REVIEW: Burger King Fiery Bacon Royal Crispy Chicken Sandwich

/ / Reviews / 2 Comments

Genius that I am, I volunteered to take on the Fiery Bacon Royal Crispy Chicken Sandwich before reading the press release from Burger King. If I had done so, I would have known its summer “Fiery” menu has a tiered heat list, with the chicken sandwich sitting at the maximum Spice Level Five. I can handle some spice, but I don’t like having my throat annihilated by jalapeños; visions of people having seizures and hallucinations after eating Nashville Hot Chicken plagued me. What had I signed up for?

Of course, it was Burger King, so it’s fine. It turns out that even maximum Burger King spiciness is not that spicy compared to other spicy foods. It’s not even as spicy as BK’s original release of the Spicy Chicken Fries, which I loved. I worried myself into a tizzy for nothing.

This ambitious sandwich features white meat chicken with a coat of fiery glaze, fiery-seasoned bacon, pepper jack cheese, tomatoes, lettuce, and “Fiery sauce.” The sauce tastes like slightly cheesy mayonnaise with a small amount of heat added to it; everything else is fairly self-explanatory.

I had this twice, and neither time did I get much pepper jack cheese. To be fair, I don’t think it was needed.

When I first bit into the breaded, coated chicken breast before eating any of the toppings with it, I knew it tasted familiar, but I couldn’t place it. It’s a sweet heat, and I couldn’t get past the déjà vu sensation as I continued to shovel the thing into my mouth. Eventually, I realized what I was reminded of: General Tso’s Chicken. It’s definitely not an exact match, but the texture of the breading and the sweet and spice level put it into the ballpark of that Chinese takeout staple. I happen to really like General Tso’s Chicken, so this was a good thing for me.

But if you were having General Tso’s, would you want it slathered in mayonnaise? Probably not, but somehow, it works. Even though the fiery sauce has some spice, it still works as a cooling element compared to the spicing of the chicken patty, with the lettuce and tomato also working as you’d expect to moderate the heat level. I did get the sensation of heat in the back of my throat a few times, but it wasn’t unpleasant, just noticeable.

Besides not getting much cheese, my main complaint is that there wasn’t enough bacon. The spiced bacon adds another welcome layer of flavor and texture, but I wasn’t given much of it. It probably changes a lot between individual orders, so you may get more bacon on your sandwich than I did, but I doubt BK is heaping it on there. This is kind of a shame because if this thing was loaded up with that perfectly spiced bacon, we’d be talking about a 10 out of 10 experience here. As it stands, it’s merely very good.

I don’t know what it is, but whenever Burger King releases a spicy product, it really seems to work for me. I’m looking forward to trying the other items on the Fiery menu before the end of summer, and hey, maybe I’ll even try Nashville Hot Chicken someday; I bet my hallucinations would be awesome and might even include unicorns.

Purchased Price: $6.59
Rating: 9 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 700 calories, 42 grams of fat, 7 grams of saturated fat, 65 milligrams of cholesterol, 1140 milligrams of sodium, 57 grams of total carbohydrates, 3 grams of dietary fiber, 8 grams of sugar, and 25 grams of protein.

REVIEW: Starbucks Egg, Pesto & Mozzarella Sandwich

/ / Reviews / 4 Comments

Starbucks’ Egg, Pesto & Mozzarella Sandwich is a serviceable, squishy sandwich.

It gets its squish from a fluffy cage-free egg frittata, which is topped with a kale and basil pesto and a mozzarella slice. Those three are served on a toasted cheddar and onion bun.

The almost perfect rectangle frittata was a bit flavorless. It wasn’t even very eggy. I only know this because the pesto on my sandwich was mainly on one side of the egg slab, leaving my taste buds a naked half of a frittata for them to experience. With such a concentration of pesto on one side, you’d assume the taste would be bold. But even with that amount, the green herbaceous topping didn’t bowl me over with pesto like I’d get from an Olive Garden offering. It made that half taste better than the pesto-less side, but I wish things were more flavorful. Also, it wasn’t easy to pick out the kale in the pesto, which I guess was a good thing because I got the benefits of eating kale without the rough texture and taste of kale.

