REVIEW: Kellogg’s Smorz Cereal (2016)

Kellogg’s Smorz Cereal (2016)

If the early 2000s taught us nothing else as a society, it was that transposing the letter S with the letter Z in a word made you instantly credible and cool. LOL, once trite and overused, took on new life thanks to LOLZ, while I would argue that Anheuser-Busch owes its entire advertising success of the decade to the phonetic pronunciation of WAZZUP.

Thankfully, we as a civilization have largely moved past this momentary lapse in linguistics. Well, everyone except a dedicated group of cereal lovers who’ve helped bring back Smorz Cereal.

It’s been four years since Smorz left our shelves, and to be honest, I have yet to circle the five steps of grief; mostly because I thought the original Smorz had some room for improvement. Now I’m not saying I disliked Smorz — as far as chocolate and graham cereals go, it was good as a snacking cereal — but the marshmallows had a funky artificiality and lighter-than-Lucky Charms ‘mallow give that made them taste stale after a few days.

Nevertheless, as interweb excitement grew for the return of an extinct specimen of chocolate and graham, I was hopeful this newest version of Smorz would combine everything I loved about the original Smorz, as well as everything that I hoped a mainstream s’mores cereal should have.

Kellogg’s Smorz Cereal (2016) 2

When it comes to the chocolate and graham squares, the rebirth of Smorz lived up to its predecessor and to that campfire taste. Ok, so it’s not exactly a “rich chocolate” cereal coating, but this is Kellogg’s, not Ghirardelli. The squares have a pleasant malty milk chocolate flavor that’s highly addictive when you snack on them, like a graham-flavored version of Chex Muddy Buddies.

The first few times I crunched on the squares I was disappointing in the graham flavor. It’s definitely muted in milk, and not honey glazed like Golden Grahams. But when eaten out of hand the flavor is mellow and slightly whole-wheaty, like that moment you bite into an actual s’more.

But then something happened: my mouth met the marshmallows.

Kellogg’s Smorz Cereal (2016) 3

If I wasn’t sold on the marshmallows in the old Smorz, then I’m selling off like a oil stockbroker with these marshmallows. Eaten dry, they have a dusty stiffness and chalky, sugary flavor. Not a sweet flavor, a sugary flavor. It’s a flavor I remember well from candy cigarettes I once bought from the ice cream man when I was 10 years old. It is not a yummy flavor, especially in milk, where the saccharine sweetness and candy cigarette aftertaste does a disservice to the synergy of chocolate and graham. What’s more, they don’t taste toasted. What is the lesson to take from this? Smoking is not a yummy flavor.

For the most part, I consider myself a cereal populist. Even though I was a bit ambivalent toward the original Smorz, past cereal resurrections like French Toast Crunch had me excited to step back into the world of bowls we thought were extinct.

But in the case of the 2016 version of Smorz cereal, I’m wondering if we shouldn’t just let bygones be bygones. The chocolate and graham squares are definitely good — probably better than I remember — especially as a snack. But the marshmallows bring the cereal down, and, like transposing “Z” for “S,” are unnecessary and potentially maddening.

(Nutrition Facts – 8 grams – 120 calories, 2 grams of fat, 0.5 grams of saturated fat, 0 mg of cholesterol, 135 mg of sodium, 25 grams of carbohydrates, less than 1 gram of dietary fiber, 13 grams of sugars, and 1 grams of protein..)

Item: Kellogg’s Smorz Cereal (2016)
Purchased Price: $2.98
Size: 10.2 oz. box
Purchased at: Walmart
Rating: 6 out of 10
Pros: Muddy Buddy-type chocolate and graham coating is really good. Awesome level of crunch. No more partially hydrogenated oils. Enjoyable snacking cereal when not eaten with marshmallows.
Cons: Lackluster toasted s’mores flavor. Notrichness. A slightly distracting corn aftertaste in milk that overpowers the graham flavor. Marshmallows taste like candy cigarettes. Early 2000s linguistic fads.

REVIEW: Burger King Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger

Burger King Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger

If you’ve enjoyed Jack in the Box’s Buttery Jack topped with garlic herb butter and are looking at trying Burger King’s new Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger because you expect the garlic and butter in it to make it enjoyable too, STOP!

Stop following your nose to the flame-grilled aroma coming out of the vents at the Burger King location you’re planning to go to.

