Here's the thing I don't get about all of these Blackest Night reviews; they're so completely inconsistent that I've pretty much given up on reading them. This inconsistency isn't entirely the fault of the reviewers, but when I read a review for Blackest Night #4, the latest issue of GL, and the latest issue of GLC, I don't get an idea as to what is actually going on in terms of quality, because to me, they're pretty much all identical in terms of how well they are being written and drawn.
Sure, there is a bit of difference in terms of whether one prefers Johns or Tomasi's dialogue, or whether or not you like Gleason's or Reis's or Mahnke's pencilwork, but for the most part, I've found the entire crossover-which I've just re-read from the beginning up to now-to be uniformly satisfactory. And then we get this strange contrast between how Mr. Callahan and Mr. Nevitt view their respective issues (BN and GL respectively, I believe), not to mention how we get Tim giving one part of this story 4 stars, and another part 2 and a half.
Basically, I've gone on a bit of a rant because I'm really not sure what kind of critical feedback to get out of the latest review, other than "too much stuff happens." The several references to Transformers 2 I find a bit disturbing, mostly because Tomasi has done such a wonderful job establishing these characters in GLC over the past year or so, and he hints that one of them will in fact die over the past several issues. I'm not sure how there's too much happening in this, the most action-packed issue of the entire cosmic-superhero-action storyline, so as to dull the emotional impact. The review that I've read seems to indicate that Tim has grown bored with all of this action, but basically every other review I've read seems to indicate that this response is not indicative of the popular response, yet there doesn't seem to be enough critical reasoning provided to indicate that the entire review is just a completely subjective preference.
I don't mean to single out Tim too much, but I find that it's a problem with ALL of CBR's reviews, as they don't seem to have any kind of objective criteria, or even means of providing a critical outlook, other than the inexplicable "5-star" method that is applied so inconsistently that it's nigh-useless. I'd love to see a bit more of an organized approach on the part of any of the reviewers on CBR.