so you can guess how inspired you’ll be by their thoughts. Endorphin seems to have a great attitude there, nice to see.

Say what you want to say, kindly. There’s got to be some hope in there somewhere. If someone’s gone and put themselves in a video then if nothing else they’ve got some courage and initiative, but it’s fairly unlikely that they’re fully stocked up on self confidence, roaring through life in ignorant bliss and in desperate need of a Master of the Obvious to point out any imperfections. ‘I’m not perfect? I had no idea!’. A seemingly great girl threw herself off the top of a building a while back. What sort of review do we want to give that?

Take it easy out there.

Never underestimate the power of encouragement.

[Link]

Even the women deserve a good whipping when they´re bad. If they choose to be on a porn, they MUST look their best and at least pretend that they´re enjoying the scenic route, instead of just being there waiting for the director to yell "cut" and to cash the paycheck.

[Link]

Contributors to this site should feel free to review whatever type of pornography they like, providing it's legal. Whether or not it's typical ADT fare shouldn't even be a consideration, as any reviews posted here will find a wider audience through the Internet Adult Film Database.

All I expect from consumer reviews is for the author to express their honest opinion. When reviewing smut, I don't think it would be unreasonable to make comments about the looks or appearance of the performers. After all, that's usually a deciding factor when determining a viewers' enjoyment of the video. If, on the other hand, someone over at DVD Talk was reviewing a Sissy Spacek movie and described her as an ugly bitch, that would be an irrelevent and offensive remark in the context of a mainstream review.

Performers in the entertainment industry (be it porn or otherwise) should learn to expect criticism. If they can't handle it, they're in the wrong business. Simple as that.

[Link]

So long as a reviewed justify's their opinions there should not be a problem.

The idea is that someone is reading the review becasue they haven't seen the DVD and are trying to decide if it's worth the clams.

"I though this DVD sucked"
Isn't gonna help me make that decesion.

"I thought this DVD sucked because Bearded Ladies turn me off."
O.K, great, I've got a thing for Bearded Ladies so I'm all over it.

Personaly HDon, I enjoy your reviews. But I think the question you've asked is valid and will help set forth some good feedback.

[Link]

If you write a review stating that (insert name here) is skanky, what purpose does that serve? If it were a performer with many titles under her belt, wouldn't you be better off stating that you don't typically find this person attractive, but she looked even worse than usual and then describe why you felt that she looked worse than usual (maybe she has gained weight).

If it is a new performer who you find skanky or attractive, describe her. Skanky is not a description. Skinny, fat, blonde, brunette, flat chested, large natural breast, good breast implants, bad breast implants. These are descriptions. These are helpful.

By doing this, not only have you given a fair and honest opinion, but at the same time, you have given information that the reader can use to make their own decision. Maybe someone is a big fan of (insert name here). Maybe that same person likes this performer with a little more meat on her bones.

In giving your negative opinion, you would have actually helped someone decide that they wanted to buy this disc for exactly the reasons that you didn't like it.

Statements like "It sucked", "It was great", "She was beautiful", "She was ugly" without any reasons why you think this is true is of no help to the reader.

These types of reviews are why I rarely bother reading reviews. I'm not about to buy things based on subjective "love it/hate it" opinions of people may or may not have the same tastes that I do.

Edited by - Bill Broderick on Apr 13 2002

Edited by - Bill Broderick on Apr 15 2002

[Link]

Just my opinions.

(Endo- don't worry about stuff you said about John. You were being honest. Even for myself, I know that I was out of shape/pale, etc. during part of my career, and if people were to write that about me, I'd accept that. But of course I'd be disappointed if I read that I was a hopeless skank (a word I ALWAYS hate) who should have never worked in front of the camera).
I totally agree with Bill.

As a studio rep, I can say that although sometimes I feel a little less than thrilled when I read a review from someone who didn't like one of my DVDs, I am all for anyone writing an honest review of things they watch.

But from experience, I am much more likely to listen to someone giving me constructive criticism, like "well, blank director's lighting is usually off, he needs to improve that before I buy another movie from him." or "that director doesn't use girls that do anything for me, so I think his movies suck as porn". Those comments, although far from flattering, are things I will absolutely listen to, and pass on to the director.

