P.J. Rourke starts his review of Taylor Clark's "Starbucked: A Double Tall Tale of Caffeine, Commerce, and Culture" by jumping right in and panning the book while still trying to praise and encourage the writer. Then the review degrades into what I'm sure Mr. Rourke thought was an amusing anecdote about how he and his money manager did not invest in Starbucks' stock and his friend did not like the coffee. enlightening as it is to the state of Mr. Rourke and his finances if he continues to trust that individual, the story does not further along the review at all. In fact, the whole piece reads like it was written by someone who needed to reach his word limit with no regard for content. The jokes are plentiful and not funny. The criticism is light and is uninformative except to say that Mr. Rourke did not like the book. But he thinks we should read it. His argument is several paragraphs which amount to the little more than he likes Taylor Clark. Not personally, obviously because I doubt they've ever met, but his "intellectual honesty." This is a commendable trait, but that is reason enough for me to read the book and your analysis has not given me reason to continue to read your reviews.

If you would like insight into how P.J. Rourke wrote his review The New York Times has an article on his process.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The opening of Stephanie Zacharek's review of the film I Am Legend starts with a rather inane rant about nature and how it incorporates itself into our urban lives. She tries to tie this to the movie by pointing out that there are animals living in the city after the main character Robert Neville (Will Smith) is the only person left in New York and possibly the world. Never does the author make a coherent point about this, or really anything else in the review. The piece jumps from one theory or conclusion to the next with barely a coherent transition. In one paragraph it seems as though Ms. Zacharek enjoyed the movie and the next it seemed she despised it. To be fair, the review does state that the movie feels like two different films "seamed together, a la Frankenstein," which explains the schizophrenic treatment but does not excuse it.
Stylistically the review is plain and lacking any punch or pizazz. The gimmicky opening never even has a chance of working because it does not really draw anyone in despite its lack of relevance to the review or the movie. There is no sense of flow to move the reader along and trying to read the two pages was drudgery.
All the negatives being said, the review did put forth the writer's opinions on the movie and expressed who might like the movie and who might not and why. It also told what fans of the original novella by Richard Matheson might think of the movie. There are also some interesting thoughts on action movies in general and how I Am Legend deviates from this. But overall there is too little good to make this a compelling review.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Another fun article from Time Magazine about the esoteric collections of movies receiving awards from the various critical organizations of the United States. Did you see any of the selected movies? Were they any good? Should critics take into account who the typical movie going audience when putting out a list of the best movies?

Powered by ScribeFire.

An interesting article over at TheStreet.com asks the question of whether we can trust video game reviewers because there are increasing rumors of reviewers negotiating for access to games by promising better ratings. A dilemma that spans most entertainment industries and should always be considered.

Powered by ScribeFire.

The television channel devoted to video games, G4 should be good at reviewing video games and they seem to have a good system. The review of "Hellgate: London" by Greg Stewart is a simplistic critique of the game that is not to technical for the layman (such as myself). I can't help but wondering what an avid gamer would think of the review.
The real star of the review is the page design by G4. Upfront there is large rating and a list of pros and cons to the game. images of game play also adorn the review so one can see what they are getting into. Of course, this was all that really helped me to judge the game and while Mr. Stewart's words were perfunctory they didn't provide any exciting information to captivate my attention.

