I have never heard of indieWIRE.com or of the movie The Messenger.
The review starts where it should end. Jeff Reichert has a very nice closing statment right at the begining of the review which told me everything I needed to know about the movie save for a little information about an actual plot. (Un)fortunately Mr. Reichart proceeds to a far too detailed synopsis of the movie, which seems par for the course in todays online reviews where space is no longer an issue. After the bloated synopsis we get a somewhat positive review of director Oren Moverman's choices.
The reviewer is unclear on whether he thinks this was a good movie or an adequate one which extends to his review. Because I of this I am extremely unclear of this. Mr. Reichert basically says in the last paragraph this movie did not do things wrong rather than do things right. The conclusion I come to is that Mr. Reichert wanted to like the movie because of this but couldn't. With out knowing his other work I don't know if the verbose wording is a symptom of this or a style choice. Perhaps it would have been better to give a bad review than to write one.

It's been a long time since I have reviewed anything from DVDTalk.com but this one is recommended, from the Discovery Channel and features ghosts. How could it go wrong?
When I started this blog I may not have liked social commentary in reviews. I really don't remember. I barely remember my beliefs from this morning, but I am digressing. Now, if it is done well, it can provide a little texture to a review and help it to stand out from all of the other pieces that may cover the exact same material. Bill Gibron does this by using one of my favorite tactics: the rhetorical question. Mr. Gibron begins talking about Ghost Adventures: Season One DVD by asking why we are so obsessed with ghost hunting/finding/detecting all of a sudden.
Of course given DvdTalk.com's rigid, titled structure I'm not quite sure if it was what should be in a product description section. This leads me to another (possible) changing belief and that is that I like nicely organized and structured reviews.
For some reason this review crystallized the pros and cons of having an outline-like style.
First the con. It was apparent that information was shoe horned into this review, which was frustrating because I could tell that Mr. Gibron was a better writer than the format was letting him be and I wanted to read the review as it could have been. The reviewer was hampered and therefore the review could not shine.
The pro: it is easy to find all the information needed and skip what is not relevant to my experience. Of course this also turns into a negative since the writer put a little bit of witicism into each section. The format also helps to include information that may be lost in a more story-like approach to piece. I know what is on each disc, the sound and video quality and the special features and I know where to find that information.
This review was practically a study in form versus function arguments. Is "art" enhanced or detracted by a firm form. In this case, since the review was approaching art I think it was a detraction. It makes me wonder how many mediocre writers have been elevated by the same rigidity.

Alas, The latest review from Best Tablet Review is somewhat disappointing. While it still holds all of the technical information that geeks love it does not have any, shall we say personal information. In fact, the only information in the "review" is all taken from other sources with the specs, a photo, and a video from YouTube. Again, disappointed is the word that comes to mind because the writing is fun and engaging, which is great in a technology review. As it is now, though, the site should be called "Best Tablet Info." I wonder if they ever do any hands on testing?

So I turned on "Legend of the Seeker" at about 9:20 (an hour and twenty in) and I don't feel like I missed anything. That's not a good sign.

I think the phrase "among the best movies I've seen __________ (this year, week, month etc.) should be retired. It is not a particularly bad statement but it is too overused and an intelligent person like Dana Stevens at Slate.com should be able to able to find a better way to say she liked the movie, The Maid, in her piece.
Honestly, the review went a little over my head. I am not a film auteur so I have no idea who Luis Buñuel and the Dogme 95 movement are and on another day I may have been disgruntled by rampant intellectualism of the review, but intellectuals need to know what movies to see too, right? To each their own I guess. The actual problem with the review is that it took Ms. Stevens two paragraphs to summarize the movie. There are too many irrelevant details in it for me to care after the middle of the first paragraph. I understand that movie may be complex and have a lot of minutiae, but just tell me that and let me see it for myself.
In my opinion the reviewer should have spent more time on telling me about the performers, the director, the cinematographer, really anything that would tell me why this is a good movie and shouldn't have been a good book instead. The weak final paragraph that does talk about the actors can't even focus on that and swiftly dives back in to telling me about the plot. It even goes so far as to tell me about what to expect in the final scene.
Once again Slate does not provide a compelling review. Even taking into account that I should really stop reading reviews from Slate.com, this review falls short, ironically, because of its length. It takes a lot of time to tell me nothing. Or nothing I needed to hear. But maybe I am just not smart enough to get it.

