HOME | DD

Description
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please do not harass the user for my thoughts on his reviews or his different opinions. It makes you look immature, mean, and someone you wouldn't hang out with. Thank you for reading this note.

link to all episodes rated: docs.google.com/document/d/11J…
After analyzing one user's wreckage (which has to be pulled for sparking controversy I wasn't expecting nor wanted), my mind is still craving for a good critic alas after all those months of rating this community such average ratings. But then came the generally positive word-of-mouth directed towards one user I follow pretty often, . While I and the community debated whether to choose him, fjdc88, or ReviewSic for the next installment of this series, it was very clear that "ligma" boy is the one you're curious about, and for good reason. Like seriously, this isn't just above average that several cartoon reviewers would describe him similar to various other well-beings, but also ranks higher among all of us as the best reviewer on this site. Gee, that good? And that's where I settled on the other Mr. Bean we all know and love.

But, is there any fond memories I hold of Henry Bean, like some of you do? Well, in similarity to HugeTFPFan, I recalled the time when he first got into scorecard making, particularly when he joined TTLF's bandwagon with the friend group's Steven Universe backlash. Oh boy, another one of those users pushing the envelopes on how awful of a show aforementioned cartoon is, plus Twelve Forever and Lucky Star. However, I believe we grew fond of each other due to our opinions, but what I would say the one thing that pushed me further into this relationship is his activity, which baffled and even envied me for managing to make so many scorecards each month, and that seems like size doesn't matter for him. Well, in the case of taking his time which I tried doing. My perspective on him has slightly varied overtime due to him commonly rewriting and especially faking opinions that caused me to unwatch him for several months (sorry, pal), but with this scorecard, alongside keeping an eye on him developing the quality of his works, it might as well ask myself that unsuspecting change CAN be alright (but boy can it be annoying especially if it's a quiet update).

... but aaarrgh, how awfully close am I to generally recommending his critiques. That's right, his reviews... mostly land in the middle. The biggest factor to all of this is his use of punctuation, which, at its worst, is annoyingly repetitive, particularly him getting too addictive towards commas and ellipsis. Here, much of the commas in all his reviews combined can easily be changed to a period and for the ellipsis? Maybe I can see him hesitating about how surprising some of his opinions can reach, but the fact that he uses too much of them is personally fairly distracting to me like some of them function better as commas or semicolons instead. Another formatting he seems to have a liking to is bolding which, unlike the commas and ellipsis... is hit-miss. While some of its usage is understandable and necessary particularly him emphasizing a main point on his view on the series, on the flip side, long sentences are bolded for some reason.

Alright, but moreover with main points, I seem to bump into the same reasoning for several of his reviews. To put it short, his points can be repetitive and boring. Not to say that they're all bad though, but rather the ones that feels pretty lazy. In some reviews, all he'll say towards the show is, in a nutshell, "Funny and entertaining = Fantastic". And I know that Henry isn't aiming for more elaboration for his reviews, but what he must equip in order to impress is being descriptive. Something like stated quote isn't just really bland but it tells me that he puts little effort into describing what he likes about the show's traits. While he can bring up different aspects of the comedy that adds to how enjoyable it stands in general, sometimes, this can be simplified to "The animation is beautiful, the characters are amazing" and it's too unspecific. If you want to see something even more barebones and undescriptive, then you've got something like "I like everything from the story, animation, characters, and that it's really funny" without at least describing what it's like in this strange show we've never heard of. Or, there's him saying that one show is funny, clever, and entertaining, and that's it. No analysis on the animation, stories, or characters, which some people will remain curious of what Henry thinks of them especially if it's an aspect many came to adore besides points Henry stated. "i really don't feel like writing a review for this one". Maybe I can give it to you for some shows where you don't have much to say, but still.