If I read "fuck that company. They don't know how to do anything right. I think their movies are an attempt to try to cheat me out of money. The girls they use are butt-ugly skanks.", I'm going to say, well, fuck him. Sure, he may be right, but after reading all that, I'm in no mood to listen to him.

I look at reviews as for 2 purposes: to help consumers find good product and weed out bad product, and to help companies and performers get feedback that they can use.

I'd like to think that I've made a few decent changes and additions to Evil Angel's discs based on things I read in reviews or forums here. I may not have thought of those things if someone hadn't talked about it.

If other companies don't care about improving their product, that's thier problem. Just remember that noone (including most of you) would be real receptive to hear that they're hopeless. Give them a little hope...

[Link]

For four fucking years.

In some cases, I wasn´t only rude. I actually suggested the directors and actors to quit the porn biz and find something more fit for their no-talents. Like cleaning cow dung, for example.

Oh, the enemies I made!

Edited by - Planet Sex on Apr 13 2002

[Link]

The presidents State of the Union address both consoled and inspired the nation, just when it needed it most. However his tie slipped five to ten degrees out of alignment at the eight minute mark, from where it never recovered. He also went to scratch his butt at the 14:33 mark before catching himself, but finally succumbed for full on scratches at both 25:10 and 38:40 into the speech. All things considered I give it 3 and a half stars.

That’s some pointless criticism. If a reviewer is determined to find something to criticise then they always will. IMHO the point behind a review should be to recommend a movie or not, and to encourage those involved in creating it towards as good as, or better work in the future. Or at least, to not kill themselves.

This is not incompatible with saying that the movie, in whole or part, sucked.

[Link]

Back in my reviewing heyday, I wouldn't really review that many bad films since I would rather spend my time telling my fellow smutfans what to go see rather than what to avoid.

That's not to say I didn't write some bad reviews... I did...

A Shaver Among Us:

"This sucked. Amazingly bad. The name Max Steiner sold me on it (I'm a sucker for a Kiss facial) and instead I got a sloppy video mess. No raunchy sex, nothing "offensive" like I had come to expect from Mr. Steiner. Instead lameness. The camera work sucked and the voice over was a joke. Unless you love shaving scenes, skip this chestnut."

The Basket Trick

"I can't remember much about this flick, and that in itself probably speaks volumes. It was not interesting very much, at all, except for the last scene, the basket trick. "

Bobby Sox

"The revenge fuck. St. Croix puts Nikki on the forklift and raises it. This makes for the most annoying scene in the whole movie. Take my advice and press the mute button, lest you subject yourself to the shrieks of Nikki Tyler which makes Yoko Ono sound downright melodic. Real nails on the chalkboard stuff. ("Nick! Nick! Lemme down! Nick!")"

Holly Does Hollywood (sans Traci):

"Pretty much sucked. Lots of Christy in too short scenes. I'd rather have half the scenes twice as long with the heat turned up. The production staff was inept in every area (lighting sucked, camerawork sucked, editing sucked...)
When a Christy vehicle has the most spirited performance out of someone other than Christy, something is terribly wrong. I like Christy, but I hated this movie. Even if you're a fan, you can do so much better."

Where the Boys Aren't 6

"Another uninspired scene. More dildo work and strap ons. My sole notes about this scene read "All in a day's work..."

Probably my meanest was aimed at Butts Motel 6

"Pretty lame on the whole. Sarah Jane is looking like a transsexual, which makes me sad. I say grow your eyebrows back and hook back up with John T. Bone. You're going nowhere fast. The sex is focussed on the anal, and is decent enough. Didn't turn me on a helluva lot. "

With the exception of the last one, I think I was being negative without being MEAN. It's one thing to say "I didn't care for it." It's another to say "I hate this guy for directing it; he should get the cancer."

To me, the bottom line is the industry has long held the consumer in contempt, and the consumer's only weapon was to be as plain-speaking as possible to his fellow consumers since no one else was watching his back.

It is only now, with the explosion of the 'Net, that some of the companies are realizing they can communicate with their fanbase much more effectively and that it behooves them not to try and rip us off blindly. If we're anything, we're loyal... so fooling us so we'll make one purchase is stupid, when, if we were told the truth, we'd make 10 purchases...

