The best way to judge the quality of a porn film

Author	Post
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 11:31AM Porn reviewers often rate the quality of a porn movie they review according their personal taste and preference in sex and in porn. Which I think is a poor way to judge any porn film. Because it's not fair to give low ratings to an anal film titled 'Anal Assault' for its lack of pussy sex. But it is fair to give low ratings to a film that screams 'Anal Sex! on its cover and then shows a lot of pussy sex in the film. Because such a film deceives and misleads the viewer by promising him one thing and then giving him another. Whether you personally like pussy sex or anal sex should be irrelevant in judging a porn film for others. Because viewers choose their films according to the type of sex they want to see. If the viewer chooses a film clearly promising lots of anal sex on its cover, then it's safe to assume that this viewer is looking for anal sex and not something else. Such a viewer isn't likely to care about the absence of pussy sex. A porn film should be judged according to how clear is its sex promise on the cover, and also how well it fulfills this promise to the viewer. A film that promises lots of anal sex on its cover should be judged according to the quantity and the quality of its anal sex, rather than anything else. Giving it low ratings for lack of pussy sex makes no sense at all in such a situation. Edited by - Dan on Aug 12 2012 [Link]
ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 1:17PM A reviewer has to use their own judgments and opinions to some degree. The important thing is that they be upfront about their personal bias. If a reviewer of a BBW scene says: "The woman's huge ass and mighty thighs are too much for me, so I give it a low rating", then that is respectable and is useful assessment, even to a reader who is a BBW lover. [Link]
HeyNow Oblivious Gold Star Hey! 5965 Posts 1/03	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 2:01PM I agree. I don't know what I'm agreeing to but I agree. Is there a specific review that you are referencing, Dan? Edited by - heynow on 8/12/2012 2:09:42 PM [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 2:21PM ^ I don't want to single out any specific reviewers, because nobody likes to be criticized in public in front of others. I don't want to make anyone feel bad unnecessarily. Because it's hard to have a rational discussion about anything, when people are upset for some reason. Upsetting others, when you can avoid it, is often self-defeating. Your message gets lost, because it becomes a personal disagreement. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 2:38PM Let me pose a question to you, say you are reviewing a title you got because you like the director, star, etc named Anal Overload. You really like pussy sex but aren't as taken with anal sex. You assumed when you got it that there would be some of both, which isn't a bad assumption as many anal titles I have seen have pussy sex as well. Since you aren't as taken with anal sex, the scenes aren't as hot in your opinion. Do you now lie on your rating system because not being as taken with anal sex you weren't as taken with the scene? And how do you, not being as taken with anal sex, if it is a five, four, three, etc star anal scene? Porn reviewing has been and always will be subjective. There is no way around it, you review based on your tastes. If you start reviewing any other way, rating become meaningless because anything you don't like you "have" to give a good rating to because you don't know how to rate it otherwise. And reviewing based on the cover or back, other than to simply state, this title promised anal on the cover and there was only one scene that contained it or something to that effect doesn't work over time as covers do sometimes change. Just my two cents. [Link]

ukmg Member 65 Posts 11/10	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 3:03PM Surely a title must be judged on more than whether it includes what the title suggests/DVD box cover claims? Otherwise, reviews would simply be a tick box list confirming what does/does not feature in the film. Porn could then become even more formulaic than it already is. I agree with Flash on the subjectivity of reviews and reviwers. For example, two "big boob" porn fans could easily hold different opinions on a DVD title because (to use one of many possible variables) the DVD features tatt-heavy stars. The logic of subjectivity applies to more "mainstream" reviews, too - movies, film, art, books etc. ukmg [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 3:39PM ^ A good example is 'Asian Anal Assault'. The title of this film promises not only Asian women and anal sex. It also promises a specific type of anal sex, the type of anal sex that looks like an assault. I'd say that this title makes a very specific promise to the viewer. And it would be fair to judge each scene in this film on how well it delivers on this promise in terms of the quality and quantity. The quality includes how attractive the Asian ladies are. And the quality also includes a judgement of how much the anal sex for the ladies looks like an anal assault. Because that's what the title of this film promises to the viewer. I'd say that Tia Ling's scene in this film is the best in terms of fulfilling the anal assault promise of this film. She takes on 6 guys, and it's a real anal gang-bang for her. Half of the time she doesn't even know that some guy is about to penetrate her ass. She is busy sucking some guy's cock, and when some other guy penetrates her ass from behind, then it looks like an anal assault on her for a second or two. Because the guy just goes ahead and penetrates her ass, when she clearly isn't aware that he is about to do it. She gives her apparent consent to the guy only after his penetration by not objecting to it, when she becomes aware of it. But another scene in this film with Sharon Lee shows a substantial amount of pussy sex for her, which is nice but which does nothing to justify the 'Asian Anal Assault' title of this film. And her anal sex with the guy is too mild and isn't assaultive enough to justify the title of the film. A film cover usually makes all kinds of promises to the viewer not only with its title but also with the picture, where the ladies pose in suggestive ways that imply certain types of sex. If the lady shows you her ass on the cover but has only pussy sex in the film, then I'd say that this film is poor quality for all those anal porn fans who get misled by its anally suggestive cover. Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 3:42:35 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:06PM An ass on the cover doesn't mean anal, maybe the film is shot to display the ass. And how does one use a standard criteria for an anal assault? What is an anal assault to you might not be to another person. And what another person finds to be an anal assault you might not. If all reviewers were to go to a standardized system, who would pick the system? Which fan is right in which regard? And would systems change over the years? Look at how much porn has changed from the 70s to 80s to 90s to 00's to the 10s. And how many reviewers would up and stop because they don't like the new formulaic system of judgement? And how many would just toss it aside and write what they feel? I know I would do the latter. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:11PM Also couldn't the title have Asian men with varied gender women who have anal sex and still live up to the title? No where in the title does it specify women. So some viewers could take this title to mean Asian men. Other viewers might assume that this title means everyone who is having anal sex is Asian, men and women and from the cast list that clearly isn't the case. You have become subjective already in your interpretation of the title since you have decided that it is Asian women having anal sex. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:39PM ^ Everybody, who knows the English language reasonably well, also knows what the word 'assault' means. It's not some obscure word that only a University professor would know. It's a commonly used word with several different meanings. And I agree that assault is a matter of degree. Not every assault is the same. There is a big difference between 6 guys ganging up on the ass of a pretty Asian lass, and only one guy riding the ass of another Asian lass. The 6-guy-Asian-lady clearly gets a much better anal assault, than the 1-guy-Asian-lady who doesn't even get it straight-to-anal from her guy. And that's what I'm talking about. The quality of the film is how well it fulfills its promise to the viewer. It's a matter of degree that can be rated on a scale of 1 to 10. There is some subjective judgement involved. But this judgement is fair, because when the porn-maker promises something to the viewer, then its only fair to expect him or her to fulfill it and fulfill it well. Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 4:41:06 PM [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:43PM But maybe to me assault means 20 minutes of uninterrupted anal sex from one guy. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:47PM ^ Yes, I would accept this as a reasonable kind of an anal assault. Every word has several meanings, including the word 'assault'. As long as the porn maker interprets this word reasonably in a way that most people would normally interpret it, then it's fair game. The porn maker fulfills his promise to the viewer. Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 4:47:21 PM [Link]
Simpsona Senior Member 2389 Posts 8/10	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 8:03PM No offence Dan but i think your looking into porn movie titles a little too much.What i do have a problem with though is when a cover says all anal,meaning every scene features anal but only a small percentage of each scene is actually anal.This is a problem i have with quite a few of Jules Jordan's 'all anal' movies. [Link]
2ferme Senior Member 1333 Posts 11/09	Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 11:46PM A good, yet simple scene breakdown, and then a sensible opinion? [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14596 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 12:19AM The people who submit reviews to this site are not paid for their work. That being so, it is a bit much to demand that they perform to our specifications. Besides, it shouldn't take reading more than a handful of reviews to know whether or not you agree with any reviewer's opinions and tastes. So long as a reviewer is open and honest about what elements led to whatever rating he gave a movie, I fail to see the problem. [Link]

