Has aluminium ever improved a good image? I know I'm talking like a pompous purist, but a heavy matt white paper and only moderate colour saturation is my preference for a good image.
I doubt aluminum (we outnumber you now...get with our spelling. ) is going to 'improve' an already good image. But I just like it as a print method in general. No wrinkling/warpage. No need for matte, or glass that gets dusty and sneezed on, or frames. Integral hanging float mounts, no wire cables. Nothing between the viewer and the ink but perhaps an invisibly thin layer of some sort of clearcoat, depending on the vendor and the chosen finish.
Matte vs. gloss is of course a matter of taste and sometimes the style or desired emotion of the image, same as 'texture' on photo paper, canvas, etc. And you can do moderate color saturation on aluminum if you want...they still print what you processed, especially if you tell them 'no adjustments'. You can make it all sepia and low-contrasty too if you miss the days of only four or five stops of dynamic range from yellow glass lenses and no coatings to prevent sidelighting from screwing the contrast.
I love the look of a good old stone-cut, three or four-color lithograph on finely grained linen paper with nicely muted colors, too, as art (showing my age, I have actual Michael Parkes lithos, not just 'posters') But I wouldn't want my (already substandard) photography printed that way, unless it was something I was going for an old-timey desaturated look (antique old cars weathering in the sun and the like). You're no purist...you just have a particular taste. If poor spelling... (aluminium, really?)