| Review:
Mac
and
Bumble
is a
large,
long-running
(launched
1999)
softcore
babe
site
featuring
a
lot
of
well-known
adult
models/pornstars,
many
of
them
with
big
(usually
fake)
tits.
We're
not
sure
what
the
name
means
or
where
it
comes
from.
We
looked
around
the
site
for
an
explanation
but
couldn't
find
any. Oh
well,
we
didn't
know
what
Twistys
meant
either
until
we
asked
the
webmaster
(it's
an
in-joke,
in
case
you
were
wondering). Actually,
this
site
reminded
us
quite
a
bit
of
Twistys.
And
while
we'd
give
M&B
a
nod
for
shooting
all
its
own
content
(something
Twistys
has
just
started
to
do),
in
most
other
regards
we
prefer
Twistys
as a
general
babe
site.
We'll
get
to
the
reasons
why
in
just
a
bit.
But
first,
since
this
is a
high-profile
site
that's
been
around
forever,
it
has
also
gathered
a
lot
of
attention
and
critical
press.
You'll
notice
from
reading
the
other
reviews
that
most
of
them
love
it,
with
a
couple
of
recurring
reservations.
Here
are
those
reservations,
with
our
own
commentary
on
them: (1)
DO
NOT
GET
THE
TRIAL!!
Did
we
make
that
clear
enough?
The
$3.95
is
limited
access,
good
for
one
day
only,
and
recurs
at
$34.95
a
month
($5
more
than
a
normal
monthly
membership).
This
is
the
"Trial
Trap"
with
a
vengeance.
Come
on
people,
if
you
don't
want
to
offer
a
trial
then
don't.
Make
everyone
join
for
a
full
month.
Don't
try
and
trick
people
like
this
(it
goes
without
saying
that
on
the
Join
page
there
is
no
mention
of
the
trial
being
limited
access,
or
that
it
will
rebill
at a
higher
rate). (2)
Airbrushing.
Chances
are
if
you've
spent
any
time
trolling
the
TGPs
looking
for
free
galleries
of
your
favourite
stars
you've
probably
come
across
plenty
of
M&B
preview
galleries.
So
you
know
the
house
style.
That
style
is
to
airbrush
(or
photoshop,
or
whatever
the
fuck
process
they're
using)
their
pictures
to
the
point
of
making
them
look
like
oil
paintings.
It
is
an
approach
that
has
been
quite
widely
condemned,
especially
in
comments
posted
to
various
message
boards.
But
here
are
a
couple
of
comments
by
mainstream
reviews
that
might
be
taken
as
representative
(and
we
hasten
to
add
that
these
come
from
reviews
that
gave
M&B
great
scores): "My
only
gripe
is
that
the
airbrushing
of
the
photos
can
get
a
bit
out
of
hand
sometimes.
I
know
they're
obviously
not
going
for
the
amateur
look
just
by
the
girls
they
choose
to
photograph,
but
I
usually
prefer
the
photos
not
to
be
terribly
altered.
When
they
start
to
look
like
rubber
dolls
or
something,
that's
when
it
gets
out
of
hand
for
me.
I'd
say
about
1/3
(or
maybe
a
little
more)
of
the
photos
are
over-airbrushed
to
me.
Sometimes
even
the
nipple
got
a
little
blurry
(whoops!)."
Spencer,
The
Best
Porn "They
need
a
more
"sensitive
hand"
if
they're
gonna
keep
going
over
and
retouching
the
images
like
this.
A
lot
of
it
(no,
not
everything)
looks
like
it
was
"smoothed"
by a
steamroller;
birthmarks,
blemishes,
the
tiniest
of
scars.
Everything
must
go!
Not
a
big
deal
(to
some!),
it's
just
that
its
done
with
so
little
finesse.
Normally
nothing
I
even
pay
much
attention
to,
but
couldn't
get
past
that
enough
here,
to
fully
appreciate
the
gorgeous
models."
Swede,
X3
Guide We
have
nothing
much
to
add
to
these
comments.
As
we
say,
chances
are
you've
seen
plenty
of
free
samples
of
M&B's
work
and
you're
already
familiar
with
what
they
do
to
their
pics.
Personally,
we
hate
it.
We've
seen
CGI
girls
who
look
more
alive,
more
real,
than
some
of
these
girls.
Granted
not
all
the
pics
look
like
this,
and
granted
this
site
isn't
Simonscans
or IntheCrack,
but
there's
no
excuse
for
making
a
pussy
look
like
a
bruise.