Aplus Senior Member 1431 Posts 5/05	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 12:57AM I think there are very few true professional porn reviewers. It's very time consuming to really watch and review lots of films. Most are probably only dabbling in it, and as such can't or shouldn't be held to the same standards. Most professionals do appear to take off points or downgrade films for promises not kept. Most do appear to admit their own biases or expectations also, which is all I can ask for. [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 1:44AM I am not a film-making degree holder but I will give this a shot here (I did take a single university class in film analysis years ago). I think a review would have several aspects to it. One is the overall quality of the movie. That includes unobtrusive editing, high picture quality, high set quality and all promised features on the DVD (believe it or not CAVR reviewer Den had an issue with Hustler in 2005 or so where they would advertise features and he would find they weren't there on tens of their movies). Next, for an adult film you would rate the quality of the women (their look and acting ability) and also the qualities of the sex (BDSM, anal, rough, romantic, realism, etc). The quality of the men is also important (again, look and acting ability). Cast members looks ratings would also require that their looks fit the movie -- for example Krysta Kaos or Krissie Dee would detract severely from a romantic Nica Noelle-type movie. The reverse is also true, Nica Noelle or Sarah Vandella wouldn't fit in a biker-bar alternative movie whereas Krysta and Krissie would fit nicely. I don't remember the name of the movie but I remember an egregious one where Randy Spears was cast as a biker complete with the leather motorcycle jacket where I felt he looked out of place (Randy is cleaner-cut and is a great performer overall, he just looked out of place in that particular scene). Finally you would comment on the acting performance of the actors/actresses. If the cast can't act their way out of a wet paper bag the movie would score poorly here. If the acting quality doesn't detract from the movie but is so-so, that movie would score in the mid-range. If the acting quality reminds you of a high-budget production and rivals anything Warner Brothers puts out obviously the score would be high. The last thing here is that a reviewer's personal biases should not play a part in reviewing. It irked me that CAVR reviewer Den automatically gave a movie his lowest rating if it had a choking scene. I am not much for choking either but don't feel that one act should bring down the whole movie and it should instead be judged as a whole. A review should also list the major features of a movie (romance, story line-based, gonzo, BDSM, lesbian, gay, straight, etc). [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 9:26AM Hardware wrote: The people who submit reviews to this site are not paid for their work. That being so, it is a bit much to demand that they perform to our specifications. Besides, it shouldn't take reading more than a handful of reviews to know whether or not you agree with any reviewer's opinions and tastes. So long as a reviewer is open and honest about what elements led to whatever rating he gave a movie, I fail to see the problem. Click to expand I agree that people should be free to review porn movies the way they see fit. That's what freedom of expression is all about. But just because you are free to do whatever you like doesn't mean that whatever you choose to do is equally good. People usually have a purpose in their minds that they are trying to achieve, when they choose to do something, which includes writing a porn movie review. And in writing a porn movie review, the reviewer's purpose is to inform the readers about things that they want and need to know. The reviewer isn't writing his review for himself. He writes it for others. Which means that he needs to take into account the needs and the wants of his readers, or else he fails in his purpose of informing others about things that they want to know. A good review tells the readers that which they want to know. While a bad review focuses on the author's personal opinions that many of his readers don't share with him. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 9:54AM simpsona99999 wrote: No offence Dan but i think your looking into porn movie titles a little too much.What i do have a problem with though is when a cover says all anal,meaning every scene features anal but only a small percentage of each scene is actually anal.This is a problem i have with quite a few of Jules Jordan's 'all anal' movies. Click to expand A porn movie title is the theme of the whole movie. Every scene in the film is supposed to show some reasonable interpretation of the porn movie title. Or else this scene doesn't belong in the movie. It belongs in some other movie with another title. There is no use in having a movie title that's not accurate and not informative. Because a movie title that doesn't truly represent the contents of its movie only confuses and misleads porn fans into choosing a porn film that they don't necessarily want to watch. You can't overemphasize the importance of a porn movie title. Because it tells the porn fan what the movie is about, so that he can decide if he wants to see the film or not. But I agree with you about the misleading 'All Anal' labels on some of Jules Jordan's movies. Most reasonable people would interpret 'All Anal' as only anal intercourse for each and every woman, without any pussy intercourse at all. The 'Grand Theft Anal' series is truly All Anal. And that's what many porn fans imagine, when they see a front-cover label saying 'All Anal'. [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 7:52PM ^ Dan, you bring up a unique point. In the biz "all anal" usually refers to having an anal scene involving all women in the movie. I had never thought of "all anal" as only anal and no pussy or mouth fucking. Maybe producers need to rethink the status quo here but as the standards are currently written Jules does nothing wrong saying "all anal" and also having pussy/oral in the scenes along with the advertised anal. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 8:48PM 2ferme wrote: A good, yet simple scene breakdown, and then a sensible opinion? Click to expand I expect this at the very least. I don't think any of the reviewers here do it but I hate reviews that are a short paragraph that doesn't even mention all the girls in the movie. If a person is going write a review they should put some effort into it. At the very least name each girl and do a short breakdown of each scene. I don't even care if you have an opinion of it at least tell me what happens in the scene. [Link]
Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 10:21PM I'll be honest I hate doing scene breakdowns. For a while I did them due to high request. Eventually I gave up on it because it made me hate reviewing. So if you want a scene breakdown, don't read mine. I try to give the feel of the movie and why I did or didn't like it. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 8:04AM mharris127 wrote: ^ Dan, you bring up a unique point. In the biz "all anal" usually refers to having an anal scene involving all women in the movie. I had never thought of "all anal" as only anal and no pussy or mouth fucking. Maybe producers need to rethink the status quo here but as the standards are currently written Jules does nothing wrong saying "all anal" and also having pussy/oral in the scenes along with the advertised anal. Click to expand In terms of pure logic, 'all anal' means everything is anal, without any room for anything else. 'All' includes everything, without any exception. Many porn fans, who are unfamiliar with the adult industry jargon, will naturally think that 'all anal' literally means all anal. Because that's what it logically means. I'm sure a lawyer could defend in court the use of specialized adult industry jargon for a general audience, where many people are likely misunderstand its meaning. But such legal hair-splitting doesn't work well outside of court. Many ordinary people will see it as misleading in terms of their own common sense, no matter what a skilled lawyer will say to them. [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 8:28AM Flash wrote: I'll be honest I hate doing scene breakdowns. For a while I did them due to high request. Eventually I gave up on it because it made me hate reviewing. So if you want a scene breakdown, don't read mine. I try to give the feel of the movie and why I did or didn't like it. Click to expand The big problem with doing a scene breakdown for each and every scene in a porn movie review is that it's too much work for a porn movie reviewer, who is doing it for free as a hobby. Many people simply don't have the time and the energy to do it for 5 or 6 different porn scenes that almost every movie has. Perhaps people should be allowed to review only one scene in a movie, post it like that, and then be allowed to come back and edit it with additional scene reviews. The reason why Wikipedia works so well in terms of getting many people to contribute to it is because it allows people to contribute as little as one word, or even a comma, or a period. A great many people have the time and the energy to write a small amount, post it, and then come back later and add some more. I think a lot more people would be writing detailed porn movie reviews, if they are allowed to post a small review at first, and then be allowed to come back to edit and to add to their review, when they have the time and the energy to do it. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 9:18AM Flash wrote: I'll be honest I hate doing scene breakdowns. For a while I did them due to high request. Eventually I gave up on it because it made me hate reviewing. So if you want a scene breakdown, don't read mine. I try to give the feel of the movie and why I did or didn't like it. Click to expand Well I suppose you have to do what you have to do but the fact that you got high request to do scene breakdowns kinda says it all. When I'm searching out a review I'm usually doing it because I want info on a specific girl or girls. Many times I don't even read or care about some of the performers in the movie. Most Gonzo movies are a series of scenes so in my mind a reviewer should be doing a mini review of those scenes and those are probaly more important than the overall review. If the girls I want to see did a great job or bad job in an otherwise good or bad movie I'm most concerned about those specific perfomances and the rest of the movie doesn't mean much to me. But like I said...You do what you have to do and if people like what you give them that's fine. [Link]