But the thing is, in many of his other reviews, Henry would describe something regarding those aspects other than a simple and vague adjective whether if it's character development, lush backgrounds, or cool action and let me just say that those adjectives are more descriptive than something like "great writing". In fact, it's apparent that his reviews has gotten a little in-depth into the topic's strong and weak points while remaining to choose the short path. In fact, I'd say his explanations are... alright! Nothing outstanding as many people makes it up to be but if people wants to cut to the chase of what he thinks of various shows while hurdling over spoilers and further explanation, it does work. However, it can oddly vary from scorecard to scorecard where some like his Futurama review is longer or some will simply list the aspects the show has done right without further explaining like in his other reviews where he explains those aspects a bit. So... I'm rather confused on which path Henry would take here. It kind of makes sense with shows with an inconsistent quality as well as really special shows... but then there's those that feel rather empty (DuckTales (2017), Hilda) yet some have such a high rating in which Henry would rather give the better attention to bigger shows.

And moreover with him delving into how curvy the quality's slope is, he can sometimes breakdown season to season or briefly explain that one season feeling like a black sheep, which does provide some insight into them as well as be seen as necessary to guide strangers into how big and varied the seasons of that show is. Plus, he can describe what the show is like for the reader to get somewhat of a clue of the show's style plus bring up the short life of a series and explain its reasoning according to theories although that can dominate too much of the description and is generally pointless. There's also the premise of the series being brought up in short detail in a quick and precise way, but when it feels like it's being served as a usual, it's somehow missing in several other scorecards. Like... this could be needed to feed those empty reviews some bit of life and more commentary. But anyways, what's unfortunate is that they, and especially if he's describing seasons individually, have synonymous reasoning like "it's funny" and "it's entertaining" that repeating them again is, once again, pointless. And because of that, he fails to distinguish or clearly explain what makes one season different from the rest (Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy). I also saw how with the breaks strategy he used on longer shows, which is a neat way of increasing activity as well as keeping watchers interested, can have updates that feel quite the same, particularly with his American Dad! review.

Then there's... Henry Bean's rating system. Not to say that they're bad though. They're simple but symmetrical and well-structured. However, he seems to give the OFF THE SCALE rating (usually positive) a bunch of times, which shows how nice or harsh he can be, if not too much to make him seem like he's overestimating a show or episode. To me, I use them wisely as I think to myself if every single aspect of the piece of work is so mind-blowing enough to bump its score to these powerful ratings. But here you're telling me that like 4 episodes have absolutely no flaws or strengths and stands out a lot in many aspects? Henry also uses the Fantastic and Hideous ratings a lot, his highest and lowest ratings respectively, to really emphasize how good or bad the show works. But oddly enough, in many cases, I was expecting him to describe what makes these shows so special and different from the rest, yet all he can say is reasoning that fits well into other ratings since with some ratings, he doesn't figure out the problem or silver lining that pushes them a step down or up, much like how the review describes how perfect and imperfect a show can be, yet there are many episodes that seem flawed or better. Enough so to be relatively opposite. What also feels odd is how the few amount of opposites are factored into his reasoning without a common flaw being settled. Probably because those episodes have different issues? I don't know the story here. The overdose of these rankings kind of makes me assume something; he might be hypocritical about what he's saying. This can perhaps happen with some of his points like in his Gravity Falls review, he said that all the characters are great and likable, which could mean that every single character in the show is really good, even the characters people came to hate like Pacifica's parents.

Strangely enough, this overpraise of dozens of shows doesn't seem to matter too much... but in fact delight me a little. I may seem cynical, but with a sprinkle of optimistic sentiment within the review, it does make me leaving the review feeling pretty satisfied. As for everyone else, they could leave the review with Henry's positive word-of-mouth and attitude in mind, thinking they're in for something good. With how he can spread positive word-of-mouth to certain shows, he would describe his first watches where "after watching a few episodes, I got hooked", alerting us that the show is really good even in the start, plus reflect on some relatable situations, connecting with the reader with moments like how he'd remember how new a show was years ago. Without all of this, well technically I wouldn't have cared too much about his reviews. Once again, it's not descriptive and the reasoning, while serviceable, is pretty flat and not very useful compared to other, higher quality reviews. You do have his negative reviews but luckily... he isn't mawkish about both sides where he makes them appear better or worse than usual, unlike the episode ratings. Ironically, when there's a negative aspect in the franchise, he would talk more about the negatives of that show rather than more of the positives of the other, which does make the review unbalanced but I guess it's understandable?