However, if you’ve never had the pleasure of trying a Buttery Jack from Jack in the Box because there isn’t a location anywhere near you or their mascot’s head freaks you out or you stopped going because you looked up “jack in the box” on Urban Dictionary and can’t stop giggling every time you hear those words, you might like the Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger.

The limited time only cheeseburger features two beef patties topped with onions, lettuce, ketchup, mayonnaise, American cheese, and a buttery garlic flavored sauce on a toasted hoagie bun. So it’s basically the chain’s regular Extra Long Cheeseburger with another condiment.

Burger King Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger 2

Comparing Jack in the Box’s garlic herb butter with Burger King’s buttery garlic flavored sauce would be like comparing chocolate with chocolatey. Chocolatey is not quite chocolate because it’s missing cocoa butter, and buttery garlic sauce is not quite garlic butter because it doesn’t contain butter. Instead it’s got a bunch of oils and natural flavor that try to make it buttery.

As for the garlic flavor, according to the BK website, the sauce has garlic powder, garlic, and natural garlic flavor listed as ingredients. All those oils, natural flavor, and garlic ingredients create a sauce that not at all buttery and slightly garlicky. Although there are actual garlic products in it, the sauce tastes cheap and artificial.

As you read three paragraphs ago, this burger has a lot of different parts and that combined with the sauce not having strong flavors make it hard for any butteriness or garlic to shine through. The flavor of Burger King’s flame grilled beef stands out and whatever garlic flavor does enhance it. But, again, there’s a lot going on with the burger that distracts my taste buds. I mean, is ketchup and mayonnaise REALLY necessary?

The burger as a whole doesn’t make me want to put on a Burger King kids meal crown, run up to strangers, and praise it. It’s okay, but it’s basically an Extra Long Cheeseburger with a hint of garlic. To be honest, it really should’ve been called the Extra Long Garlicky Cheeseburger, because no buttery flavor comes through.

(Nutrition Facts – 710 calories, 420 calories from fat, 47 grams of fat, 15 grams of saturated fat, 1.5 grams of trans fat, 90 milligrams of cholesterol, 1250 milligrams of sodium, 46 grams of carbohydrates, 2 grams of fiber, 9 grams of sugar, 26 grams of protein.)

Item: Burger King Extra Long Buttery Cheeseburger
Purchased Price: $5.49*
Size: N/A
Purchased at: Burger King
Rating: 5 out of 10
Pros: Whatever garlic flavor there is does enhance the flavor of the flame-grilled patties. Jack in the Box’s Buttery Jack. Available on BK’s 2 for $5 menu.
Cons: Sauce isn’t buttery and not very garlicky. Having too many toppings helps dampen whatever garlic flavor there is. Is three condiments really necessary? Just an Extra Long Cheeseburger with an extra sauce.

*Because I live on a rock in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, things are a bit pricier here. You’ll probably pay less than I did.

REVIEW: Taco Bell Quesalupa

Taco Bell Quesalupa

This country is always trying to pit us against each other. In politics, it’s a two party system that radicalizes the masses, the haves versus the have-nots. In sports, the blowout celebration is one final matchup that stretches narratives into ideologies and forces us to choose sides, the dabs versus the dab-nots.

Taco Bell tries the opposite, joining things together with varying success. They integrate other products such as Cinnabon and Doritos into their own items and display countless permutations of existing creations, rearranging-Titanic-deck-chairs style.

Taco Bell’s latest attempt is the much-ballyhooed Quesalupa, a combination of the quesadilla and a Chalupa. A quesadilla is kind of like a grilled soft taco with lots of cheese on it and a Chalupa is kind of like a deep fried soft taco. If menu items were human beings, I would examine the family tree pretty meticulously before letting these two get married.

Taco Bell Quesalupa 4

Ostensibly, the Quesalupa is a Chalupa shell with pepper jack cheese inside then filled with sour cream, lettuce, tomato, cheddar cheese and a protein. This, however, is no Chalupa shell. I’m sure they had to make adjustments to accommodate the pocket of melty cheese that spills out of the center, but the near-perfect crispy-chewy Chalupa armor has been depleted to a weak facsimile.

Taco Bell Quesalupa 3

The entire Quesalupa sags in the middle, buckling to the sogginess of the cheese, without a textural counterbalance to save it. There is plenty of cheese to go around, to the point where the warm stew-like blend of ingredients exhibits the comforting consistency of a shepherd’s pie. But without the fluffy-crispy promise that a Chalupa provides, the Quesalupa falls short of expectations.