Flash Golden Age Classic 11017 Posts 5/01	Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 10:07AM But the other side was once I started doing them I got flooded with e-mails because I didn't cover whatever niche of a sex act people were looking for. Everyone who e-mailed me assured me that their niche is what everyone cared about and nothing else. Plus they all started sounding the same and writing the review ceased being fun. So, I came to the point where it was either stop all together, or do what I do now. Although I only do them sporadically now, I picked what I do now. There are other reviewers who enjoy the whole scene breakdown. So I leave it to them and I write how I feel about the movie. [Link]
julesjordanvideo JulesJordan.com Professional Perverts 1003 Posts 9/01	Posted - Aug 22 2012 : 11:01AM small portion? what are you watching? simpsona99999 wrote: No offence Dan but i think your looking into porn movie titles a little too much.What i do have a problem with though is when a cover says all anal,meaning every scene features anal but only a small percentage of each scene is actually anal.This is a problem i have with quite a few of Jules Jordan's 'all anal' movies. Click to expand [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14596 Posts 3/02	Posted - Aug 22 2012 : 1:50PM Dan wrote: A good review tells the readers that which they want to know. While a bad review focuses on the author's personal opinions that many of his readers don't share with him. Click to expand While it is safe to assume that "many of his readers don't share" a reviewer's opinion, that does not preclude some, perhaps most of his readers sharing it. Certainly, that will be the case in time. At any rate, it seems to me that Den (RIP) represented your perfect reviewer, in that he confined himself to listing the sex acts and, more or less, the performers. As far as I was concerned, he was my reviewer of last resort, because it takes more than doing a specific sex act to make a scene work. [Link]
BumBum Member 395 Posts 1/07	Posted - Aug 23 2012 : 6:21AM I did a fair number of reviews. A misleading title warranted tough comments, because if you buy "Butt Lovers Bonanza", it's fair to expect butt sex. If you don't get it, you are going to be disappointed. Generally, though, I tried to give the readers a brief guide to whether they should buy the movie or not. Some movies worked, some didn't. I tried to reveal my personal bias, so the reader could take that into account. For example, I was straightforward that I didn't like DPs, choking, milk enemas, more dicks than chicks, and so on. On the other hand, I loved Adriano's "fun" approach, and how he put the viewer in the place of stud. As long as a review does a fair description of the movie, I think it's good. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Aug 23 2012 : 9:12AM BumBum wrote: I did a fair number of reviews. A misleading title warranted tough comments, because if you buy "Butt Lovers Bonanza", it's fair to expect butt sex. If you don't get it, you are going to be disappointed. Click to expand Really? When I see a title called "Butt Lovers Bonanza" I expect a movie of girls with big butts or strong focus on the girls butts. I know some people sometimes think "butt" equals "anal" but I think we've come to know that isn't the case more often than not. However if a title is named "In That Butt" or "Butt Fuckers" or "UP Your Butt" then yeah I expect anal sex because those titles describe the sex act. Generally, though, I tried to give the readers a brief guide to whether they should buy the movie or not. Some movies worked, some didn't. I tried to reveal my personal bias, so the reader could take that into account. For example, I was straightforward that I didn't like DPs, choking, milk enemas, more dicks than chicks, and so on. On the other hand, I loved Adriano's "fun" approach, and how he put the viewer in the place of stud. As long as a review does a fair description of the movie, I think it's good. Click to expand I think a good reviewer gives a nice balance of what's happening in the movie and their personal bias. I understand some personal bias will end up in the review but I prefer the reviewer mostly tells me what happened during the scene. It may make the review more personal but I ususally don't care if the reviewer thinks too many girls in the business have boobjobs, don't care if this is the 20th time they've seen a girl perform, don't care if he didn't like what the girl was wearing (tell me what she was wearing...I don't care whether they liked it or not). I don't particularly care if the reviewer thinks there's too much anal or whatever sex act happening in movies. All those types of opinions don't mean much if the person reading the review is a fan of the stuff the reviewer doesn't like or hasn't become burned out on certain things or people like the reviwer has. There's no real wrong or right way to do a review but my preference is for the reviewer to just keep things simple and clear and tell me what happened on the screen. I usually don't care about the reviewer's personal biases if it doesn't affect what's on screen. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Aug 23 2012 : 9:47AM Generally, I put a flick in the "low quality" pile if.... 1. If it's shot all the way through with a really wide lens 2. Exactly the same angles every cheap porn flick has (Excluding directors who have a certain thing they do well like Mike Adriano with the walking butt theme) 3. Bad color. All of the skin tones look the same (orange). Porn is about skin. Skin colors have to be accurate. 4. Fake boobs and tattoos 5. If there doesn't seem to be very much (if any) real editing. Anything can be improved with good editing. There is almost nothing that's better virtually unedited. 