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.