I know it was this "watch each others' backs" mentality that started my reviewing career. (I was also interested in porn from a film-school perspective, but that wore off quickly...) What amazes me is that some of these reviewers have bcome legitimate enough to warrant screeners!

Also, I think the industry is *starting* to be run by businessmen who realize the deceptive practices of the past don't equate to long-term dividends.

(Tho this isn't to say deception is not still part of the game. Vivid makes most of its money by repackaging old scenes and hacking to bits its back catalog and trying to resell it to you again and again. Instead; just give me the full 2 hour version of the Masseuse instead of some hacked up 70 minute version...)

And there's the few who truly are the exceptions to the rule. I always felt Stagliano's product was higher in quality (production value, box covers depicting what's inside, etc.) than almost anybody else. Happily, this seems to still be the case.

But, we will always have those classless folks who will talk about "skanks" and "pornsluts" who "wear makeup like clowns" and whatnot. One of the downsides of the Net is everyone has an equal voice. Mine is no louder than any others' in any given forum... and to some, that's a hard reality to face.

Jeff

[Link]

BIGmike: your reviews are fine.

Hardware: true enough.

RonK: I think I understand where you're coming from but sugarcoated shit is still shit. I have alternatively tried listed links to better performances when I found a performer's look a bit "less than usual" as well as stating that she might've had an off day or was simply not attractive. I've been attacked for each style-either for sugarcoating it too much, acting like I was a pal of the performer, or just trying to get more people reading my other reviews (ie: it must've been an ego trip for me to include links to other reviews of mine in a review per a few people). While looks may well be subjective, poor technical stuff-lighting, sound, grain, etc., can hurt a performer's look too. Or they really could be having an off day. (sorry Skeeter, it still looks that way) I suppose part of why I asked the question was to flesh out what is going to be considered fair without causing fits of rage amongst the "but he's mean too" crowd.

Whiplash: The gist of what I've read in this thread and elsewhere is that honesty is the prime goal with some consideration for breaking bad news in a polite manner. I'll work on it in my future reviews.

Reason: That picture was scary. Anyone who finds her attractive, please write me directly so I can get details why.

Endo: What's good for the goose is good for the gander in my book. A number of you seem unable to differentiate between calling a woman a skank and saying she looks like one. There is a difference and people at the production companies certainly pay a premium for talent that looks like they've rested the week before (at least the good ones) and not out partying all night before an early shoot. I agree with you in general though and often add links to your reviews in my own. I do wish I had the capacity to add pictures as that would be a lot harsher in most cases than simply saying a woman looks skanky or such.

Meridian: I've been told, by Torris as one example, that constructive criticism "proves" I'm out of touch and that my ego is bigger than anyone elses. I added the note to producer section to my reviews as a way to direct a specific comment or two towards them in how they could improve a movie. Rarely do I say a movie is totally beyond help. I hate ass zits, as an example. If a woman has a lot of them and is otherwise not concerned with her performance too-I say something in my review about it. It's not about some mythical standard of perfection-I can show you a few of Patrick's reviews if you'd like a sense of the absurd-just things that the director could've noticed and covered up or otherwise not zoomed in on.

Wanderer: Until recently, most of the comments I've received about reviews have been similar to yours. Tell the truth and spare no one has been the general thrust of what they said. In keeping with the general sentiments expressed her though-I have been trying to be careful about what I said. Of course that makes my hobby a lot more difficult-reviewing is a hobby for me.

ultradamno: If you ever feel I've softpedaled a review-let me know about it. I'd appreciate examples you've noticed just as reference too (send them via email if you would-thanks).

NuTTy BuDDy: My problem with many reviews on the net is that they take the stance that they are either all the way objective (ie: laundry list of acts with zero subjective content) or all the way subjective with minimal content about details (technical stuff, director, actors, length, etc.) I tend to lean too much one way or another at times but overall have attempted to provide some of both. Some of my favorite reviewers say nothing or very little about the video/audio and I use them to confirm cast ID more than anything nowadays.

lunacy: Thanks! It seemed like an appropriate time to ask the questions. Given the responses, others seem to have a lot on their minds as well. Whatever the outcome, we're all better for discussing it in the open.

Wally: perhaps there's a way to serve the reviews for both the consumer-ie: the main reason to write a review at ADT and to the business side as well. I'm looking to find a happy place in the middle.