...but, if there is one aspect that I seem to like for the most part, it would definitely be his scorecard style. Sure, it isn't perfect or high-quality looking but I like the organized structure of his scorecards, being sorted into three different sections; the logo and overall rankings, the top 10 lists, and the rating counters. Seeing how it's influenced from TTLF's scorecard style from the scorecard having a background that represents the show, Henry Bean uses this and gives it a surprising amount of variety, whether if it's a memorable still or artwork showcasing multiple characters at once. To be honest, the latter made me feel iffy about its appearance due to it cheapening the scorecard but boy was I wrong... for the most part. It may appear cheap and ugly in some scorecards (Fish Police, DuckTales (2017)) but thanks to the way the scorecard was structured, the Top 10 lists would layer over the cast. And besides, the right frames can result in a really cool looking scorecard. The best case of this is with his Simpsons and SpongeBob SquarePants scorecards where he settled on artwork not just picturing the main characters in their iconic roles, but include way more characters as expected to show how big these shows are with its cast of characters and the many episodes they all can star in.

I also can see several characters sticking out of the scorecard to protest the show for its flawed nature. Wait a minute... the disapproval gang is back? This time with a different, more lowbrow, selection of non-memes-but-are-treated-like-memes-by-the-community-anyways. But to be honest... Henry Bean does them better. Rather than obnoxiously take up a good portion of the scorecard, they actually serve as a minor component to the scorecard whilst simultanously providing some bit of humor and more of how Henry thinks outside the box with the way they're included in the scorecard. Though not as cheap-looking as how TTLF used to include them, I guess some of the backgrounds, logos, and pie charts look like it? Probably not a big deal. But that bit of humor part as mentioned earlier, more specifically with his sarcasm in the review, is... slightly more of a big deal where it's pretty flat but more specifically with copying his friend's sense of humor. But on its own, it's... rather used in an old and lowbrow way that they're just not funny but also overused. Genius "divorce plot"? Genius "pee pee jokes"? Genius comedy, that is!

Anyways, if there was a certain show that feels too short to garner at least a Top 5 list, Henry would do something pretty smart with it; replace the lists with ratings of all the episodes with their respective rating PLUS on the side, how they'd rank in Henry's eyes. An example of this is when an episode is his favorite of all of them, a number one ranking would be placed besides it to indicate that it's the best episode out of all of them. This is a cool advantage, but it's more... flawed? Yeah, on top of them making the scorecard feel empty probably due to the bigger text not providing any depth or variety, which is because he'll color EVERY episode in the season the same color to indicate the season's final rating (and can vary with the Top 10 lists which I don't get how it's supposed to work), making it hard to find a specific rating (and also season since they lack a heading but I guess the different coloring gives them a decent distinction) alongside the fact that they're done with plain text, plus it being rather unnecessary if the show is really consistent in ratings, I guess this move wasn't all that smart... but hey! If we don't care about whatever episode he ranks, they're all redirected to a Google Docs sheet showcasing his thoughts on every episode with one simple rating. And yes, this seems to be a rather unique move since from all the scorecard styles I've seen before his came, they all have the episode ratings together with the rest. But then again, he would repeat the rankings in the description, leaving them pointless... unless if it's short enough to compliment the size of the description. As clarified in a comment, it's to make out the ratings from the image, but since the ratings can be clearly seen on the scorecard, this reasoning doesn't make sense often.