The mozzarella was melted to the point where it looked like mayonnaise. But I wish this had mayo because the mild cheesiness didn’t carry much flavor. As I mentioned at the beginning of the review, the egg had a spongy texture and was unusually moist, which was odd. And it was even weirder when the frittata made slightly squishy sounds as I gently smooshed the sandwich. As for the toasted cheddar and onion bun, nothing about it made me think it had cheese or onion on or in it. The bottom bun was easy to bite through, and the top had some crispiness on the edges thanks to the toasting, but it was also a little chewy.

If you’re looking for a meatless sandwich option at Starbucks, its Egg, Pesto & Mozzarella Sandwich is the only one. (Although, I guess the Impossible Breakfast Sandwich could be considered a meatless option.) But it’s so meh that I’m not sure I’d recommend starting your morning with one.

Purchased Price: $5.45
Rating: 5 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 390 calories, 16 grams of fat, 6 grams of saturated fat, 175 milligrams of cholesterol, 790 milligrams of sodium, 36 grams of carbohydrates, 2 grams of fiber, 1 gram of sugar, and 21 grams of protein.

REVIEW: Jack in the Box Mini Chimi Bang Bangs

/ / Reviews / 2 Comments

To help promote the movie Deadpool & Wolverine, Jack in the Box has a shot out of its kitchens the new Mini Chimi Bang Bangs. What’s the deal with Deadpool and chimichangas? Well, I could go off on a plagiarized tangent about the subject, but I’d like to keep this review as mini as these chimis.

An order features three crispy mini chimichangas filled with seasoned shredded chicken, corn, black beans, herbs, and Southwest flavors. It also comes with Jack’s taco sauce packets. (I got six! Jackpot! Your results may vary.) Also, because this is Jack in the Box, there’s, of course, a loaded version, which comes topped with two types of cheddar cheese, lettuce, and taco sauce. (No sauce packet ripping.)

Okay, let’s break down “crispy mini chimichangas.”

These were crispy, well, at certain places. The wrap’s flaps that stuck out were fried to a pleasant golden brown crispiness. But for the most part, the exterior was like a soft tortilla, which was disappointing because the areas where they were crispy had a flavor that reminded me of fried wontons. (Waiting for a Jack in the Box employee to tell me that my order was made wrong.)

Next, let’s focus on the “mini.” They are so small and thin that the only way to get the seasoned shredded chicken, corn, black beans, herbs, and southwest flavors into your mouth simultaneously is to stick a whole mini chimi into your mouth. But that’s possible because they are small enough to do so with some chimi ghiminastics.

Finally, let’s get into the chimichanga. For the most part, the filling mostly feels like a thick soup. Taking occasional peeks into them, I found a whole black bean and part of a corn kernel. But, while I could taste the poultry, there weren’t any textures that felt like shredded chicken. The overall interior texture reminded me of something I’ve had from the freezer aisle at the supermarket, and they tasted as good as what you could get from the supermarket. With most bites, I could notice the southwest flavors and the chicken, but that wasn’t enough to impress my taste buds, even with taco sauce. Maybe I should’ve gotten the loaded version?

Jack in the Box’s Mini Chimi Bang Bangs are a mediocre fast food side, and I’m glad an order came with only three of them.

Purchased Price: $3.50*
Size: 3 pieces
Rating: 5 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 170 calories. No other nutritional information is available on the Jack in the Box website.

*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: Jack in the Box Chicken & Waffle Sticks

/ / Reviews

I wish an order of Jack in the Box’s Chicken & Waffle Sticks was even-stevens. An order has three waffle sticks but two chicken strips. It was a little annoying because it caused me to do some food math so that both ran out simultaneously. But I’ll get back to that experience in a moment. I’m a little disappointed this wasn’t called Chicken Strips & Waffle Sticks because the rhyming might’ve made me turn a blind eye to the chicken-to-waffle ratio.

Like Eggo in the toaster at a high browning setting, the waffle sticks were crispy. With fast food, you’d think something that crispy might be dry inside, but fortunately, their interior had a pleasant fluffiness. I wish I could say there’s something special about their flavor, but they taste like waffles. But with the included syrup and butter spread, they make everything taste good enough that I could see myself ordering just the waffle sticks if I want a sweet breakfast treat.