Bill Broderick: Using terms like skanky, ugly, fat, etc, are so a person won't have to spend a thousand extra words describing the person. I like the idea of screenshots and will incorporate the capacity in my next computer but I can tell you right now that a lot of people are going to be unhappy if I don't include the best possible picture of them as being representative. I will try to describe people better though-I did so on my Signature series 5: Chloe, this afternoon. Let me know if this seems better to you. Thanks!

tricia_devereaux: I hate the term "hopeless" too. I've seen some excellent movies from particular directors who have also had real dogs too-that's more frustratng to me than someone who's consistently bad. I'm glad that Evil products tend to be a lot higher in quality than most (and yes, I use your husband's name in a lot of unrelated reviews as an example of what would look better). You've also been one of the companies who's tried to provide better dvds and most of us long time fans acknowledge that. Yay Evil Angel! Yay Tricia!

Meridian: on pointless criticism: True, but the State of the Union speech's quality will rely more on content of what's said than technical stuff or the actions/looks of who is speaking. In porn it's exactly the opposite.

AMF/Jeff: You and I have discussed reviews a number of times-often on opposite sides of an issue. I think the internet is a good tool for people to use in finding reviews, price searches, and information on movies that they might not otherwise have access to. I clearly recall when renting back in the early 80's how the box covers would look a lot better than the actual tape. I also remember how the cast lists on those boxes were often wrong or would "feature" a performer yet have only one short, typically weak, scene with her. How many people who've bought a Vivid dvd think they are going to get "4 hours" of premium entertainment after reading one of our reviews? "Take my advice and press the mute button, lest you subject yourself to the shrieks of Nikki Tyler which makes Yoko Ono sound downright melodic. Real nails on the chalkboard stuff. ("Nick! Nick! Lemme down! Nick!")" That sounded pretty mean to me... That said, if someone is wearing more make up than the woman on the Drew Carey Show (Mimi?) or looks like she just came back from the alley after shooting up some heroin is going to be offended when someone suggests she looks like a skank/clown/whatever in that particular scene, they're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Granted, a few reviewers seem to throw terms like that around like they're getting a commission each time which dilutes their credibility but few people on ADT do that. In general, those who participate/write reviews, tend to have louder voices than those who don't. As far as screeners go, I'm amazed that some companies still offer them to some reviewers-especially ones who rarely find anything good to say about anything. But perhaps some review sites that focus solely on the objective laundry list reviews are favored since they make no differentiation between performance X and performance Y in virtually all cases. Good for those businessmen who know how to spread the word safely rather than concentrate on making better movies.

Drew: I liked Darkmage's review of Country Comfort. He was the first indepth reviewer here at ADT (IIRC). I've seen lots of humorous but harsh reviews here and written a few myself. As long as a reviewer points out why the movie was bad, I'll give a lot of leeway to them before acting superior or holier than thou and calling them hacks/classless/or whatever term is being used as a codeword for "not to my liking" these days. I kind of miss some of the reviews that were direct, less wordy, and got to the point quicker. I'm considering doing more reviews like that when I see that a couple of good reviewers have covered all the technical stuff fairly well. We'll see...

[Link]

Shank 1 -- Under the best of lighting and with the help of a very talented makeup artist, the talent will be somewhat average looking; the poor lighting, poor make-up, and added sleep deprived state detract from her normal looks.

Shank 2 -- Under the best of lighting and with the help of a very talented makeup artist, the talent will be somewhat average looking, unfortunately, she had neither. The solution is for the director is to videotape in complete darkness.

Shank 3 -- I really admire the male talent as he seems to be having a great time with Ms XXX. He is an excellent actor and is able to go many times above the call of duty. In his pants, I would be quivering and would be extremely reluctant to remove the pants. How can I explain to the director the flaccid meat I get from the extreme lack of chemistry with (or appeal to) Ms XXX?

Shank 4 -- I wonder what whether Ms XXX is using some extralegal chemicals. I would sure like to avoid these chemicals and they seem to do wonders to her face.

Ugly 1 -- skank 3 can be used.

Ugly 2 -- I noticed that the male talent was looking at the walls during the sex scene. Whenever the female talent came into his field of view, he immediately looked away and it seems like he took an extra long time to regain his composure and erection.

