| Review:
The
first
thing
you
might
ask
yourself
is
why
we
didn't
classify
this
as a
Photographer
site.
Is
it
because
we
don't
really
believe
there
is a
"world
famous
Russian
nude
photographer"
named
Oliver
Klozov?
You
know,
this
site
could
have
been
really
funny
if
they'd
designed
the
whole
thing
as a
parody
of
one
of
those
New
Nude
European
Masters
sites.
But
they
didn't.
As
it
is
there
is
nothing
about
"Oliver"
here
aside
from
the
name
of
the
site.
That
may
be
because
he
doesn't
exist.
Oliver
Klozov
Productions
is a
studio
in
Southern
California
(and
you'll
have
to
do a
bit
of
reading
around
to
find
out
that
much).
The
models
are
not
Natashas
but
the
usual
California
girls. So
what
exactly
is
this
site
(which,
by
the
way,
has
various
entry
points,
including
OliverKlozov.com,
Oliver-Klozov.com,
and
OliversGirls.com)?
That's
a
real
good
question.
Basically
it
seems
like
a
very
expensive
collection
of
generic
material,
not
all
of
it
exclusive
(we'll
bet
you've
never
seen
these
pics
of
Aria
Giovanni
before!),
and
not
very
well
presented. Probably
the
best
way
of
dealing
with
this
is
to
go
through
it
piece
by
piece.
This
lets
us
begin
by
saying
we
didn't
like
the
site's
layout
and
navigation.
Here
are
some
basic
stats
on
the
different
sections
of
the
members
area,
and
what
we
did
and
didn't
like: Oliver's
Girls:
312
galleries
of
pics.
Quite
a
lot,
but
. .
.
(a)
they
only
come
in
one
size,
which
is
small
by
today's
standards,
and
(b)
there
is
no
search
function
or
index
for
any
of
the
models--in
fact
they
aren't
even
in
alphabetical
order--so
you
basically
just
have
to
browse
each
thumbnail
page
of
headshots. Oliver's
Movies:
45
movies
here,
with
each
movie
usually
broken
into
a
few
shorter
clips.
A
full
movie
is
only
around
40-50
megs
tops.
The
formats
available
are
mpg
and,
only
for
the
earlier
movies,
QuickTime.
For
the
later
movies
there
is
only
the
one
format
and
resolution,
so
you
are
in
fact
getting
less
choice.
Here's
the
note
you
get
at
the
top
of
the
Movies
page: "Movies
are
in
two
different
formats,
high
quality
MPEG's
and
Quicktime.
The MPEG's
movies
are
quite
large
so
it
is
recomend
[sic]
that
you
have
a
high
speed
internet
connection
to
view
these.
The
remarkable
quality
of
these
movies
can be
enlarged
to
full
screen
without
much
loss
of
quality."
Hmmm.
This
didn't
inspire
us
with
confidence.
Especially
with
the
added
comment
that
the
QuickTime
player
used
is
QuickTime
4
(updated
to
QuickTime
6 on
the actual
video
pages!)
and
the
flashing
message
"WITH
SOUND!"
appearing
over
the
girls
whose
videos
do,
indeed,
have
sound!
For
the
record,
that's
less
than
half
the
movies
available
for
download.
Oh
boy. As
for
the
"remarkable
quality"
. .
.
don't
get
your
hopes
up.
The
mpegs
look
pretty
sharp,
and
seemed
to
be
around
700
kb/s
for
the
best
stuff.
Sound
is
sometimes
natural
(with
too
much
background
noise
on
more
than
one
occasion),
and
sometimes
canned
music.
Camera
work
was
pretty
amateur.
One
movie
of a
girl
stripping
on a
chair
consistently
put
the
chair
arm
in
front
of
her
pussy,
and
this
was
not
intentional.
Not
much
editing
at
all
as
far
as
we
could
tell. Girls
Licking
Girls:
10
movies
and
32
galleries
of
lesbian
stuff. Short
Skirts:
7
non-nude
short
skirt
galleries. Casting
Couch:
31
galleries,
just
pics,
some
of
the
girls
are
posing
outdoors
without
any
couch
in
sight. The
Hard
Stuff:
16
movies
and
96
photo
galleries
of
hardcore
boy-girl
action. Behind-the-Scenes:
galleries
of 4
girls
getting
their
make-up
done,
etc.
No
movies,
though
they
say
movies
are
coming
soon. In
addition
to
this
there
are
a
bunch
of
live
cams
and
feeds. As
far
as
the
nature
of
the
content
is
concerned,
it
is
(as
we
began
by
pointing
out)
quite
generic.
The
girls
strip.
They
play
with
toys
a
bit.
The
hardcore
and
lesbian
is
very
straightforward.
No
kink.
No
personality.
Many
of
the
pics
were
familiar
to
us.
Sounds
like
they're
shooting
their
own
stuff,
but
they're
getting
stuff
from
elsewhere
as
well. Updates?
A
while
back
we
heard
reports
this
site
was
dead.
But
they
do
have
an
update
calendar
and
it
appears
that
updates
are
now occurring
once
every
three
or
four
days.
But
there
had
only
been
one
movie
update
in
the
previous
month!
For
content
of
this
caliber
this
is
pretty
unimpressive. Finally,
we
have
to
ask:
What
the
fuck
is
going
on
with
that
monthly
membership
fee?
That's
a
lot
of
money
for
a
site
like
this. OK,
guess
it's
pretty
clear
that
we
weren't
too
thrilled
by
this.
For
a
site
that's
been
going
for
this
long
there
isn't
nearly
as
much
material
as
you
would
expect.
The
organization
is
rough
(we
kept
hitting
the
link
to
go
back
to
the
main
members
area
and
getting
put
through
a
redirect).
The
technical
quality
is
only
average
or
below
average
in
every
department.
And
yet
they
are
charging
a
real
premium
price.
There
is
some
decent
stuff
here,
and
some
hot
models,
but
given
the
alternatives
we
can't
recommend
it. |