Technorati Profile

The London Review of Books has a review of the book Mirror of the World: A New History of Art by the author Julian Bell. The review by Peter Campbell is what is to be expected of the London Review. That is to say that it is comprehensive, informative and knowledgeable on the subject matter. Mr. Campbell is very fond of Mirror of the World and compares it with the last great art history The Story of Art. The usual problems with a comprehensive undertaking such as a history of art (or music) such as addressing the shear scope of information are pointed out and also the personal note that sometimes words just get in the way of enjoying a piece of art work, a criticism that Mr. Bell seems to fully recognize. Furthermore, Mr. Campbell establishes the tone of the book and its value not just to the art connoisseur but also to the less educated art lover. The review also gives us an adequate amount of background information on Mr. Bell so that we can see how he has crafted his book and why it may be of interest.
But more than just being informative, the review is fun to read. Mr. Campbell describes the work by saying "... a large scale account of the world art is mapped onto a geo-chronological structure, but on traverses these wide historical and geographical territories by narrow paths that cross more often than you might expect."
The end of the review degrades into Mr. Campbell's personal musings on art and have little to do with the book itself. This is a typical endeavor of the expert critic and I feel it has no place in a review. It does not tell me about the book, nor does it really help to appreciate the book. If I wanted to know Mr. Campbell's opinions on art I would buy his book.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Upon first reading Jeff Lester's review of the new League of Extraordinary Gentlemen:Black Dossier Original Graphic Novel by Alan Moore i thought that the author was giving Mr. Moore too much credit. After all, would literary critics throughout history really want to read a "comic book" written by a drugged out philosopher. Perhaps they might. The hypothetical "pastiche" that Mr. Lester refers to is an adequate way to establish the world of The League of Extraordinary Gentleman and the tone of the review.
The review, like all reviews of Alan Moore's work quickly collapses into unabashed praise for his genius and creativity and sheer audacity. But in this fawning there are several actual revelations of what may very well be his genius, creativity and audacity. Perhaps this is to due with the fact that Mr. Lester was not impressed with the work, which leads to objectivity.
The review is also long. It is almost a literary criticism though, in the Mr. Lester's own words he lacks the skills of his colleagues. The problem in this critical approach is that details are revealed that would have been nice to encounter during the reading of the actual book. But that is the only real drawback to the review. It is very thorough and thoughtful and easily able to keep up with Alan Moore.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Today is Veteran's Day and the "New York Times Sunday Book Review" does not have a single book about Veterans. Disappointing and saddening to say the least. Richard Brookhiser does review Christopher Hitchens' latest book entitled "Thomas Paine's 'Rights of Man': a Biography".
Mr. Brookhiser moves adroitly through the introduction of the book and its background as part of a series giving little mention of Mr. Hitchens and his controversial persona. So far so good, however the pace is soon lost by a biography of Thomas Paine. The details of the review of Mr. Paine's life seem to merely take up space and offer little information that is relevant to the review of the book at hand. When the reviewer does get around to Mr. Hitchens work he merely parrots the device used by the author and quotes not the text he is reviewing but the texts anaylized by Mr. Hitchens. Finally Mr. Brookhiser attacks Mr. Hitchens' political beliefs manifest in Mr. Hitchens dedication of his book to the president of Iraq Jalal Talabani. And nowhere is there a valuable critique of the literature or even whether the author enjoyed the book. I did not enjoy this review in case you were wondering.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Untitled

Yesterday I reviewed a review of the new internet series "Quarterlife". The result was, lets say, less than satisfactory. The review tried to follow to closely to the review and tried to parrot the what the original NPR review had said and that is not nor should not be my job. I lost sight of my objective which is to say whether or not the review is any good and not the piece being reviewed. If read carefully, the pieces are all there but the organization is atrocious and the piece is filled with useless information.  I am not sure that I can recommend my review for NPR or anything else unless I improve