Ugly 3 -- Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I am glad I am not the beholder.

Ugly 4 -- A rose by any other name is just as sweet. Right on Mr. Bard, but please return from the grave and tell me how to describe nightshade?

Ugly 5 -- Unfortunately, the beauty brush did not touch Ms XXX the day she was born.

Ugly 6 – Ms XXX has great potential in mainstream films. She will not need any makeup to play the part of the one of the stepsisters in Cinderella.

Fat and Hairy – Mr. XXX seems very nice and cuddly. He reminds me of the huge, overstuffed Hairy Gorilla I had as a kid. I wonder what happened to Mr. Gorilla …?

Old and Bald – Mr. XXX has a nice shiny top. It sure makes a good reflector and helps highlight the face of Ms XXX.

Old and Wrinkled – I wonder why Mr. XXX looks like a prune? Don’t they usually soak the prune in water to smooth out its texture?

The descriptors do seem harsh, but I had fun playing with words. I now pass the ball on to others.

Ron

[Link]

Also, if possible, a little humor goes a long way. AMF/Jeff's comment about Nikki Tyler's voice being more unbearable than Yoko Ono is a perfect example. It's mean, but it also brings a smile to oyur face and keeps you wanting more. The same can be said of Darkmage's comments Drew posted earlier. It's one of the reasons that Darkmage has been one of my favorite reviewers to read long before I ever started writing them myself, and part of what inspired me to give it a try. It's the little sugar on top that can make things bearable. As a reader it keeps me amused and wanting to read more rather than just chalking it up as another DVD to avoid. Although not in their position, I'd think it would also count as something to the studios also.

I admit that I can be rude in some of my reviews, but I try to save it as a last resort. If I see a recurring problem that the studio seems to have no desire to change, the gloves come off. Case in point, VCA's recycled menus. I do try to tone it down here and there, such as my comment in my reccent review of Blind Date.

On the skank subject, I think there's two ways to put it. Calling a girl a skank is one thing. It goes beyond her looks and says something about her personally. This seems pretty uncalled for, as I doubt many of us have had any personal contact with the people we write about, let alone knowing them personally well enough to say much of anything about their personalities. Saying a girl is skanking looking is another thing alltogether. I think that there's a stereotype out there where this actually does sum up quite a bit about a performers looks. In my mind, the girl probably has quite a few tattoos, not the most attractive face, and not the best build. Does this say anything about her as a person. No. Just about her looks, somthing that most people feel is important in porn. I know, it's a fine line and maybe a technicality, but it is a line.

It also doesn't matter much if the person doesn't say anything about how the person performs. It's something I do try to balance in my reviews. To use the popularly disputed BellaDonna as an example, here's what I said about her in my review:

[Link]

I find myself to pretty much be in total agreement with your goals -- to steer fellow consumers toward better product while alerting them to bad product. I've often said "An educated consumer is the industry's worst nightmare." and it's true.

Vivid makes their "4 hour" sales to rubes who don't know any better -- so instead of getting the 120 minute movie the expected; they get a version that was hacked down to fit on a VCD with 3 hours of extra crap thrown in as "extras."

You and I and most of the good people of ADT/RAME wouldn't fall for that... but, sadly, not everyone is reading our reviews.

There's only a few companies whose boxcovers I trust for either cast lists or phots depicting action contained therein.

That beign said, I was trying to be funny when I wrote that. I guess it didn't carry across all the way.

(And for the record I find Nikki Tyler to be for some reason damned hot. Being bleach-blond and sillyconed pretty much leaves her out of my criteria, but for some reaon, she's there... I think it's the smoky voice. Anyway, I also think her Virtual Sex episode is the best one of the series. So, nothing against you Nik!)

In a list of topics to read, a posting that says "Review" in it gets no special treatment by my webbrowser/newsreader than one that says "Looking for smoking midget vids" -- so in that respect the voice is no louder. As a reader, I may ascribe more meaning to the posting that says "Review" rather than the fetish one, but that's just me... other people may gloss over the reviews entirely and look only for nicotine-addicted dwarves. (Excuse me, little people.)

What I was specifically commenting on is that anyone with a website, it seems, can get on a screener list. That's what amazes me.