6. Typical "porny" clothing like neon pink fishnets 7. Too much reliance on gimmicks. Unless the fans are begging for it, a given gimmick is only going to be entertaining for a certain amount of time before it's worn out. 8. Too much overacting. I'd rather watch the girls just lay there and do basically nothing while getting fucked than for them to overact every single time. I don't think these things I've listed are really so much a matter of personal taste. Maybe fake boobs and tattoos do appeal to some people but they aren't necessary. Most of the other things I listed are things that do degrade the quality of porn. To the point to where it's frustrating to watch porn because you know these elements are going to be present to some degree in just about every porn flick. Of course people do expect to see what was depicted on the cover. I think the industry does an OK job at this. I think if a flick has a lot of fake boobs and tattoos and bad color and so forth, that should be reflected on the cover. I can't count how many times I just grabbed a movie that looked good and found out later every single girl had implants. It was almost as if they tried to hide it on the cover. Edited by - randomprecision on 8/23/2012 9:56:25 AM [Link]
tialing Member http://www.tialing.com 495 Posts 4/07	Posted - Aug 29 2012 : 12:23AM Dan wrote: ^ A good example is 'Asian Anal Assault'. The title of this film promises not only Asian women and anal sex. It also promises a specific type of anal sex, the type of anal sex that looks like an assault. I'd say that this title makes a very specific promise to the viewer. And it would be fair to judge each scene in this film on how well it delivers on this promise in terms of the quality and quantity. The quality includes how attractive the Asian ladies are. And the quality also includes a judgement of how much the anal sex for the ladies looks like an anal assault. Because that's what the title of this film promises to the viewer. I'd say that Tia Ling's scene in this film is the best in terms of fulfilling the anal assault promise of this film. She takes on 6 guys, and it's a real anal gang-bang for her. Half of the time she doesn't even know that some guy is about to penetrate her ass. She is busy sucking some guy's cock, and when some other guy penetrates her ass from behind, then it looks like an anal assault on her for a second or two. Because the guy just goes ahead and penetrates her ass, when she clearly isn't aware that he is about to do it. She gives her apparent consent to the guy only after his penetration by not objecting to it, when she becomes aware of it. But another scene in this film with Sharon Lee shows a substantial amount of pussy sex for her, which is nice but which does nothing to justify the 'Asian Anal Assault' title of this film. And her anal sex with the guy is too mild and isn't assaultive enough to justify the title of the film. A film cover usually makes all kinds of promises to the viewer not only with its title but also with the picture, where the ladies pose in suggestive ways that imply certain types of sex. If the lady shows you her ass on the cover but has only pussy sex in the film, then I'd say that this film is poor quality for all those anal porn fans who get misled by its anally suggestive cover. Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 3:42:35 PM Click to expand Why thank you for that sir ! Much Appreciated ! http://www.tialing.com [Link]
Katvena Member Rocco & Nacho are the KINGS OF HARDCORE and yes I am a Red Blooded WOMAN 402 Posts 8/12	Posted - Aug 29 2012 : 8:56PM Why has no one has said companies yet. The best way for me judge a quality of a porn film is too see what company made the porn film. There are loads of companies which shoots crap porn. Elegant Angel and Sweet Sinner are the two best companies which shoots mind blowing porn these days. Edited by - katvena on 8/29/2012 8:57:54 PM [Link]
Dragon Sign Deactivated User 3381 Posts 12/13	Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 6:42AM This is the seven questions every DVD buyer should take seriously. I've got some criterias. In this order: 1. Company/studio. It helps a lot in order to searching through the DVD jungle. Zero Tolerance/Third Degree tops my rank. They have nice girls and no annoying studs, never too much extremes and not over the top make-ups, quality based stuff often with very nice camerawork/Quasar rocks/colors are great and nice prices I'd say. Lethal Hardcore tends to surprise and is underrated. Many of their titles are great. The newest fresh talent often disappear, but then you have them in titles within this company. 2. Director. Either you people are good and reliable or you're gone. The latter of so many reasons. Some people can be good in front of camera and incompetent behind or in reverse. It's pornscience based on failure to get this cleared out. 3. Actors. I prefer no acting at all. Reality-TV for me is at it's best in good porn. 4. If not Digital Sin/New Sensation, I've learnt by being burnt to stay away from most compilations if there's not for some lost unavailable elsewhere must have scene. 5. I definetely prefer L.A. based stuff. You don't know where the other asses is cumming from. Florida can be the exception from that rule, though it's always a chance you deal with amateurs through and through, never getting to the point, just driving around, talking bullshit smoking weed until you get your thinking into what's up for dinner and then turns off. 6. I've found out that some studs never show up in a bad movie: Mark Ashley, Chris Charming, Erik Everhard, Voodoo and Bill Bailey. Guys easily kill scenes. These never do. 7. Chemistry. Point I'd guess is not taken seriously enough by the majority. This one's hard to judge from a cover, so the reviewers come in here. Some directors fix it very well. Danny Case and Chucky Sleaze within good titles must be underrated. Juan Cuba has done much too in this area. Jake Malone rocked up many titles. Jonni Darkko if the content is my cup of tea put quite some flavors to it. Chris Streams still rules. Mr Pete has had a few Red Light titles and should have gotten lot more. Mark Wood/Francesca Le never went wrong. [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 5:37PM ^ Weren't Mark Wood and Francesca Le married for a while? That would explain the good chemistry between them. [Link]