I love tablet PCs. Actually, I love the idea since I have never used one or even seen one in real life. But as soon as I can afford it I am definitely getting one. So I was surprised and delighted to find that there is a website that just reviews tablet PCs: besttabletreview.com.
Their latest review is of KraftCom's latest "rugged" Tablet, the Rugboard 10A tablet. Review is a bit to strong of a word. this is really just a preview  taken from the company website I imagine. Still, it is a very thorough piece and includes all the details someone buying a computer would need from a first look at a product. The writting style was also very inviting and just informal enough to be pleasant without being imbecilic. I look forward to more reviews from this site soon.

Up front you know what I love about Comic Book Resources's review of "Planetary 27"? It tells me everything I need to know about how to buy it right up front. (yes, I used "up front" twice in a row there on purpose). I have the name of the comic, a nice little cover thumbnail, the creators and even the price right at the top, which I appreciate greatly as a consumer.
Chad Nevett does a capable job of summarizing the final issue of the "Planetary" Series written by Warren Ellis with art by John Cassaday and Laura Martin. He does what every other critic would do in praising Ellis and Cassaday and pointing out that this is the last issue and so on. This review tells nothing new. It does not tell me why I as a non-reader should go out and buy it. Of course, in this kind of situation there is not much reason I would. Since I have not been buying individual issues of the series there is no reason that I would start with the last issue, and if I had been buying any of the rest of "Planetary" then I would almost have to buy the final issue. So why review it at all? Especially if you are not going to go out of your way to do an in depth review and critique of the issue or even the series as a whole?
When I first read the piece I was glad that it did not try to stray and delve into the series as a whole, but after thinking about it I realize that is the only way to really do a review on the end of something. If the book was a worthwhile read than the reviewer should want to inspire me to pick it up even if I have to read everything that came before. This review does no such thing.

Heather Havrilesky's review of Meshell Ndegeocello's new album "Devil's Halo" on Salon.com is the kind of review i absolutely hate. It is nothing more than a smattering of cliches pieced together with no outward sign that she comprehends music, criticism, or her audience. Ok, the last one was just to fill out the three. Maybe Miss Havrilesky does know her audience and since I am not a regular Salon.com reader that may not be me. But I have no idea whether I should listen to the album or not. That is a clear fail. That is really all I have to say which may make this review a fail as well.

I stumbled across everything2 through my RSS reader. The site really tries to be what it says with everything from stories to poetry to ideas and reviews. Today I found a new piece by "Glowing Fish" about a 1985 Alan Moore back up story from The Omega Men series.
The review itself is short. I imagine that it rivals the script to the original piece in length which begs the question "what is a good length for a review?"
In this blog I try to keep my thoughts as concise as possible. Especially since I am looking at articles which are usually only a page long I think it would be inappropriate for my article to be longer than the original. This is not an issue when one is reviewing a two hour movie or a 300 + page book but what about when you are looking at four page comic story?  And is it really worth it to review such a short work?
My philosophy is that a review should provide insight as to whether the audience of the review should spend time and/or money on the product being reviewed. Considering that, the review of a small percentage of comic book does not seem to be a worthwhile use of reviews time or space unless it can be shown that this one story can justify the entire cover price of the comic. Or the reviewer could be a using the short story as a kind of jumping off point to discuss the author or ideas presented in the work. In which case the article moves away from a review and into criticism.
This review does not do that. Of course the reviews on evertything2 are a different beast altogether. They are really personal insights written more for the authors benefit and perhaps education than a "professional" review which may be more driven by the business of art rather than its true appreciation. That being said I cannot really endorse this review of The Omega Men back up story on either criteria. It was not worth the read I gave it because it did not offer any true insight into the story itself, Alan Moore, or the comic book genre. But I site such as this is still worthwhile as a whole as a place for people to gain perspective on issues they enjoy or wish to learn about. If I stumble onto something less than brilliant then the fault is really mine.

John Maguire, has a blog called Confessions of a Film Critic where he posts movie reviews occasionally. This week he just wrote a review on The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Maquire has a... I want to say interesting but honestly, I think it is convoluted. He tries very hard to make the review enticing so that it stands out to the reader but it doesn't work. Mr. Maguire's attempts at pithy observations are really just ways of stating the obvious. When he says that the success of the movie hinges on the audience accepting the central premise of Benjamin Button aging backwards he does not seem to realize that this is a risk that every movie takes.
Once John Maguire is done waxing philosophic he actually produces a very good review. He parsed down the plot into a manageable synopsis considering the length of the movie itself and provides insightful criticism on all the major aspects of the film from acting to directing to cinematography thus making an article which actually tells me all I need to know about the film to make a judgment on whether or not I should spend my money on it. Now if he could just work on his style.