The media is abuzz with the writers' strike and reviews are not free. Television and movies have not been affected yet, but that has not stopped Andrew Wallenstien, an editor of the Hollywood Reporter from looking for the next big show on the internet. Over on NPR's Day to Day Mr. Wallenstein has a review the latest offering of Marshal Herskovitz and Ed Zwick called Quaterlife, a show that will be premiering on myspace and its own site. The show is not a typical internet offering. It will be fully produced as a TV show would be, but each episode will only be about 8 minutes long. The review is very comprehensive in its dealing with the show, its premise and its relation with the Writers Guild, Teamsters and other unions involved in production. Of course, this being NPR the review is really more of a news piece than a typical review, but this is not a bad thing. A piece of art or entertainment is created by a specific person or group for specific reasons and knowing as much as much about a piece as possible can help to make a more informed decision. Mr. Zwick and Mr. Herskovitz are subject to a great deal of praise by the reviewer do to their previous shows "thirtysomething" and "My So Called Life" and he is very excited for the show. The advantage of an audio or video review is that they can present a piece of what is being talked about. In this case, the audio clip of the show did not impress me. The characters seemed overly dramatic and characatures of real people with real problems. The reviewer was too blinded by his admiration to clearly present the show and give reasons why i should watch it other than the producers. However, due to the format and thoroughness of the presentation, I came away with a judgment on the show.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Ah Hallows' Eve. the perfect time to -- drink wine? That is the opinion of Catherine Granger at the Purple Liquid blog and she has a suggestion: 2003 Muccigrosso Pinot Noir. Ms. Granger does a decent job of describing the wines flavor and balance and compares it to other wine categories and even manages to suggest a complimenting food (pumpkin). The review could have been longer though. There is an overview of the wine, but there is no delving into the depth of the wine. Of course Catherine Granger is not a professional wine critic and as an amateur she does a decent job of conveying the wine with an amusing, personal flair.

The first thing of note at The Critical Critics' is there grading scale. it is the inverse of the normal star based scale. The goal for a film is to garner the fewest amount of turds. An interesting approach to try and set oneself apart form other reviewers, if only the rest of the review was as creative.
General Disdain's review of American Gangster begins with the absurd assumption that the film is some sort of underdog story and that we enjoy watching because of the anti heroes courageous struggle against the odds. Then we get an uninspired plot synopsis in which we are reminded that this movie bares a resemblance to "Scarface" and "Serpicio" combined.
Disdain likes this movie despite the fact that it contributes nothing new to the genre or is particularly creative. The reviewer likes the look and feel of the movie and I think he likes either the acting or the writing of the main characters. But there is a complaint that the movie lasts too long and that some of the minor characters were superfluous and the ending tacked on.
This review seems to mirror the movie itself. It is nothing new, it is too long, and I can probably find a better review (and movie) somewhere else. I give it 5 turds.

Powered by ScribeFire.

This week is the Sunday New York Times Book Review music edition. And, surprising or not, there are a large number of musically inclined pieces of literature on the market. From The Beatles, Eric Clapton, a muse, and how music affects the brain. And if that wasn’t enough, Alex Ross of the New Yorker has tried to distil the music of the entire 20th century.
The Rest is Noise: Listening to the 20th Century is reviewed by Geoff Dyer starts with the question that all reviewers should ask themselves which is “am I qualified to write this review.” This device also helps to establish the audience for the review: those who, like the author, have an appreciation for music without a comprehensive and exhaustive knowledge of its theory. If the Mr. Ross can convey his message to the reviewer then the book is successful.
Mr. Dyer powers through the synopsis highlighting the composers mentioned and how Mr. Ross shows how they reflect the historic era in which they lived and worked. The reviewer points out that the beginning of the book feels like “a linked series of adroitly composed New Yorkerish profiles” until the events leading to and following the Second World War This is where the book seems to take of due to several factors such as the use of music by fascist dictators and the coming together of disposed artists in Hollywood. Mr. Dyer compares the book to a symphony in itself, in the way that it returns to common themes and composers and weaves them into a coherent history of the last century. After World War II and subsequent fragmentation and development in all of the arts the tome obviously becomes less focused. There is a complaint that not all of the influential artists of the late 20th century are not given the credit that they deserve.
Overall Mr. Dyer is very impressed with the work and the way that Alex Ross has compiled it. From the review, I am excited to read the book too. I must be honest and say that the concept of the book was intriguing to me before hand, but a glowing review that seems well crafted does increase my curiosity. Therefore, I must say that Geoff Dyer has succeed and created an excellent review that tells me exactly what I need to know about the book and whether I should buy it. This leads us back to the beginning of the review where Mr. Dyer introduces himself as a someone interested in the book and its premise as I am, and I can’t help but wonder if this review would be helpful to someone unlike Mr. Dyer or myself.