killbillvol69 All-Star Member ^Lucy Pinder 18635 Posts 4/08	Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 6:20PM ^ They're still married. [Link]
The Elbow Member 101 Posts 2/14	Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 6:49PM IMO, the scene's reviewer should rate the scene based on the following factors: 1. its performances 2. its direction/editing/camera angles/overall production 3. its set 4. as the OP stated, how well/effectively/appealingly it fulfills its promise to the viewer in terms of actually delivering the advertised content AND I TOTALLY agree with mharris127's first post, which is actually a better-written version of what I just typed... so read THAT, too [Link]
mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09	Posted - Feb 17 2014 : 2:02PM killbillvol69 wrote: ^ They're still married. Click to expand Thanks Kill Bill. I sort of was thinking they might be but wasn't sure. [Link]

Author

Post

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 11:31AM

Porn reviewers often rate the quality of a porn movie they review according their personal taste and preference in sex and in porn. Which I think is a poor way to judge any porn film. Because it's not fair to give low ratings to an anal film titled 'Anal Assault' for its lack of pussy sex. But it is fair to give low ratings to a film that screams 'Anal Sex! on its cover and then shows a lot of pussy sex in the film. Because such a film deceives and misleads the viewer by promising him one thing and then giving him another.
Whether you personally like pussy sex or anal sex should be irrelevant in judging a porn film for others. Because viewers choose their films according to the type of sex they want to see. If the viewer chooses a film clearly promising lots of anal sex on its cover, then it's safe to assume that this viewer is looking for anal sex and not something else. Such a viewer isn't likely to care about the absence of pussy sex.
A porn film should be judged according to how clear is its sex promise on the cover, and also how well it fulfills this promise to the viewer. A film that promises lots of anal sex on its cover should be judged according to the quantity and the quality of its anal sex, rather than anything else. Giving it low ratings for lack of pussy sex makes no sense at all in such a situation.
Edited by - Dan on Aug 12 2012

[Link]

ninja1
Senior Member

2939 Posts
1/08

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 1:17PM

A reviewer has to use their own judgments and opinions to some degree. The important thing is that they be upfront about their personal bias. If a reviewer of a BBW scene says: "The woman's huge ass and mighty thighs are too much for me, so I give it a low rating", then that is respectable and is useful assessment, even to a reader who is a BBW lover.

[Link]

HeyNow

Oblivious

Gold Star Hey!
5965 Posts
1/03

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 2:01PM

I agree. I don't know what I'm agreeing to but I agree. Is there a specific review that you are referencing, Dan?
Edited by - heynow on 8/12/2012 2:09:42 PM

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 2:21PM

^
I don't want to single out any specific reviewers, because nobody likes to be criticized in public in front of others. I don't want to make anyone feel bad unnecessarily. Because it's hard to have a rational discussion about anything, when people are upset for some reason.
Upsetting others, when you can avoid it, is often self-defeating. Your message gets lost, because it becomes a personal disagreement.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 2:38PM

Let me pose a question to you, say you are reviewing a title you got because you like the director, star, etc named Anal Overload. You really like pussy sex but aren't as taken with anal sex. You assumed when you got it that there would be some of both, which isn't a bad assumption as many anal titles I have seen have pussy sex as well. Since you aren't as taken with anal sex, the scenes aren't as hot in your opinion. Do you now lie on your rating system because not being as taken with anal sex you weren't as taken with the scene? And how do you, not being as taken with anal sex, if it is a five, four, three, etc star anal scene? Porn reviewing has been and always will be subjective. There is no way around it, you review based on your tastes. If you start reviewing any other way, rating become meaningless because anything you don't like you "have" to give a good rating to because you don't know how to rate it otherwise. And reviewing based on the cover or back, other than to simply state, this title promised anal on the cover and there was only one scene that contained it or something to that effect doesn't work over time as covers do sometimes change. Just my two cents.

[Link]

ukmg
Member

65 Posts
11/10

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 3:03PM

Surely a title must be judged on more than whether it includes what the title suggests/DVD box cover claims? Otherwise, reviews would simply be a tick box list confirming what does/does not feature in the film. Porn could then become even more formulaic than it already is.
I agree with Flash on the subjectivity of reviews and reviwers. For example, two "big boob" porn fans could easily hold different opinions on a DVD title because (to use one of many possible variables) the DVD features tatt-heavy stars.
The logic of subjectivity applies to more "mainstream" reviews, too - movies, film, art, books etc.
ukmg

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 3:39PM

^
A good example is 'Asian Anal Assault'. The title of this film promises not only Asian women and anal sex. It also promises a specific type of anal sex, the type of anal sex that looks like an assault.
I'd say that this title makes a very specific promise to the viewer. And it would be fair to judge each scene in this film on how well it delivers on this promise in terms of the quality and quantity.
The quality includes how attractive the Asian ladies are. And the quality also includes a judgement of how much the anal sex for the ladies looks like an anal assault. Because that's what the title of this film promises to the viewer.
I'd say that Tia Ling's scene in this film is the best in terms of fulfilling the anal assault promise of this film. She takes on 6 guys, and it's a real anal gang-bang for her. Half of the time she doesn't even know that some guy is about to penetrate her ass. She is busy sucking some guy's cock, and when some other guy penetrates her ass from behind, then it looks like an anal assault on her for a second or two. Because the guy just goes ahead and penetrates her ass, when she clearly isn't aware that he is about to do it. She gives her apparent consent to the guy only after his penetration by not objecting to it, when she becomes aware of it.
But another scene in this film with Sharon Lee shows a substantial amount of pussy sex for her, which is nice but which does nothing to justify the 'Asian Anal Assault' title of this film. And her anal sex with the guy is too mild and isn't assaultive enough to justify the title of the film.
A film cover usually makes all kinds of promises to the viewer not only with its title but also with the picture, where the ladies pose in suggestive ways that imply certain types of sex. If the lady shows you her ass on the cover but has only pussy sex in the film, then I'd say that this film is poor quality for all those anal porn fans who get misled by its anally suggestive cover.
Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 3:42:35 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:06PM

An ass on the cover doesn't mean anal, maybe the film is shot to display the ass. And how does one use a standard criteria for an anal assault? What is an anal assault to you might not be to another person. And what another person finds to be an anal assault you might not. If all reviewers were to go to a standardized system, who would pick the system? Which fan is right in which regard? And would systems change over the years? Look at how much porn has changed from the 70s to 80s to 90s to 00's to the 10s. And how many reviewers would up and stop because they don't like the new formulaic system of judgement? And how many would just toss it aside and write what they feel? I know I would do the latter.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:11PM

Also couldn't the title have Asian men with varied gender women who have anal sex and still live up to the title? No where in the title does it specify women. So some viewers could take this title to mean Asian men. Other viewers might assume that this title means everyone who is having anal sex is Asian, men and women and from the cast list that clearly isn't the case. You have become subjective already in your interpretation of the title since you have decided that it is Asian women having anal sex.