But then again, I shouldn't really be amazed. I look at the stats for the IAFD and I look at the circulation of some magazines and we seem to have more unique visitors per month than they do subscribers... so I guess I am still a bit shocked that we're as successful as we (internet folk; not IAFD specifically)are; and are being viewed, instead, as a legitimate outlet.

It's a part of the Internet explosion that, even tho I am a part of it, I can't quite wrap my head around.

On the other hand, I often wondered if people didn't start up review sites just to get free porn. I look at some sites (which shall remain nameless) and see nothing but glowing reviews... and I am convinced they're only in it for the free porn. (Which then makes me wish we were all down with the Consumer Reports style -- only review what you've paid for...)

I (the royal I) don't have to trust the reviewer to do anything that be a documentarian. I don't have to worry if the reviewer has a grudge against someone or some genre or whatever. I just need to know -- does Vanessa Chase take a load on the chin on this one, or not?

My reviews were six-of-one/half-dozen of the other. I tried to be as objective as I could be in laying out the scene pairings, but I would then ascribe subjective ratings to the scenes or movies as a whole. So you'd get a quote like "Kim Chambers/Tom Byron/Peter North/Marc Wallice: This girl is attractive, too, though her tits are fake, and probably not healed because she keeps her bra on throughout. She has a tattoo on her ass. She fucks well amd jokes around. Everyone has a good time. (Must be because TT Boy is not around.) Tom cums lamely on her box. She follows with an orgasm of her own. Mark shoots right in her mouth. Peter puts it in her ass while the others spank her. She is happily nasty -- refreshing! Peter misses his mark 50%, there is not nearly enough thrust or volume. She dribbles his spunk out. It is a good facial, nonetheless. "

So you get documentary and you get subjectivity.

All good-natured tweaking aside, bad reviews are a necessary evil. All reviewers like writing them sometimes; but mostly they don't. It's no fun having to spend time talking about something that stunk... but sometimes, it's good to let it all pour out and vent that frustration and pity the movie who sits in that position...

[Link]

I'm not going to sugarcoat anything, nor do I go out of my way to be negative. I rarely comment negatively on a female's looks as long as it's something she has no control over or has chosen for herself - THAT would be classless. But when a performer has CHOSEN to have large multiple tattoos, piercings, fake tits, heavy makeup, etc. etc.this can often (not always) put her in the skank category, and they should probably THANK me for pointing this out. Couple this with the performer's 'body of work' can get them a high reading on the scale. I understand Tricia's feeling on the subject, though if anyone ever called her a skank, they'd need their eyes examined. She would not even register on the scale.

But this takes the 'personal' factor out of it, so no one can say the reviewer is a big meany. Performers not wishing to get a skank rating can easily avoid it.
It's obvious from this thread that there are many definitions of the word skank, and I think it's high time to set some industry standards regarding this issue. I was interested to get your input, as there's still some 'tweaking' to do on the prototype. Any suggestions?
Easy now....;-)

[Link]

I think both ADT and RAME are popular (I am often on both at the same time myself) and reviewers at each have markedly different styles-some are better than others, to be sure. I think box covers are better than they used to be but I don't buy a lot of marginal stuff from 3rd rate companies either. It used to be ALL the companies doing it IIRC. Heck, I'd rather have the box covers to many older movies than the movie itself-that's how good they were.
My comments regarding reviews/participation being heard louder was more a reflection of the generally accepted principle that people who post/review/email/or otherwise communicate with this new forum more frequently, tend to be heard more. I know it's not always a good thing (ie: quantity vs quality of what one has to say) but we're in agreement on it. I'm curious as to how many review sites there are aside from those affiliated with RAME though. I get an email or two once in awhile ("we love your reviews, how'd you like to join our startup site" type stuff) but are there really that many sites trying to scam freebies?
"I'm not sure how this swipe relates to the rest of the paragraph that precedes it; but I suspect it is denigrating the laundry-list sites and the companies who provide them with screeners since they're providing much less of a serivce (no notes to the producer) than HD does, and he doesn't get screeners? Am I close?" Not exactly-I love some of the laundry list sites as they often help me fill in gaps on ID or other facts that make mine more accurate than they would otherwise be. I also applaude the efforts of the industry's businessmen who, in some cases at least, provide copies to a variety of reviewers knowing full well that any publicity is good publicity (to them). If Roger or Lenny, for example, added in a bit more about technical matters into their reviews-I'd praise them more than I do now (which would be no small feat since I am always referring people their way or proping them up on my shoulders in PST, or other forums I participate in.). But giving a harsh review can, as has been pointed out, be a lot of fun. At times, I have gone a bit too far with my comments but overall I think I was fair. Of course you get performers who all but demand glowing reviews-Violet Blue was mad at me for claiming she was less attractive due to a bunch of bruises and such, Skeeter thought my comments were all but criminal ,etc. For the record, I wished you'd start reviewing, even on a part time basis, as I liked what you wrote..