Taco Bell Quesalupa 2

I tried the beef and chicken options and the beef comes up on top, with the salty, ground meat lending better flavor to the entire item. The chicken is bland and definitely needs outside help of a hot sauce to feel complete. The produce is typical of Taco Bell and serves to fill out the item—space-wise and color-wise—and maybe to place a pebble on top of a food pyramid quota.

Perhaps it’s a testament to the Quesalupa that the cheese blends well together. It’s a gooey affair that absorbs all the qualities of both types of cheeses offered (and the sour cream as well) to make a dairy bomb that flattens out any nuance. The center of a Quesalupa is at the same time satisfying and a bit icky, melding together like a cream of Taco Bell soup. Whether that sounds good to you or not will be the deal breaker here.

For my buck, the best Taco Bell items play with texture in a unique way and dance on the crunchy-soft line: the Crunchwrap Supreme, the Double Decker Taco, and the Chalupa.

Unfortunately for the Quesalupa, while it features the warm qualities of a steaming quesadilla, it does not take the best parts of a Chalupa, which makes it a pretty average Taco Bell item. And maybe that’s the point? People hate Trump. People love Trump. People hate Cam. People love Cam. Quesalupa? “Ehh.” On this, I think, we can all agree.

(Nutrition Facts – Beef – 460 calories, 26 grams of fat, 11 grams of saturated fat, 50 milligrams of cholesterol, 890 milligrams of sodium, 38 grams of carbohydrates, 3 grams of sugar, 4 grams of fiber, 19 grams of protein. Chicken – 440 calories, 23 grams of fat, 10 grams of saturated fat, 60 milligrams of cholesterol, 840 milligrams of sodium, 37 grams of carbohydrates, 3 grams of sugar, 3 grams of fiber, 22 grams of protein.)

Item: Taco Bell Quesalupa
Purchased Price: $2.99 (beef) $3.79 (chicken)
Size: N/A
Purchased at: Taco Bell
Rating: 5 out of 10 (beef)
Rating: 4 out of 10 (chicken)
Pros: Comforting consistency, gooey cheese center.
Cons: Soggy in the middle. Maybe too much cheese. Texturally boring.

REVIEW: KFC Nashville Hot Chicken

KFC Nashville Hot Chicken

What I know about Nashville: Mrs. Coach from Friday Night Lights has a show about it and something called “hot chicken” was invented there.

A handful of Food Network shows have signal-boosted the wet-looking fried bird in the past decade and, based on the various hosts’ reactions, it’s amazing. If my hazy memory is correct, most of the purveyors of the Music City specialty are tight lipped about the recipe, but a cursory bit of internet sleuthing reveals some sort of cayenne pepper paste mix as the secret.

Enter KFC. Never mind that Nashville is in Tennessee and the “K” in KFC stands for a state that geographically stifles Tennessee like a big brother sitting on top of you trying to squeeze out a fart.

The Yum! Brands conglomerate will have your local delicacy and good luck trying to trademark something with two words as simple as “hot” and “chicken.” They have the balls to put an exclamation point in the name of their company. They have the balls to do anything. Anyway, KFC serves Nashville Hot Chicken. And it’s okay, if not for the typical KFC pitfalls.

The advertisements for Nashville Hot Chicken promise a good amount of heat, one that builds, based on a “secret” recipe that includes cayenne and smoked paprika. On this, it delivers. I had the two-piece basket, which includes a biscuit, a sprinkling of pickles and a side of cole slaw.

KFC Nashville Hot Chicken 2

The breading on the chicken was nice and chunky, crispy. The initial heat factor was low but as the meal went on it chugged into a nice hum. It’s a dull, pleasant spice that is never overwhelming and contrasts well with the smoother tastes of the buttermilk breading and dark meat.

Since it’s being sold with sides as a package, I’ll go into those. The cole slaw is KFC cole slaw. It’s a bit too sweet but the coolness really acts well against the chicken, and basically serves as a palate cleanser whenever you need a respite from the spice.

The flimsy pickles, which are thrown onto the chicken, are an afterthought and do not possess any value whatsoever. They have no bite or any flavor and have wilted onto the greasy bird.

The biscuit touches the chicken and, through magical biscuit powers, absorbs some of the hot chicken oil, which makes an awesome hot oil-dipped biscuit, improving the already-great side.