Curious about all the acclaim that baffled me, I gave this user a shot... and in the end, I was bored and even slightly annoyed at times with his reviews. With bland and really barebones reasoning, weak grammar, a seemingly big amount of hypocrisy that wasn't clarified enough, and his content feeling empty at times questions me if he got the praise for high effort, then why did I feel really underwhelmed with much of his works? But not to worry though, his amiable attitude can shine a lot at times as well as having an inspired but unique-looking scorecard gathered together with decent explanations that are useful enough. Besides, he's a friendly user who doesn't stress himself too much with production that is eager to offer a quick rundown of what he thinks of the series. And for people tired of long, detailed reviews, his reviews kind of falls in that agenda but let me just tell you; his reviews won't convince you so much about the show's quality. As for me, he remains pretty harmless, but since I failed to care about much of his works where I would be eager to read them again, he's a MEH and forgettable critic.

And unlike how Henry can forget about some usuals, let's not forget about this usual; my feedback. Yeah, while your optimism and scorecard style impressed me, the rest do need to reach that level. I'd say fix your punctuation because to be honest, those ellipsis and commas are getting repetitive and even used incorrectly. And like what I said earlier as opposed to your forgettable but serviceable reviews, it must be more descriptive like how you'd describe that show's style of humor. If you're going for a short and simple review, at least have a careful and interesting choice of words that would make me understand and be more convinced with the overall review. As for the ratings, well honestly, keep doing you but please re-evaluate on if the episode's that good or bad since using the most powerful ratings a bunch of times will make me seem like you're overestimating an episode. Plus, if it has the highest and lowest rating besides those ratings, why not explain what makes it so special from the rest other than it being entertaining and funny? Oh, and not even your scorecard style is perfect because there are some patches to be covered without making it feel too empty. The regular ones are fine, but the ones with not much content should, as stated earlier, have more depth and variety to not make it feel too straightforward and flat. And one last thing, make all the ratings in your documents clearer to read and find. Thank you for understanding this review.

Description
IMPORTANT NOTE: Please do not harass the user for my thoughts on his reviews or his different opinions. It makes you look immature, mean, and someone you wouldn't hang out with. Thank you for reading this note.

link to all episodes rated: docs.google.com/document/d/11J…
After analyzing one user's wreckage (which has to be pulled for sparking controversy I wasn't expecting nor wanted), my mind is still craving for a good critic alas after all those months of rating this community such average ratings. But then came the generally positive word-of-mouth directed towards one user I follow pretty often, . While I and the community debated whether to choose him, fjdc88, or ReviewSic for the next installment of this series, it was very clear that "ligma" boy is the one you're curious about, and for good reason. Like seriously, this isn't just above average that several cartoon reviewers would describe him similar to various other well-beings, but also ranks higher among all of us as the best reviewer on this site. Gee, that good? And that's where I settled on the other Mr. Bean we all know and love.

But, is there any fond memories I hold of Henry Bean, like some of you do? Well, in similarity to HugeTFPFan, I recalled the time when he first got into scorecard making, particularly when he joined TTLF's bandwagon with the friend group's Steven Universe backlash. Oh boy, another one of those users pushing the envelopes on how awful of a show aforementioned cartoon is, plus Twelve Forever and Lucky Star. However, I believe we grew fond of each other due to our opinions, but what I would say the one thing that pushed me further into this relationship is his activity, which baffled and even envied me for managing to make so many scorecards each month, and that seems like size doesn't matter for him. Well, in the case of taking his time which I tried doing. My perspective on him has slightly varied overtime due to him commonly rewriting and especially faking opinions that caused me to unwatch him for several months (sorry, pal), but with this scorecard, alongside keeping an eye on him developing the quality of his works, it might as well ask myself that unsuspecting change CAN be alright (but boy can it be annoying especially if it's a quiet update).