Smartblonde: You were in charge of the porn dick-tionary as I recall. I agree with you on your comments! You go Girl!

SteveK: I suppose it depends on what you mean by couples porn. We could take a company, say Adam & Eve, which is known for "couples" porn and look at all the reviews. I see nearly 200 reviews (and 11 different reviewers on the first page alone). We could search under "couples" porn, and see a similar number for both the amount of reviews as well as the variety of reviewers. Of course you could also take a microsecond and consider that Astro and I are the most prolific reviewers, by far, and would therefore have more reviews than average in almost every major group too-combined I think we have over 1/3 of all the reviews on the site. So if you have a point to make, maybe you can make it a bit more directly rather than pick at the edges. Thanks in advance.

PS: While writing this reply, SteveK's post disappeared...

[Link]

Just don't EVER look at one of their roasts before it's cooked!

[Link]

And then there's the site(s) that always seems to give good reviews... I tend to not link to them when they ask, since I don't think they really do the consumer any service.

But I also don't know the cost of sending a screener out bersus its ROI. If a tape/DVD (when all is said and done) costs $4.00 to create and $3.00 to ship to a reviewer -- how many times can that company spend $7? Probably a lot, I guess. I don't know. I have no idea how many reviewing outlets there are and what the breakeven point would be for a studio when it stops being profitable sending out screeners (which would determine where the cutoff line is drawn).

Interesting subject to ponder... (tho off the initial topic of negativity in reviews...)

[Link]

Tricia, I know. We have actually discussed it before. Thanks again. I just wanted to throw up an example where I felt a bit embarrassed for my comments. I appreciate your openmindedness, even if I did not quite have tact at the time. BTW, where's my prize?

Still Campaigning for Inari Vachs
Stroke Ur hair a hundred times, let me see what I can find --from 1+1+1 is 3 by Prince

Endorphin's ADT Lair
FREE THE WEED

[Link]

Sites that give only good reviews make me wonder too. You may have noticed that Astro and I refuse to fall into that trap and comment about it from time to time in regards to other reviewers. Not that we're perfect but we've both tried, in our own ways, to elevate the standard.

I'm always curious as to the economics of matters. It comes from my education in business (not to mention my real world experience). If I were independently wealthy, I'd probably work as a consultant to some of the companies in the industry-from the online stores to the production companies. Aside from some of the "interesting" accounting practices some of them are supposed to use, I think there's a lot of room for improvement/more profit having had a number of conversations with some of them. As far as screeners go, the company can write them off at full value. They gain some measure of goodwill (I'm told, for example, that Patrick gets them solely because he puts pictures of some of them in his book-even though they think his reviews are "less than fair" in most respects) and even reviews that aren't positive are said to move "product". Yet, having kept in touch with other reviewers online (most are pretty cool), even the biggest "names" or websites online get fairly few screeners and only then from a handful of companies. Roger, for example, said something to the effect of he wouldn't review something he didn't get for free when asked about a particular companies releases-he gets a lot of stuff from the friendly companies and can barely keep up as it is-so why buy? (If I'm misquoting him, I apologize)

When buying a movie from a company that doesn't provide screeners to review sites like Lenny's, Roger's, Ema's, etc, I often find myself in that swell position of playing "who's who" with the women who've changed their haircolor, wear clothing on their tattoo's and piercings, or otherwise try and project a different "look". Further, with few exceptions, a lack of reviews on a release tends to mean somethings seriously wrong with it. Both of us know how the hype surrounding releases tends to be meaningless drivel used to get rental outlets to buy titles based on their "newness" rather than quality... Maybe you can educate them for the rest of us.

