March 26, 2007 by ignatiof.

Here’s my first review review. Today I’m reviewing Karl Wells’ review of the Red Pepper, a restaurant where you choose what gets stir-fried.

Mr Wells’ review reads more like a story than a review. He goes into considerable expository for the first half of the review, then settles into a sensible critique near the end. He could have easily shaved off half the words and still gotten the point across. If he can get away with that, then I can do this: the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the, and everyone’s happy.

For the most part his review is sensible, although I have a few concerns. He finds several significant issues with the restaurant, yet still gives it 8/10, which, if you have ever attended any kind of formal schooling, is purty darn good. Yet, oddly, in his review summary, his major problem with the place is their cardboard-tasting dessert. Like he says, no one goes there for the dessert, and suggesting it’s the biggest area for improvement is premature if you haven’t tasted the dessert more than once. Maybe the baker was having a bad day; mixed in some gyproc instead of flour.

So in summary, I give this review a 6.5/10. It’s too damn long, contains superfluous information, and the score is too high.

Posted in Review Reviews | Print | No Comments »

March 26, 2007 by ignatiof.

Everyone loves writing about their experiences. That’s why there are so many reviews on the Internets, and why there are so many reviewers. Writing reviews takes no credentials, no experience, and pays nothing. It’s much like sex, unless you’re a prostitute.

Now don’t get me wrong. Some reviews are useful. Take an automobile review, for example. When you’re paying $25,000 for a car, you want to know a bit about it unless your name is Angus. On the other end of the scale, there’s reviews of rock concerts. The show is over, there’s no opportunity for anyone in your city to go see it, so why the hell are you writing a review of it? If you answered, ‘to make your friends jealous about how lucky you were to score front row seats and backstage passes to see ‘, then collect your $10,000.

So to add to the universe’s leximass, I’m going to start a review column here on my blog. What am I reviewing? You guessed it - reviews.

Posted in Review Reviews | Print | No Comments »

March 26, 2007 by ignatiof.

Does Prison Break equal chess? Well, no, since chess is a turn-based game played by two players on a 64-square board, while Prison Break is a weekly drama about prison escapees on the Fox network.

But there are some similarities:

1. Lincoln Burrows is the King. If he dies, it’s game over.
2. Michael Schofield is the Queen. He has all the power, and the show is about him, but it could conceivably continue without him.
3. Then there are all the helper characters (rooks, knights and bishops), like Sucre, C-note, and Sara Tancredi.
4. And let’s not forget all the pawns. The many, many pawns.

Well that’s all I got.

Hmmm, now that I have it written down, maybe they’re not that similar.

Next week’s article: how Australia is like a Bunsen Burner.

Posted in Stuff Like Other Stuff | Print | 1 Comment »