... but aaarrgh, how awfully close am I to generally recommending his critiques. That's right, his reviews... mostly land in the middle. The biggest factor to all of this is his use of punctuation, which, at its worst, is annoyingly repetitive, particularly him getting too addictive towards commas and ellipsis. Here, much of the commas in all his reviews combined can easily be changed to a period and for the ellipsis? Maybe I can see him hesitating about how surprising some of his opinions can reach, but the fact that he uses too much of them is personally fairly distracting to me like some of them function better as commas or semicolons instead. Another formatting he seems to have a liking to is bolding which, unlike the commas and ellipsis... is hit-miss. While some of its usage is understandable and necessary particularly him emphasizing a main point on his view on the series, on the flip side, long sentences are bolded for some reason.

Alright, but moreover with main points, I seem to bump into the same reasoning for several of his reviews. To put it short, his points can be repetitive and boring. Not to say that they're all bad though, but rather the ones that feels pretty lazy. In some reviews, all he'll say towards the show is, in a nutshell, "Funny and entertaining = Fantastic". And I know that Henry isn't aiming for more elaboration for his reviews, but what he must equip in order to impress is being descriptive. Something like stated quote isn't just really bland but it tells me that he puts little effort into describing what he likes about the show's traits. While he can bring up different aspects of the comedy that adds to how enjoyable it stands in general, sometimes, this can be simplified to "The animation is beautiful, the characters are amazing" and it's too unspecific. If you want to see something even more barebones and undescriptive, then you've got something like "I like everything from the story, animation, characters, and that it's really funny" without at least describing what it's like in this strange show we've never heard of. Or, there's him saying that one show is funny, clever, and entertaining, and that's it. No analysis on the animation, stories, or characters, which some people will remain curious of what Henry thinks of them especially if it's an aspect many came to adore besides points Henry stated. "i really don't feel like writing a review for this one". Maybe I can give it to you for some shows where you don't have much to say, but still.

But the thing is, in many of his other reviews, Henry would describe something regarding those aspects other than a simple and vague adjective whether if it's character development, lush backgrounds, or cool action and let me just say that those adjectives are more descriptive than something like "great writing". In fact, it's apparent that his reviews has gotten a little in-depth into the topic's strong and weak points while remaining to choose the short path. In fact, I'd say his explanations are... alright! Nothing outstanding as many people makes it up to be but if people wants to cut to the chase of what he thinks of various shows while hurdling over spoilers and further explanation, it does work. However, it can oddly vary from scorecard to scorecard where some like his Futurama review is longer or some will simply list the aspects the show has done right without further explaining like in his other reviews where he explains those aspects a bit. So... I'm rather confused on which path Henry would take here. It kind of makes sense with shows with an inconsistent quality as well as really special shows... but then there's those that feel rather empty (DuckTales (2017), Hilda) yet some have such a high rating in which Henry would rather give the better attention to bigger shows.

And moreover with him delving into how curvy the quality's slope is, he can sometimes breakdown season to season or briefly explain that one season feeling like a black sheep, which does provide some insight into them as well as be seen as necessary to guide strangers into how big and varied the seasons of that show is. Plus, he can describe what the show is like for the reader to get somewhat of a clue of the show's style plus bring up the short life of a series and explain its reasoning according to theories although that can dominate too much of the description and is generally pointless. There's also the premise of the series being brought up in short detail in a quick and precise way, but when it feels like it's being served as a usual, it's somehow missing in several other scorecards. Like... this could be needed to feed those empty reviews some bit of life and more commentary. But anyways, what's unfortunate is that they, and especially if he's describing seasons individually, have synonymous reasoning like "it's funny" and "it's entertaining" that repeating them again is, once again, pointless. And because of that, he fails to distinguish or clearly explain what makes one season different from the rest (Ed, Edd 'n' Eddy). I also saw how with the breaks strategy he used on longer shows, which is a neat way of increasing activity as well as keeping watchers interested, can have updates that feel quite the same, particularly with his American Dad! review.