This
is
not
flattering
women. Having
dealt
with
these
two
items,
let's
move
on
to
the
rest
of
this
review. First
the
really
good
stuff:
Daily
updates,
great
models
(all
the
big
names),
and
high-quality
production
values.
You're
not
going
to
see
the
same
set
being
used
over
and
over
here.
As
noted,
the
content
is
all
softcore
(though
there
are
some
hardcore
third-party
streams
available).
The
softcore
is
quite
soft,
without
even
much
toy-play
that
we
could
see.
There's
a
section
of
Best
Friends
sets
(14
in
total)
featuring
two
girls
together,
but
don't
expect
any
wet
lesbian
action.
In
terms
of
the
video
what
you
get
is
your
basic
strip-tease
and
posing
routine.
Again,
very
professionally
handled. We
were
not
very
impressed
with
the
site's
layout.
The
thumbnailing
is
just
plain
terrible.
For
some
reason
they
are
trying
to
get
by
using
one
thumbnail
per
model
(a
headshot).
So,
for
example,
if
there
are
four
new
sets
featuring
Anita
Dark
linked
on
the
main
updates
page,
you
get
the
same
four
headshots
repeated.
That's
about
as
much
use
as a
list
of
text
links.
Same
goes
for
the
video
page.
None
of
the
videos
are
thumbnailed.
At
all.
There's
just
one
thumbnail
used
to
identify
the
model
and
then
a
bunch
of
links.
We
were
expecting
a
bit
more. Technical
quality
was
also
underwhelming.
The
pics
are
all
700x1067,
which
is
actually
a
bit
below
average
for
a
photography
site.
Certainly
nowhere
near
the
3000-5000
pixel
stuff
the
European
sites
are
all
giving
us
now.
And
when
you
factor
in
the
fact
that
they
are
almost
all
full
or
nearly
full-body
shots
(they
don't
do
many
close-ups,
even
of
the
face),
plus
the
airbrushing,
the
effect
is
to
make
the
pictures
seem
even
smaller
and
less
clear
than
you'd
expect. The
newer
videos
are
OK,
Windows
Media
files
with
a
640x480
screen
size
and
2000
kb/s
playback,
BUT (1)
that's
still
just
average
for
this
niche
(compare
the
quality,
for
example,
over
at MC
Nudes), (2)
the
clips
are
all
quite
short,
maxing
out
at 3
minutes
and
change,
with
a
lot
of
them
being
under
one
minute
long
(!), (3)
there
are
also
a
lot
of
older
mpeg
and
QuickTime
videos
that
are
awful.
We're
talking
240x180
or
even
160x120!
We
wouldn't
waste
our
time
downloading
stuff
like
that
for
free.
Either
reformat
it
or
throw
it
out. Were
we
expecting
too
much?
Not
when
you
consider
all
the
talent
involved
here,
and
the
premium
monthly
price.
Things
like
the
thumbnailing
struck
us
as
just
being
lazy.
Nor
was
this
our
only
concern.
The
last
"Backstage"
photos
had
been
added
10
months
previously.
The
site
search
function
didn't
seem
to
go
beyond
a
basic
model
search.
There
were
no
model
interviews.
And
what
about
the
BumbleBuzz
section?
This
is
apparently
an
area
given
over
to
written
material.
But
when
we
checked
it
out:
"Columns"
featured
five
writers
either
doing
op-ed
pieces
or
responding
to
member
questions,
but
only
one
of
the
five
had
added
anything
new
in
the
past
year;
"Articles"
was
only
a
bunch
of
links
to
external
sites,
some
of
them
to
such
dubious
information
resources
as
"penile
exercises
for
penile
growth";
"Model
Gossip"
was
"coming
soon";
and
the
last
"Editorial"
had
been
posted
over
two
years
ago.
If
they're
not
going
to
make
more
of
an
effort
than
this,
why
not
just
kill
the
whole
thing? For
a
site
this
big,
with
this
kind
of
brand
recognition,
we
couldn't
help
feeling
disappointed.
Yes,
it
does
have
a
lot
of
great
models,
and
loads
of
content.
If
you're
just
into
mainstream
superstars
softcore
posing,
and
you
don't
mind
the
M&B
"look",
we'd
recommend
it.
But
the
technical
quality,
presentation,
and
extras
are
all
just
average
at
best.
In
our
opinion
this
is a
site
that
has
a
lot
going
for
it,
but
it
really
needs
to
pull
up
its
socks. |