Dynamic Forces is primarily an online store front for comic book related merchandise, but they have expanded their services to include news, interviews and the occasional comic book review. Now one might expect a review from an online shop to be... well, bad. That couldn't be further from the truth.
Brian Hofacker opens by showing he not only reads comic books but also the essays of Edgar Allan Poe. Mr. Hofacker then proceeds to use Poe as a guide to help review issue #10 of "Cable". This is a very effective device since it is "new" (I have not seen it before) and is used excellently by the reviewer as he does not confine himself to just critiquing the single issue of Cable, but the comics medium as a whole.
In fact, this may be the articles downfall. Labeled as a review of "Cable" # 10, little of the length of the piece is spent actually reviewing that particular issue. This makes me wonder about the overall goal of Mr. Hofacker. Obviously he is using the review for more than its intended purpose of evaluating Duane Swierczynski and Ariel Olivetti's work. This is entirely inappropriate. If Brian Hofacker wanted to right an essay on comic books he should have done that rather than trying to cram his feelings into a piece whose sole goal should be to asses the merits and failings of the comic book in question and over guidance to who would want to read it.
The last third of the review does, finally, do that. It follows the course of a typical review, slightly hearkening back to the previous, Poe-inspired essay. Praise is given to both Mr. Swierczynski and Mr. Olivetti and the technical achievement of the authors. According to Mr. Hofacker this is creates a compelling read but the reader must trust this assumption because no other evidence is given.
My final thoughts are that this is a poor review. Although, it is a very interesting essay and one that I would recommend to any fan of comic books or someone who is interested in writing in any form.

The first thing that Marc Kaufman's review of IS GOD A MATHEMATICIAN?? by Mario Livio reminds me of is the "Reading Rainbow" reviews by small children. "have you ever wondered what it is like to be a butterfly?" "Did you ever want to live in the time of dinosaurs?" "Did you know that 365 -- the number of days in a year -- is equal to 10 times 10, plus 11 times 11, plus 12 times 12?" This is a poor way to start a review, especially because the facts are not all that interesting, at least not to me. Maybe that is because I am not a mathematician. Or a book reviewer.
The rest of the review is also a cut and past from a sixth grade book report even using terms like "remarkable" and "magical" and this gem of a pun, "An extended section on knot theory is, well, pretty knotty." The greatest irony of the whole piece is when Mr. Kaufman criticizes Mario Livio for limited vocabulary and poor word choice.
The reason for the sophomoric review may be the fact that the author is the science writer for the Washington Post. It would make sense to have a science writer do this review if they actually delved into the science (or math) presented in the book, but this is not the case. Only a brief skimming of the topics of Mr. Livio are discussed and not delved into. Worst of all, because of the ppor style and compostition of the review I do not know whether I would like the book or not. Although since Mr. Kaufman did, I most likely won't.

I love Neil Gaiman. I first picked up the Sandman in college because I had begun to become disillusioned with standard superhero comics. I was instantly amazed and captivated by Gaiman's craft and ability to show what comic story telling could be. I have not read all of his "straight" written work but I am always pleased to see him reach a new audience or medium.
I love the website io9. It covers all of the science/fiction/movies/tv news that I love with style and panache. The layout of the website is pretty neat too.
This week the movie "Coraline" based on the Neil Gaiman book arrives in theaters and io9 (among others) were ready to review the 3D extravaganza. Up front the reviewer makes clear their overall appreciation for the film, then leaps into the synopsis of the film. This is done very well, and provides the key plot succinctly, yet with enough flourish to make the review entertaining and portray what the film is to those who will enjoy it. And if you won't enjoy it you can probably tell that from just the overview as well. you probably aren't reading io9 either, but I make assumptions.
The movie's 3D style is emphasized and praised as well as the voice talents of the famous and recognizable cast who I will not repeat here. After the glowing accolades there is a minor critique of the pacing of the movie and the ubiquitous comparison to the book (which is better) but these do nothing to dissuade the reviewer from whole heartedly recommending the movie.
All in all a very good review. It was a little heavy on the story exposition but unlike most reviews that was actually helpful to the piece as a whole. It is also hard to tell from the article if there is anything truly great about the movie besides the visual style or if the plot and characters just didn't detract from the beauty of the film.