Jack Mathews over at the New York Daily News has reviewed the latest Sidney Lumet film “Before the Devil Knows You're Dead” and he doesn’t spare his admiration for the Director or his work. The review starts with a weak introduction to Lumet that states that he is one of the preeminent “New York” film makers while doing little to make the reader believe it. Next, despite a brief synopsis at the beginning of the article, Mathews provides an even more lackluster and equally brief description of the plot. Incased in this review is minimal description of, well, anything. The actors are lightly mentioned and so is any information of what the movie is. It is “grim” and that “Lumet chose to tell this story with a fractured time line” but I don’t know why or what affect this has on the movie or the audience. This review tells me nothing except that Jack Matthews likes Sidney Lumet and that I don’t need to read any more of his reviews.

The Motley Fool website likes to probe in to all aspects of stock markets and financial planning, but should they review books?

Finding the Next Starbucks by Michael Moe has been out for a little while now, and Tom Tualli has finally got his copy. Mr. Tualli admits in the beginning his bias for the book and its genre. He also points out that the author has earned respect in the field of economics and analysis. It’s also apparent that Mr. Tualli is an expert as well easily detailing Mr. Moe’s qualifications and his subsequent arguments.
Mr. Tualli lets Mr. Moe do most of the work for him. The brunt of the article is simply a summary of the book and its advise on finding that winning stock. At the very end of the review is an actual criticism of Mr. Moe and the fact that he seems to the book poorly with “fuzzy” information backing up the reasons for actual inning companies.

The article is seriously lacking in any critical thinking about the actual book itself such as format and structure, but there is a strong apparent admiration for the proposals made and the tools given to pick a good stock. In the end Mr. Tualli does what every review should do and says that the book is worth reading.

But this review was not. To answer the above question, The Motley Fool should stick with reviewing companies and not books.

I enjoy stories told in the graphic mediums. I like art, films and comics /graphic novels. I am also a fan of old Anglo-Saxon Poetry(I am very complex). That is why i was intrigued to read the in the Sunday Times Book Review that there was a review of three new graphic interpretations of the classic Beowulf.

Charles McGrath, the reviewer, starts simply enough wit an explanation of what Beowulf is and why it is still around today. It is not the most exciting introduction but it serves the piece and is much more informative than other first paragraphs. The review continues to tell of the key elements of the story such as the hero and the three monstrous villains.

As if the reader would need to know, McGrath tells us that the story of Beowulf as been retold many times in various forms from books to art to comic books. Here is where the review actually begins to review Gareth Hinds' Beowulf . McGrath praises Hinds for hos artistic style which grows darker as the comic moves from chapter to chapter and comments on the the way the characters are rendered in appropriate modern archetypes; Grendel looks like the "monster from alien and Beowulf is the perfect hero like "Captain America or Green Arrow" McGrath also praises the translation used (A.J. Church)and the choreography of the fight scenes. It seems Mr. McGrath was impressed with Mr. Hinds.

Next is the review of James Rumford's "Beowulf: A Hero's Tale Retold. This adaptation is referred to as more "realistic," due to its emphasis on what are most likely fictitious images of daily life at the time. it is pointed out that this book is more a novel with pictures than a graphic novel and that the prose accompanying the images are suitable and age appropriate.

Finally McGrath exalts the text of Michael Morpurgo's "Beowulf" while pan the insubstantial art. Mr. McGrath would like us to read this edition, but to ignore the images.

The review was satisfactory. Perhaps because the author was examining what he saw as children's literature, he wrote at a child's level. this is completely inappropriate because i know of no child who reads the Sunday Book Review. It is not clear whether McGrath has ever read the original Beowulf in any substantial translation because he refers to it as a "horror yarn." Then there is the unhealthy obsession withh pop culture references from "Alien" and superheroes mentioned above to the Hobbit. Finally, the word choice was very weak and did nothing to express the others views. in the fourth paragraph, he refuses to use the word onomatopoeia when referencing the sound effects used by Hinds only to use the term incorrectly (or at least less well) a few lines down.

As I said above i am a fan of Beowulf and Graphic storytelling. this review made me feel as though I should be ashamed of both. Until I realized that the author obviously did not know what he was talking about.