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.