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:39PM

^
Everybody, who knows the English language reasonably well, also knows what the word 'assault' means. It's not some obscure word that only a University professor would know. It's a commonly used word with several different meanings.
And I agree that assault is a matter of degree. Not every assault is the same. There is a big difference between 6 guys ganging up on the ass of a pretty Asian lass, and only one guy riding the ass of another Asian lass. The 6-guy-Asian-lady clearly gets a much better anal assault, than the 1-guy-Asian-lady who doesn't even get it straight-to-anal from her guy.
And that's what I'm talking about. The quality of the film is how well it fulfills its promise to the viewer. It's a matter of degree that can be rated on a scale of 1 to 10. There is some subjective judgement involved. But this judgement is fair, because when the porn-maker promises something to the viewer, then its only fair to expect him or her to fulfill it and fulfill it well.

Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 4:41:06 PM

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:43PM

But maybe to me assault means 20 minutes of uninterrupted anal sex from one guy.

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 4:47PM

^
Yes, I would accept this as a reasonable kind of an anal assault.
Every word has several meanings, including the word 'assault'. As long as the porn maker interprets this word reasonably in a way that most people would normally interpret it, then it's fair game. The porn maker fulfills his promise to the viewer.
Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 4:47:21 PM

[Link]

Simpsona
Senior Member

2389 Posts
8/10

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 8:03PM

No offence Dan but i think your looking into porn movie titles a little too much.What i do have a problem with though is when a cover says all anal,meaning every scene features anal but only a small percentage of each scene is actually anal.This is a problem i have with quite a few of Jules Jordan's 'all anal' movies.

[Link]

2ferme
Senior Member

1333 Posts
11/09

Posted - Aug 12 2012 : 11:46PM

A good, yet simple scene breakdown, and then a sensible opinion?

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14596 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 12:19AM

The people who submit reviews to this site are not paid for their work. That being so, it is a bit much to demand that they perform to our specifications. Besides, it shouldn't take reading more than a handful of reviews to know whether or not you agree with any reviewer's opinions and tastes.
So long as a reviewer is open and honest about what elements led to whatever rating he gave a movie, I fail to see the problem.

[Link]

Aplus
Senior Member

1431 Posts
5/05

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 12:57AM

I think there are very few true professional porn reviewers. It's very time consuming to really watch and review lots of films. Most are probably only dabbling in it, and as such can't or shouldn't be held to the same standards. Most professionals do appear to take off points or downgrade films for promises not kept. Most do appear to admit their own biases or expectations also, which is all I can ask for.

[Link]

mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 1:44AM

I am not a film-making degree holder but I will give this a shot here (I did take a single university class in film analysis years ago). I think a review would have several aspects to it. One is the overall quality of the movie. That includes unobtrusive editing, high picture quality, high set quality and all promised features on the DVD (believe it or not CAVR reviewer Den had an issue with Hustler in 2005 or so where they would advertise features and he would find they weren't there on tens of their movies).
Next, for an adult film you would rate the quality of the women (their look and acting ability) and also the qualities of the sex (BDSM, anal, rough, romantic, realism, etc). The quality of the men is also important (again, look and acting ability). Cast members looks ratings would also require that their looks fit the movie -- for example Krysta Kaos or Krissie Dee would detract severely from a romantic Nica Noelle-type movie. The reverse is also true, Nica Noelle or Sarah Vandella wouldn't fit in a biker-bar alternative movie whereas Krysta and Krissie would fit nicely. I don't remember the name of the movie but I remember an egregious one where Randy Spears was cast as a biker complete with the leather motorcycle jacket where I felt he looked out of place (Randy is cleaner-cut and is a great performer overall, he just looked out of place in that particular scene).
Finally you would comment on the acting performance of the actors/actresses. If the cast can't act their way out of a wet paper bag the movie would score poorly here. If the acting quality doesn't detract from the movie but is so-so, that movie would score in the mid-range. If the acting quality reminds you of a high-budget production and rivals anything Warner Brothers puts out obviously the score would be high.
The last thing here is that a reviewer's personal biases should not play a part in reviewing. It irked me that CAVR reviewer Den automatically gave a movie his lowest rating if it had a choking scene. I am not much for choking either but don't feel that one act should bring down the whole movie and it should instead be judged as a whole. A review should also list the major features of a movie (romance, story line-based, gonzo, BDSM, lesbian, gay, straight, etc).

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 9:26AM

I agree that people should be free to review porn movies the way they see fit. That's what freedom of expression is all about.
But just because you are free to do whatever you like doesn't mean that whatever you choose to do is equally good. People usually have a purpose in their minds that they are trying to achieve, when they choose to do something, which includes writing a porn movie review. And in writing a porn movie review, the reviewer's purpose is to inform the readers about things that they want and need to know.
The reviewer isn't writing his review for himself. He writes it for others. Which means that he needs to take into account the needs and the wants of his readers, or else he fails in his purpose of informing others about things that they want to know.
A good review tells the readers that which they want to know. While a bad review focuses on the author's personal opinions that many of his readers don't share with him.

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 9:54AM

A porn movie title is the theme of the whole movie. Every scene in the film is supposed to show some reasonable interpretation of the porn movie title. Or else this scene doesn't belong in the movie. It belongs in some other movie with another title.
There is no use in having a movie title that's not accurate and not informative. Because a movie title that doesn't truly represent the contents of its movie only confuses and misleads porn fans into choosing a porn film that they don't necessarily want to watch. You can't overemphasize the importance of a porn movie title. Because it tells the porn fan what the movie is about, so that he can decide if he wants to see the film or not.
But I agree with you about the misleading 'All Anal' labels on some of Jules Jordan's movies. Most reasonable people would interpret 'All Anal' as only anal intercourse for each and every woman, without any pussy intercourse at all.
The 'Grand Theft Anal' series is truly All Anal. And that's what many porn fans imagine, when they see a front-cover label saying 'All Anal'.

