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.