REVIEW HAIKU

So I'm flipping through The New York Times, and I stumble across what's got to be the world's best writing gig -- unless it pays by the word.

Along with times and channels, the Times' TV grid includes short, staccatto bits of commentary that manage to convey in a handful of words what takes most writers 1,500 words of tedious plot summary and half-hearted criticism. It's almost like haiku -- dissonant words that add up to more than the sum of their parts. More importantly, they're bitchy as hell.

Consider the following mini-reviews:

Armageddon, one of approximately 45 killer asteroid movies that came out a few years ago -- "Not a believable moment in it."

Wild Wild West, the Will Smith masterwork -- "Acid indigestion for the soul."

No Time for Sergeants, a 1950s-era Andy Griffith comedy vehicle -- "One belabored joke."

Big Momma's House, a showcase for the talents of master comedian Martin Lawrence -- "Not much here."

Air America, some feel-good '80s movie about the CIA and the contras, or something -- "Muddled bore."

And perhaps my favorites, for Pyromaniac's Love Story, about which I know nothing except that it stars one of the off-brand Baldwin brothers -- "Dreadful." Better yet, the comment for Nightwatch, some lame thriller -- "Preposterous."

Sure, It Pays to Enrich Your Word Power (tm). But sometimes it's the simple, thesaurus-free Everyman approach that works best. Consider the mini-review for the Kevin Costner epic The Postman -- "Truly awful."

Of course, to be fair, they don't hate everything. One of my all-time favorites, Airplane, gets a compacted rave -- "Hilarious Spoof. Truly."

I think I have the critical chops to make these kinds of gutsy judgement calls (that, or I'd just program a Word macro that spits out the phrase "festooned with manure.") But look at the average length of these weblog entries. If I did this for the Times, the TV grid would be longer than the Sunday magazine.