[Link]

mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 7:52PM

^ Dan, you bring up a unique point. In the biz "all anal" usually refers to having an anal scene involving all women in the movie. I had never thought of "all anal" as only anal and no pussy or mouth fucking. Maybe producers need to rethink the status quo here but as the standards are currently written Jules does nothing wrong saying "all anal" and also having pussy/oral in the scenes along with the advertised anal.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 8:48PM

I expect this at the very least. I don't think any of the reviewers here do it but I hate reviews that are a short paragraph that doesn't even mention all the girls in the movie. If a person is going write a review they should put some effort into it. At the very least name each girl and do a short breakdown of each scene. I don't even care if you have an opinion of it at least tell me what happens in the scene.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 13 2012 : 10:21PM

I'll be honest I hate doing scene breakdowns. For a while I did them due to high request. Eventually I gave up on it because it made me hate reviewing. So if you want a scene breakdown, don't read mine. I try to give the feel of the movie and why I did or didn't like it.

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 8:04AM

In terms of pure logic, 'all anal' means everything is anal, without any room for anything else. 'All' includes everything, without any exception.
Many porn fans, who are unfamiliar with the adult industry jargon, will naturally think that 'all anal' literally means all anal. Because that's what it logically means.
I'm sure a lawyer could defend in court the use of specialized adult industry jargon for a general audience, where many people are likely misunderstand its meaning. But such legal hair-splitting doesn't work well outside of court. Many ordinary people will see it as misleading in terms of their own common sense, no matter what a skilled lawyer will say to them.

[Link]

Dan
Senior Member

2056 Posts
6/07

Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 8:28AM

The big problem with doing a scene breakdown for each and every scene in a porn movie review is that it's too much work for a porn movie reviewer, who is doing it for free as a hobby. Many people simply don't have the time and the energy to do it for 5 or 6 different porn scenes that almost every movie has.
Perhaps people should be allowed to review only one scene in a movie, post it like that, and then be allowed to come back and edit it with additional scene reviews.
The reason why Wikipedia works so well in terms of getting many people to contribute to it is because it allows people to contribute as little as one word, or even a comma, or a period. A great many people have the time and the energy to write a small amount, post it, and then come back later and add some more.
I think a lot more people would be writing detailed porn movie reviews, if they are allowed to post a small review at first, and then be allowed to come back to edit and to add to their review, when they have the time and the energy to do it.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 9:18AM

Well I suppose you have to do what you have to do but the fact that you got high request to do scene breakdowns kinda says it all. When I'm searching out a review I'm usually doing it because I want info on a specific girl or girls. Many times I don't even read or care about some of the performers in the movie. Most Gonzo movies are a series of scenes so in my mind a reviewer should be doing a mini review of those scenes and those are probaly more important than the overall review. If the girls I want to see did a great job or bad job in an otherwise good or bad movie I'm most concerned about those specific perfomances and the rest of the movie doesn't mean much to me.
But like I said...You do what you have to do and if people like what you give them that's fine.

[Link]

Flash

Golden Age Classic

11017 Posts
5/01

Posted - Aug 14 2012 : 10:07AM

But the other side was once I started doing them I got flooded with e-mails because I didn't cover whatever niche of a sex act people were looking for. Everyone who e-mailed me assured me that their niche is what everyone cared about and nothing else. Plus they all started sounding the same and writing the review ceased being fun. So, I came to the point where it was either stop all together, or do what I do now. Although I only do them sporadically now, I picked what I do now. There are other reviewers who enjoy the whole scene breakdown. So I leave it to them and I write how I feel about the movie.

[Link]

julesjordanvideo
JulesJordan.com

Professional Perverts
1003 Posts
9/01

Posted - Aug 22 2012 : 11:01AM

small portion? what are you watching?

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14596 Posts
3/02

Posted - Aug 22 2012 : 1:50PM

While it is safe to assume that "many of his readers don't share" a reviewer's opinion, that does not preclude some, perhaps most of his readers sharing it. Certainly, that will be the case in time.
At any rate, it seems to me that Den (RIP) represented your perfect reviewer, in that he confined himself to listing the sex acts and, more or less, the performers. As far as I was concerned, he was my reviewer of last resort, because it takes more than doing a specific sex act to make a scene work.

[Link]

BumBum
Member

395 Posts
1/07

Posted - Aug 23 2012 : 6:21AM

I did a fair number of reviews. A misleading title warranted tough comments, because if you buy "Butt Lovers Bonanza", it's fair to expect butt sex. If you don't get it, you are going to be disappointed. Generally, though, I tried to give the readers a brief guide to whether they should buy the movie or not. Some movies worked, some didn't. I tried to reveal my personal bias, so the reader could take that into account. For example, I was straightforward that I didn't like DPs, choking, milk enemas, more dicks than chicks, and so on. On the other hand, I loved Adriano's "fun" approach, and how he put the viewer in the place of stud.
As long as a review does a fair description of the movie, I think it's good.

[Link]

Draxxx
Senior Member

3831 Posts
2/07

Posted - Aug 23 2012 : 9:12AM

Really? When I see a title called "Butt Lovers Bonanza" I expect a movie of girls with big butts or strong focus on the girls butts. I know some people sometimes think "butt" equals "anal" but I think we've come to know that isn't the case more often than not. However if a title is named "In That Butt" or "Butt Fuckers" or "UP Your Butt" then yeah I expect anal sex because those titles describe the sex act.

I think a good reviewer gives a nice balance of what's happening in the movie and their personal bias. I understand some personal bias will end up in the review but I prefer the reviewer mostly tells me what happened during the scene. It may make the review more personal but I ususally don't care if the reviewer thinks too many girls in the business have boobjobs, don't care if this is the 20th time they've seen a girl perform, don't care if he didn't like what the girl was wearing (tell me what she was wearing...I don't care whether they liked it or not). I don't particularly care if the reviewer thinks there's too much anal or whatever sex act happening in movies. All those types of opinions don't mean much if the person reading the review is a fan of the stuff the reviewer doesn't like or hasn't become burned out on certain things or people like the reviwer has.
There's no real wrong or right way to do a review but my preference is for the reviewer to just keep things simple and clear and tell me what happened on the screen. I usually don't care about the reviewer's personal biases if it doesn't affect what's on screen.