The chicken strips were surprisingly better than what I remembered with the chain’s Jack Wraps. The ones I received were meaty, had a crispy exterior, and the poultry inside was surprisingly juicy when I squeezed them. But its flavor was unimpressive without a sauce. Fortunately, the pancake syrup gave them a nice sweetness that complemented their savoriness, and I could see myself asking for a container of syrup instead of the usual savory sauces if I order only the chicken strips.

(Oddly, my order also came with a ranch sauce cup. I’m not sure that’s supposed to be included, but I thought about dipping the waffles in it for a second to create chicken and wAWFULes.)

A rational person would’ve drizzled the syrup over everything, but I’m not rational, and I didn’t have any caffeine in my bloodstream at the time of consumption, so it didn’t come to mind that I should do that. Instead, I double-fisted my order with chicken in one hand and a waffle in the other, alternating the syrup dipping and chomping to get the chicken and waffle experience since the syrup container wasn’t large enough that I could dunk both at the same time. Since the waffles and chicken with syrup taste great individually, it shouldn’t be surprising that they create a tasty sweet and savory combo when combined.

However, with all that said, I’m hesitant to recommend this because paying seven dollars for three waffle sticks and two chicken strips seems a bit much. Even if I paid the $6.49 it costs in other states, I’m unsure I’d repurchase it, even if Jack in the Box changed the name to Chicken Strips & Waffle Sticks.

Purchased Price: $6.99*
Rating: 7 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 590 calories. Other nutritional information isn’t available on Jack in the Box’s website.

*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: McDonald’s Kit Kat Banana Split McFlurry

/ / Reviews / 7 Comments

It’s a bit surprising that McDonald’s Kit Kat Banana Split McFlurry, with its inclusion of bananas, doesn’t have a Minions tie-in. The McFlurry cups could’ve totally been dressed up as Minions. But I guess it would’ve been weird to have two tie-in promotions simultaneously.

The latest treat from The Golden Arches has every flavor you’d expect from a banana split — chocolate from the Kit Kat, vanilla from the soft serve, strawberry from the crispy cereal, and banana from the freeze-dried fruit pieces. However, every chocolate piece in the cup isn’t part of a Kit Kat. There are also semisweet and dark chocolate chips in the mix.

When McDonald’s started using flavored cereal pieces, beginning with its Strawberry Shortcake McFlurry, I thought it was a cheap way to get flavor into the soft serve. Why not use a sauce, I thought at the time. But doing it this way has grown on me. I mean, it’s not ideal, but they ensure there’s some texture with the treat, and most of the time, they’ve turned out decent-tasting.

The Kit Kat pieces are roughly as small as the chocolate chips, so they aren’t very substantial. They also don’t have the crispiness I expect from the classic candy bar. However, the other mix-ins make you think there are larger chunks. The strawberry-flavored cereal (which, because of their color, don’t seem to be the same ones from the Strawberry Shortcake McFlurry) has a crispiness that could be mistaken for Kit Kat’s wafers, and the snap and flavor of the chocolate chips could be thought of as the coating around the wafers.

The banana flavor depends on whether you get one of those freeze-dried fruit pieces. If you get one on your spoon, you’ll get a noticeable natural flavor that completes the image of a banana split. In fact, getting all the flavors associated with the colorful dessert with this McFlurry is much easier than trying to do it with an actual banana split. Speaking of the dessert, I’m surprised this didn’t come with the treat’s obligatory whipped cream topping and cherry.

Overall, I immensely enjoyed the Kit Kat Banana Split McFlurry, but I might be biased as I love the yellow fruit in many forms, even freeze-dried. It captures all the flavors of a banana split, but I wonder if adding Kit Kat was even necessary. I guess “Kit Kat Banana Split” looks and sounds better than “Banana Split.” But if this returns next year as the Banana Split McFlurry with the same chocolate chips and without Kit Kat, I believe I’d still like it.

Purchased Price: $4.99
Rating: 8 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 540 calories, 17 grams of fat, 11 grams of saturated fat, 0.5 grams of trans fat, 45 milligrams of cholesterol, 230 milligrams of sodium, 85 grams of carbohydrates, 70 grams of sugar, 1 gram of fiber, and 12 grams of protein.

Scroll to Top