KFC Nashville Hot Chicken 3

This does, however, bring up the oil situation. KFC calls the entire thing a “two-piece basket” but it came in a plastic container. It traps in all the oil that was on the chicken, KFC-style, but this is hella oil. Hot chicken already looks wet and saturated, but this is for real the most oily chicken I have ever had. Two dozen napkins later, I had dripped the red-colored oil on my sleeves and my notepad, which was on an adjacent table.

Sure, chalk it up to me being a disaster, but this stuff got everywhere. I quit eating the thigh three-fourths the way through because it got too gross. The breading was slipping off like a cummerbund after prom and it was making a gigantic mess.

I had hot chicken once before (in Los Angeles, go figure). It was served on a slice of white bread, to soak up all the oil. Nothing was done like this here, and it was unbearable. The previous experience also had nice homemade vinegar to go along with the chicken, which made me lament the pickle situation even more.

The taste is fine, but the oil is harsh. Yum! Brands, what hast thou wrought?

(Nutrition Facts – Not available on website.)

Item: KFC Nashville Hot Chicken
Purchased Price: $5.49 (includes cole slaw and biscuit)
Size: 2 pieces basket
Purchased at: KFC
Rating: 6 out of 10
Pros: Nice amount of heat, a low simmer of spice. Good breading.
Cons: Unbearably oily. Pickles were flimsy, not bright.

REVIEW: Tim Hortons Pulled Pork Sandwich (Canada)

Tim Hortons Pulled Pork Sandwich

Over the last few years several fast food joints have gotten it into their heads to try serving pulled pork. (Perhaps because of improvements in Cryovac technology? But I’m not sure.) A really good pulled pork sandwich, at least up here in the Great White North, is a rare beast indeed; even restaurants that specialize in the stuff have a hard time getting it completely right.

Predictably, these fast food approximations of a barbecue staple have ranged from “that’s alright, I guess,” (Wendy’s) to “oh my god, why would this restaurant soak paper towels in barbecue sauce and then serve it as pork?” (Burger King, because of course the worst version of this trend comes from Burger King).

Tim Hortons’ version is relatively straightforward: it’s topped with crispy onions and served on a ciabatta bun.

Given the rarity of good fast food pulled pork, it might shock you to hear that this particular sandwich isn’t awful.

It’s not great, mind you, or even good –- but it’s not awful. In this case, that’s almost a win.

Tim Hortons Pulled Pork Sandwich 2

The worst pulled pork sandwiches reduce the meat to a sloppy, off-putting mush, and that’s not the case here. It’s kind of dry and it’s kind of soft, but it still has some texture.

Weirdly, it’s saucy but not saucy, like it was cooked in a sauce that has mostly evaporated away, leaving some flavour and a lot of grease.

The flavour is tangy and a little bit sweet; it sorta-kinda tastes like barbecue sauce, but not really. It tastes more like barbecue-sauce-flavoured chips than like actual barbecue sauce, if that makes any sense. It’s not necessarily bad, just… off.

As for the meat itself, there are vague hints of that distinctive flavour you get when you reheat pork — but for the most part, any flavour even vaguely resembling porkiness has been steamrolled by the sauce.

Tim Hortons Pulled Pork Sandwich 3

Then there’s the substantial ciabatta bun, which is grilled in a panini press, giving it a hearty crunch. The bread is usually the best part of a Tim Hortons sandwich, and though it was actually a good quality bun, it’s absolutely the wrong choice for this particular sandwich. The texture and flavour of the bread completely dominates the pulled pork. Though whether that’s even a bad thing is debatable in this case.

The onions are the typical crispy fried onions you can find in a bag at the supermarket. Between the tangy barbecue sauce and the assertive crunch of the bun, they may as well not even be there. They add nothing and are completely superfluous.

I’ll give the Tim Hortons Pulled Pork Sandwich one thing: it was very easy to score. It’s clearly a five out of ten. It’s basically the platonic ideal of a five out of ten review. It’s neither particularly good nor particularly bad; it’s a shrug in sandwich form.

(Nutrition Facts – Not available on website.)

Item: Tim Hortons Pulled Pork Sandwich
Purchased Price: $5.49 CAN
Size: N/A
Purchased at: Tim Hortons
Rating: 5 out of 10
Pros: It isn’t gross. The pork could be worse. Good quality bun.
Cons: Sauce tastes off. Overwhelming bun. Useless onions.