Then there's... Henry Bean's rating system. Not to say that they're bad though. They're simple but symmetrical and well-structured. However, he seems to give the OFF THE SCALE rating (usually positive) a bunch of times, which shows how nice or harsh he can be, if not too much to make him seem like he's overestimating a show or episode. To me, I use them wisely as I think to myself if every single aspect of the piece of work is so mind-blowing enough to bump its score to these powerful ratings. But here you're telling me that like 4 episodes have absolutely no flaws or strengths and stands out a lot in many aspects? Henry also uses the Fantastic and Hideous ratings a lot, his highest and lowest ratings respectively, to really emphasize how good or bad the show works. But oddly enough, in many cases, I was expecting him to describe what makes these shows so special and different from the rest, yet all he can say is reasoning that fits well into other ratings since with some ratings, he doesn't figure out the problem or silver lining that pushes them a step down or up, much like how the review describes how perfect and imperfect a show can be, yet there are many episodes that seem flawed or better. Enough so to be relatively opposite. What also feels odd is how the few amount of opposites are factored into his reasoning without a common flaw being settled. Probably because those episodes have different issues? I don't know the story here. The overdose of these rankings kind of makes me assume something; he might be hypocritical about what he's saying. This can perhaps happen with some of his points like in his Gravity Falls review, he said that all the characters are great and likable, which could mean that every single character in the show is really good, even the characters people came to hate like Pacifica's parents.

Strangely enough, this overpraise of dozens of shows doesn't seem to matter too much... but in fact delight me a little. I may seem cynical, but with a sprinkle of optimistic sentiment within the review, it does make me leaving the review feeling pretty satisfied. As for everyone else, they could leave the review with Henry's positive word-of-mouth and attitude in mind, thinking they're in for something good. With how he can spread positive word-of-mouth to certain shows, he would describe his first watches where "after watching a few episodes, I got hooked", alerting us that the show is really good even in the start, plus reflect on some relatable situations, connecting with the reader with moments like how he'd remember how new a show was years ago. Without all of this, well technically I wouldn't have cared too much about his reviews. Once again, it's not descriptive and the reasoning, while serviceable, is pretty flat and not very useful compared to other, higher quality reviews. You do have his negative reviews but luckily... he isn't mawkish about both sides where he makes them appear better or worse than usual, unlike the episode ratings. Ironically, when there's a negative aspect in the franchise, he would talk more about the negatives of that show rather than more of the positives of the other, which does make the review unbalanced but I guess it's understandable?

...but, if there is one aspect that I seem to like for the most part, it would definitely be his scorecard style. Sure, it isn't perfect or high-quality looking but I like the organized structure of his scorecards, being sorted into three different sections; the logo and overall rankings, the top 10 lists, and the rating counters. Seeing how it's influenced from TTLF's scorecard style from the scorecard having a background that represents the show, Henry Bean uses this and gives it a surprising amount of variety, whether if it's a memorable still or artwork showcasing multiple characters at once. To be honest, the latter made me feel iffy about its appearance due to it cheapening the scorecard but boy was I wrong... for the most part. It may appear cheap and ugly in some scorecards (Fish Police, DuckTales (2017)) but thanks to the way the scorecard was structured, the Top 10 lists would layer over the cast. And besides, the right frames can result in a really cool looking scorecard. The best case of this is with his Simpsons and SpongeBob SquarePants scorecards where he settled on artwork not just picturing the main characters in their iconic roles, but include way more characters as expected to show how big these shows are with its cast of characters and the many episodes they all can star in.