[Link]

One of them sent me an email about 4 months ago. I told them that they didn't have enough reviews posts and didn't get enough traffic to their site to warrant putting them on our full screener list (a copy of everything). They had about 50 reviews on their site, mostly Elegant Angel (for those of you that don't know - NOT Evil Angel.)
They recently wrote back saying that they had done more reviews. True, but it was still only about 100, and barely any worth reviewing.

Shipping can cost anywhere from $2-5 per disc, with production cost of a disc being anywhere from $2-4. So even though we only have to sell 1 disc to make up for the one we sent out, I can't imagine some sites even get enough traffic to do that for us.

Sometimes a good review site is overlooked though. At one point, I realized that Rog was not getting our stuff, so I immediately added him to our list.
And because of this thread, I will be sending Jeff some DVDs now and then. (He said he didn't want all of them, because he doesn't have enough time...)

[Link]

As for your quote, it's not entirely a misquote. You got the spirit right. I don't think I said I "wouldn't" review something that wasn't sent to me free. If I did, then I need to claifiy. I do feel that it's hard for me to justify reviewing something from a company who doesn't feel the need to send screeners. I may buy the movie for my collection, but if they don't feel my readers are important (And remember, the companies aren't really sending me screeners, they want to reach the people who read my site. I'm the dipshit in the middle.) enough, then why give them the publicity? And yes, I get a lot of stuff right now and I do my best to review it all, certainly all of the big releases (and the stuff I really want to see.)
That's why I haven't reviewed a Private DVD in over 2 years, even though I've bought quite a few. It's why I review VCA VHS movies but not DVD. It's why I review Vivid DVD, but not VHS. It's why I review so many Evil Angel, Anabolic, Diabolic, Elegant Angel, Red Light and West Coast DVDs. Someday soon, I hope to have more time to review so I can do more than 40 titles a month. Maybe then I will start reviewing all of the stuff I buy. Or maybe I should just post a list of what I bought with a rating, but no review. Yes, that's it. I need to give myself more work to do.

As a side note to the screener story.....people actually drop my name sometimes when they contact studios. Usually they are just telling them that we are "partners" but there have been a few who have dogged me hard to companies in hopes of replacing me on screener lists. Is it just me, or is that pathetic?

LATE

[Link]

A reviewer should be totally honest with their review. They should use language they are comfortable with, whether that be "she wasn't blessed with overabundant beauty", or "she's a fugly skank." A reviewer should not feel repressed nor compelled in their lexicon.

But above all else, a reviewer should be consistent. I read reviews of DVDs I already own in order to establish my connectivity with the reviewer. When I connect with a reviewer (i.e. we share reasonably overlapping opinions), I will use their reviews of material unknown to me to guide me in purchase selections. If a reviewer shifts gears midstream, they should alert their readers that they have done, thus allowing us to re-acclimate to their current style.

[Link]

Regards,
Rumplestilt Skin.

[Link]

Yup, that does sound lame. I hope they are tied to a chair and forced to watch Ed Power's movies until they never watch porn again. Your points on screeners were similar to what I have been told by some of the talent of late (a few of whom I spoke with when they came to town). If they are unconcerned with sending you, the preeminent online reviewer, a copy to review-something must be seriously wrong with the movie.

I'll be back later today and short of getting a better offer, I'll be reviewing some titles for kicks. Y'all take care!

[Link]

Regards,
Rumplestilt Skin.

[Link]

I spent quite a bit of time going through ‘review’ sites and finally settled on Roger’s reviews and ADT. The critical factor was the honesty and attempt at accurate reviewing that I found. That included what the reviewer didn’t like and why they didn’t like it. All positive reviews didn’t help me at all in making a buying decision.

That doesn’t mean that I will agree with everything in the review. I have purchased some DVD’s that got rave reviews only to find that I personally didn’t like them. That’s fine because it is all a learning curve, and you learn to read a particularly reviewer and know where and when to make adjustments.

To all the people that have taken the time to write the reviews and include both the positive and negative points, (and the humorous ones) thanks. You have done a great job on helping create a more informed porn buying public.

DenverDon

[Link]

-- Snowman

(tagline below)

Patrick Riley

You want the truth, read my reviews: you want advertising copy, read others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
** rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ at http://www.rame.net/faq **

[Link]

Regards,
Rumplestilt Skin.

[Link]