If you read this review then you GOTTA see the dude’s myspace. Fuckin gas it is.

http://www.myspace.com/jarredkeane

Concisely: What a pathetic review. A 12 yr old with Downs and Dyslexia could have given the public a more useful, objective and informatively critical sample of journalism.

Personally: Clearly, this show got stuck with the least used, least respected, and least skillful writer the Pun had to offer. Simply because the show has the word ‘Mild’ in the title and has a calmly beautiful promo image, the show was automatically suitable for middle aged dreary snobs? I can only imagine how much of an unbearably dull and haughty man this reviewer is.

A short(ish) critique of the review itself: The first line shows an almost total ignorance of the subject at hand and the inherent objective of a review. Nothing is set up about the artist, nor the status and features of the show, i.e. venue, ticketing information, reference to promotional material and style of comedy. All comments are based on purely SUBjective opinions and reactions to the material, not the performer themselves, or a comparative analysis of performer, venue and show structure/goals.
The reviewer thought their own opinion of material was confusing? Check spelling first. Subsequently, re-evaluate the definition of ‘puerile’ in its proper context; the assignation of this word to the construct of humour is purely subjective. Therefore, two successively unstable definitions of a hardly concrete art form are hinged upon a declaration of concept; A concept which is developed nowhere with example, reference or relevance.
(It’s called Standup comedy, it’s not all Danny Bhoy and Tim Minchin, it’s mostly about entertaining random punters at pubs for YEARS on end. If you were to wait for an attentive and generous audience, you’d never get anywhere while you still had any soul. )
The paragraph is at an end before information of the artist’s age is given, yet it is oddly contrasted to two performers of unrelated style, stature, background, intention, and age itself. This is an attempt at a tool which was needed at the start, yet it is too far-gone, and based upon subjective information, and not related to a cogent depiction of the artist nor the construct of the show, merely an aloof relaying of reaction to vague material.
(Admittedly, while it is blatantly ignorant to assume that social commentary cannot come from a youthful artist, the seriousness of many issues raised in this show was not wholly satisfactory nor strongly cogent. They were connected, but the jumps were not available on an immediate level as I too proudly believe in the audience’s ability to read subtext and enjoy the ironies presented with a keen leaning towards humanism and maturity, whilst presenting a lewd and irreverent reality.)
The last sentence of the second paragraph is a flagship for fumbled linguistic ability in expressing multiple events within a concise appraisal. As with most of what has been written at this point of the review, irony and satire have been ignored along with subtext and context. The atmosphere of the performance has been lazily excised from this review and no allowance has been given in the assumption of critical analysis. This was a great opportunity for the reviewer to offer something of value to the reading public; information on the experience of this particular show. This information about the looseness of the venue in regards to unwarranted entrances (from outside of the particular venue of performance yet within the total venue itself), was never mentioned, nor was the nature of audience participation explained. Instead, the reviewer vainly opted for a pompous attempt at a dismissive opinion. It reeks of ego.
The last sentence is weakly offered brimming with ambiguity. Again, the reading audience is left no wiser for their time and no more certain as to what the show will offer them, as the declaration of ‘extremely accessible’ both portrays an arrogance and rude pomposity within the reviewer and offers the same insight as can be given for inoffensive, cliche, facile, family humour. In so doing, the appropriate demographic is not identified by the reviewer. The phrase ’sprinkled with social commentary’ continues to reek of dismissiveness – wholly unsatisfactory in the format of a professional critique.

Note – this comment has been edited, as it was originally posted fraudulently, impersonating someone else.

Was a good night out.

I saw the show and like Lisa enjoyed it.

And hey what’s wrong with a bit of puerile Comedy? Glad to see that it wasn’t just another run of the mill whimsy fluff piece!

i thought it was pretty good

my friends and i enjoyed it

very relaxing atmosphere and funny