I also can see several characters sticking out of the scorecard to protest the show for its flawed nature. Wait a minute... the disapproval gang is back? This time with a different, more lowbrow, selection of non-memes-but-are-treated-like-memes-by-the-community-anyways. But to be honest... Henry Bean does them better. Rather than obnoxiously take up a good portion of the scorecard, they actually serve as a minor component to the scorecard whilst simultanously providing some bit of humor and more of how Henry thinks outside the box with the way they're included in the scorecard. Though not as cheap-looking as how TTLF used to include them, I guess some of the backgrounds, logos, and pie charts look like it? Probably not a big deal. But that bit of humor part as mentioned earlier, more specifically with his sarcasm in the review, is... slightly more of a big deal where it's pretty flat but more specifically with copying his friend's sense of humor. But on its own, it's... rather used in an old and lowbrow way that they're just not funny but also overused. Genius "divorce plot"? Genius "pee pee jokes"? Genius comedy, that is!

Anyways, if there was a certain show that feels too short to garner at least a Top 5 list, Henry would do something pretty smart with it; replace the lists with ratings of all the episodes with their respective rating PLUS on the side, how they'd rank in Henry's eyes. An example of this is when an episode is his favorite of all of them, a number one ranking would be placed besides it to indicate that it's the best episode out of all of them. This is a cool advantage, but it's more... flawed? Yeah, on top of them making the scorecard feel empty probably due to the bigger text not providing any depth or variety, which is because he'll color EVERY episode in the season the same color to indicate the season's final rating (and can vary with the Top 10 lists which I don't get how it's supposed to work), making it hard to find a specific rating (and also season since they lack a heading but I guess the different coloring gives them a decent distinction) alongside the fact that they're done with plain text, plus it being rather unnecessary if the show is really consistent in ratings, I guess this move wasn't all that smart... but hey! If we don't care about whatever episode he ranks, they're all redirected to a Google Docs sheet showcasing his thoughts on every episode with one simple rating. And yes, this seems to be a rather unique move since from all the scorecard styles I've seen before his came, they all have the episode ratings together with the rest. But then again, he would repeat the rankings in the description, leaving them pointless... unless if it's short enough to compliment the size of the description. As clarified in a comment, it's to make out the ratings from the image, but since the ratings can be clearly seen on the scorecard, this reasoning doesn't make sense often.

Curious about all the acclaim that baffled me, I gave this user a shot... and in the end, I was bored and even slightly annoyed at times with his reviews. With bland and really barebones reasoning, weak grammar, a seemingly big amount of hypocrisy that wasn't clarified enough, and his content feeling empty at times questions me if he got the praise for high effort, then why did I feel really underwhelmed with much of his works? But not to worry though, his amiable attitude can shine a lot at times as well as having an inspired but unique-looking scorecard gathered together with decent explanations that are useful enough. Besides, he's a friendly user who doesn't stress himself too much with production that is eager to offer a quick rundown of what he thinks of the series. And for people tired of long, detailed reviews, his reviews kind of falls in that agenda but let me just tell you; his reviews won't convince you so much about the show's quality. As for me, he remains pretty harmless, but since I failed to care about much of his works where I would be eager to read them again, he's a MEH and forgettable critic.

And unlike how Henry can forget about some usuals, let's not forget about this usual; my feedback. Yeah, while your optimism and scorecard style impressed me, the rest do need to reach that level. I'd say fix your punctuation because to be honest, those ellipsis and commas are getting repetitive and even used incorrectly. And like what I said earlier as opposed to your forgettable but serviceable reviews, it must be more descriptive like how you'd describe that show's style of humor. If you're going for a short and simple review, at least have a careful and interesting choice of words that would make me understand and be more convinced with the overall review. As for the ratings, well honestly, keep doing you but please re-evaluate on if the episode's that good or bad since using the most powerful ratings a bunch of times will make me seem like you're overestimating an episode. Plus, if it has the highest and lowest rating besides those ratings, why not explain what makes it so special from the rest other than it being entertaining and funny? Oh, and not even your scorecard style is perfect because there are some patches to be covered without making it feel too empty. The regular ones are fine, but the ones with not much content should, as stated earlier, have more depth and variety to not make it feel too straightforward and flat. And one last thing, make all the ratings in your documents clearer to read and find. Thank you for understanding this review.