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.