| Review:
(Note:
This
is
basically
the
same
site
as Porn
British.
If
there's
a
difference
we
couldn't
see
it.-Eds.)
The
funny
thing
about
amateur
porn
is
that
so
much
of
it
looks
the
same.
The
reason
that's
funny
(not
funny
"ha-ha,"
but
sort
of
funny-ironic
. .
. you
know
what
we
mean)
is
because
real
amateurs
aren't
the
Barbie-doll
clones
you
see
in Playboy.
Amateur
porn
is
all
about
diversity--representing
those
three
billion
"girls
next
door"
out
there:
fat
and
thin,
young
and
old,
black
and
white
and
red
and
yellow
and
every
shade
in-between. Or
at
least
that's
the
way
it
should
be.
And
sometimes
it
is.
But
amateur
porn
can
also
seem
pretty
generic
after
a
while.
Especially
when
it's
part
of
an
amateur
mega-site
stacked
with
non-exclusive
content.
This
is
the
problem
we
had
with
UK
Amateur
SexLand.
It's
a
nice
big
site
with
lots
of
stuff
to
look
at,
good
navigation,
a
great
update
schedule,
and
a
bargain
price
. .
.
but
it's
not
very
special. Here's
the
good
news:
1200
photosets
and
153
video
clips
when
we
visited,
and
they're
adding
one
new
photoset
every
day
and
a
new
video
every
week
(they
keep
a
running
tally
so
you
can
check).
Among
the
models
you'll
probably
see
some
familiar
UK
faces
(which
means
we're
not
sure
just
how
"amateur"
they
are),
as
well
as a
few very
rough-looking
gals.
We
used
to
call
girls
like
this
"horrors,"
but
whenever
we
said
it
out
loud
people
thought
we
were
saying
"whores."
To
be
fair,
it's
hard
to
tell
the
difference
(try
saying
both
out
loud
and
see
if
you
don't
agree).
But
of
course
calling
doggy
Internet
girls
whores
really
wasn't
saying
anything.
So
that's
why
we
stopped
using
that
word. But
don't
worry
because
there's
only
a
few
really
ugly
ones.
Most
of
the
girls
(or,
as
the
usual
euphemism
has
it,
"models")
are
pretty
good.
And
there's
also
a
nice
variety
in
terms
of
content. In
addition
to
browsing
through
the
model
headshots
. .
.
but wait!
Another
digression! Why
do
we
always
have
to
browse
model
indexes
by
headshots?
It
seems
like
90%
of
all
porn
paysites
that
have
a
model
index
do
it
this
way.
But
why?
Sure,
we
like
a
pretty
face
as
much
as
the
next
Smut
Ranger,
but
wouldn't
it
make
more
sense
to
have
an
index
made
up
of
thumbnails
showing
representative
face
and
body
shots?
Now
back
to
the
review
. .
. In
addition
to
browsing
through
the
model
headshots
you
can
also
search
the
site's
content
by
category.
This
worked
pretty
good,
but
there
were
some
wonky
elements.
We
can
never
figure
out
why
sites
like
this
have
a
search
category
for
"amateur."
Isn't
it all
amateur?
It's
like
reading
an
800-page
biography
(not
that
any
of
us
have,
though
Jim
tried)
of
Winston
Churchill
and
looking
up
"Churchill,
Winston"
in
the
index.
And--can
you
believe
another
rant?--what
is
with
all
these
30-something
girls
who
get
classified
as
"mature"
or
"MILFs"?
The
porn
biz
is
desperately
in
need
of a
new
word
to
describe
women
who
aren't
teens
and
maybe
outside
of
their
prime
porn
years,
but
who
definitely
are
not
"mature"
if
that
word
is
being
used
with
any
connotations
of
being
old.
We
did
a
"mature"
search
here
and
found
a
few
genuine
oldies,
but
also
a
bunch
of
girls
who
couldn't
have
been
too
much
over
30.
What
gives?
Could
it
be
that
we're
getting
old?
Noooooooooooo! So
here's
a
suggestion:
Let's
keep
"mature"
for
women
who
are
patently
over
40. Now
back
to
the
fucking
review! Navigation
is
fast
and
straightforward.
Layout
looks
good,
though
we
couldn't
figure
out
why
the
main
frame
menu
had
a
link
to
"News."
There
never
seemed
to
be
any
"News"
aside
from
the
updates.
There
is
absolutely
no
editorial/critical/user
commentary
anywhere
on
the
site.
The
only
extras
are
some
stories. But
the
big
nut-buster
here
is
the
quality.
The
pics
aren't
bad,
reproduced
at
681x1024.
But
the
video,
we
have
to
say,
sucks.
Each
movie
is
around
20
minutes
long
and
can
be
downloaded
as a
single
file
or
as
10
2-minute
clips.
Great.
You
can
grab
them
in
Windows
Media
or
RealPlayer
formats.
Great.
You
have
a
choice
of
three
playback
speeds:
56K,
128K,
or
256K. Not
so
great.
Nice
if
you
only
have
a
modem.
Even
the
best
quality
clips
are
only
3
megs
for
the
2-minute
clips
(around
40
megs
if
you
want
to
download
the
whole
scene).
But,
of
course,
what's
good
for
people
on
dial-up
isn't
that
exciting
for
people
with
highspeed.
The
best
video
here
is
320x240
and
259
kb/s.
That
just
doesn't
cut
it
anymore.
This
stuff
doesn't
look
so
hot
even
at
its
original
size,
much
less
when
you
(foolishly)
attempt
full-screen
playback. So,
as
we
began
by
saying,
this
is a
solid
enough
site,
and
it
comes
at a
decent
price,
but
we
just
didn't
think
it
was
very
special.
Even
the
bit
about
all
of
the
models
(presumably)
being
from
the
"UK"
isn't
developed.
It's
not
like
you
get
to
hear
them
talking
in
plummy
accents.
There
is a
lot
of
content,
but
you
expect
that
in
an
archive
site.
There's
quite
a
bit
of
variety,
but
it
comes
at
the
expense
of a
strong
identity. Despite
all
this
we
have
no
trouble
recommending
it
for
fanatic
amateur
fans
and
dial-up
users,
the
latter
being
in
no
position
to
complain
about
the
below-average
video. |