[Link]

RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06

Posted - Aug 23 2012 : 9:47AM

Generally, I put a flick in the "low quality" pile if....
1. If it's shot all the way through with a really wide lens
2. Exactly the same angles every cheap porn flick has (Excluding directors who have a certain thing they do well like Mike Adriano with the walking butt theme)
3. Bad color. All of the skin tones look the same (orange). Porn is about skin. Skin colors have to be accurate.
4. Fake boobs and tattoos
5. If there doesn't seem to be very much (if any) real editing. Anything can be improved with good editing. There is almost nothing that's better virtually unedited.
6. Typical "porny" clothing like neon pink fishnets
7. Too much reliance on gimmicks. Unless the fans are begging for it, a given gimmick is only going to be entertaining for a certain amount of time before it's worn out.
8. Too much overacting. I'd rather watch the girls just lay there and do basically nothing while getting fucked than for them to overact every single time.
I don't think these things I've listed are really so much a matter of personal taste. Maybe fake boobs and tattoos do appeal to some people but they aren't necessary.
Most of the other things I listed are things that do degrade the quality of porn. To the point to where it's frustrating to watch porn because you know these elements are going to be present to some degree in just about every porn flick.
Of course people do expect to see what was depicted on the cover. I think the industry does an OK job at this. I think if a flick has a lot of fake boobs and tattoos and bad color and so forth, that should be reflected on the cover. I can't count how many times I just grabbed a movie that looked good and found out later every single girl had implants. It was almost as if they tried to hide it on the cover.
Edited by - randomprecision on 8/23/2012 9:56:25 AM

[Link]

tialing
Member

http://www.tialing.com
495 Posts
4/07

Posted - Aug 29 2012 : 12:23AM

Dan wrote:
^
A good example is 'Asian Anal Assault'. The title of this film promises not only Asian women and anal sex. It also promises a specific type of anal sex, the type of anal sex that looks like an assault.
I'd say that this title makes a very specific promise to the viewer. And it would be fair to judge each scene in this film on how well it delivers on this promise in terms of the quality and quantity.
The quality includes how attractive the Asian ladies are. And the quality also includes a judgement of how much the anal sex for the ladies looks like an anal assault. Because that's what the title of this film promises to the viewer.
I'd say that Tia Ling's scene in this film is the best in terms of fulfilling the anal assault promise of this film. She takes on 6 guys, and it's a real anal gang-bang for her. Half of the time she doesn't even know that some guy is about to penetrate her ass. She is busy sucking some guy's cock, and when some other guy penetrates her ass from behind, then it looks like an anal assault on her for a second or two. Because the guy just goes ahead and penetrates her ass, when she clearly isn't aware that he is about to do it. She gives her apparent consent to the guy only after his penetration by not objecting to it, when she becomes aware of it.
But another scene in this film with Sharon Lee shows a substantial amount of pussy sex for her, which is nice but which does nothing to justify the 'Asian Anal Assault' title of this film. And her anal sex with the guy is too mild and isn't assaultive enough to justify the title of the film.
A film cover usually makes all kinds of promises to the viewer not only with its title but also with the picture, where the ladies pose in suggestive ways that imply certain types of sex. If the lady shows you her ass on the cover but has only pussy sex in the film, then I'd say that this film is poor quality for all those anal porn fans who get misled by its anally suggestive cover.
Edited by - Dan on 8/12/2012 3:42:35 PM
Click to expand

Why thank you for that sir ! Much Appreciated !
http://www.tialing.com

[Link]

Katvena
Member

Rocco & Nacho are the KINGS OF HARDCORE and yes I am a Red Blooded WOMAN
402 Posts
8/12

Posted - Aug 29 2012 : 8:56PM

Why has no one has said companies yet.

The best way for me judge a quality of a porn film is too see what company made the porn film.

There are loads of companies which shoots crap porn.

Elegant Angel and Sweet Sinner are the two best companies which shoots mind blowing porn these days.

Edited by - katvena on 8/29/2012 8:57:54 PM

[Link]

Dragon Sign
Deactivated User

3381 Posts
12/13

Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 6:42AM

This is the seven questions every DVD buyer should take seriously. I've got some criterias. In this order:
1. Company/studio. It helps a lot in order to searching through the DVD jungle. Zero Tolerance/Third Degree tops my rank. They have nice girls and no annoying studs, never too much extremes and not over the top make-ups, quality based stuff often with very nice camerawork/Quasar rocks/colors are great and nice prices I'd say.
Lethal Hardcore tends to surprise and is underrated. Many of their titles are great. The newest fresh talent often disappear, but then you have them in titles within this company.
2. Director. Either you people are good and reliable or you're gone. The latter of so many reasons. Some people can be good in front of camera and incompetent behind or in reverse. It's pornscience based on failure to get this cleared out.
3. Actors. I prefer no acting at all. Reality-TV for me is at it's best in good porn.
4. If not Digital Sin/New Sensation, I've learnt by being burnt to stay away from most compilations if there's not for some lost unavailable elsewhere must have scene.
5. I definetely prefer L.A. based stuff. You don't know where the other asses is cumming from. Florida can be the exception from that rule, though it's always a chance you deal with amateurs through and through, never getting to the point, just driving around, talking bullshit smoking weed until you get your thinking into what's up for dinner and then turns off.
6. I've found out that some studs never show up in a bad movie: Mark Ashley, Chris Charming, Erik Everhard, Voodoo and Bill Bailey. Guys easily kill scenes. These never do.
7. Chemistry. Point I'd guess is not taken seriously enough by the majority. This one's hard to judge from a cover, so the reviewers come in here. Some directors fix it very well. Danny Case and Chucky Sleaze within good titles must be underrated. Juan Cuba has done much too in this area. Jake Malone rocked up many titles. Jonni Darkko if the content is my cup of tea put quite some flavors to it. Chris Streams still rules. Mr Pete has had a few Red Light titles and should have gotten lot more. Mark Wood/Francesca Le never went wrong.

[Link]

mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09

Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 5:37PM

^ Weren't Mark Wood and Francesca Le married for a while? That would explain the good chemistry between them.

[Link]

killbillvol69

All-Star Member

^Lucy Pinder
18635 Posts
4/08

Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 6:20PM

^ They're still married.

[Link]

The Elbow
Member

101 Posts
2/14

Posted - Feb 16 2014 : 6:49PM

IMO, the scene's reviewer should rate the scene based on the following factors:
1. its performances
2. its direction/editing/camera angles/overall production
3. its set
4. as the OP stated, how well/effectively/appealingly it fulfills its promise to the viewer in terms of actually delivering the advertised content
AND I TOTALLY agree with mharris127's first post, which is actually a better-written version of what I just typed... so read THAT, too

[Link]

mharris127
Senior Member

1844 Posts
8/09

Posted - Feb 17 2014 : 2:02PM

Thanks Kill Bill. I sort of was thinking they might be but wasn't sure.

[Link]