Is there anything better than gooey cinnamon rolls, hot out of the oven, while you’re trapped inside during a blizzard? There is, and it’s Pillsbury Grands Limited Edition Hot Cocoa Rolls. I got my hands on Pillsbury’s new concoction at the perfect moment – right before the “bomb cyclone” dumped snow and ice all over my world.

The best part of making Pillsbury rolls is the exquisite tension of opening the tube. It’s pressurized, like a doughy grenade. I start with tentative pokes of a spoon into the cardboard seam, expecting the BOOM to take my fingers off – or worse. When that doesn’t work, I start really digging in, still in expectant terror of explosion. Nothing. Finally, I’m a spoon-wielding maniac, stabbing from arm’s length until I hit the seam right on and a quiet POOF comes from dough and air squeezing through the tiny slit in the cardboard. Extremities intact, heart racing, I wrestle the tube open.

I had to re-spiral the dough once separating the five rolls from each other. Mass production and tube pressure mushes them out of shape and I simply cannot abide a wonky roll. Some chocolate filling flaked off in the process, but I sprinkled most of it back on.

After baking for the prescribed time (the low end – I’m impatient), I had five gorgeous rolls with decadent velvety brown spirals. I only got a mild chocolate aroma, but lots of the standard kitchen-filling baked goodness smell.

I like to ice my rolls when they’re warm, not hot – this way it melts but stays mostly on the top & sides. While I waited for my buns to cool, I snuck a taste of the marshmallow icing. It was like a dollop of Marshmallow Fluff fell into the traditional Pillsbury Cinnamon Roll icing.

Once iced, it was time to dig in. While snow whirled around outside, I uncoiled the first finished product. As with any good cinnamon roll, it started a little crusty on the outside and turned progressively soft and gooey as I moved further into the spiral.

The chocolate filling did remind me of a cup of Swiss Miss – a light but tasty cocoa flavor. With the deep chocolate color, I expected a more pronounced taste, but I really enjoyed the restrained milky/marshmallow feel. They were absolutely delicious and before I knew it, three were gone and I had to save the other two for the remaining people in the house who would definitely judge me for eating them all.

I didn’t try to pair these with a mug of hot cocoa – I was eating them too fast to even stop for a drink – but next time I’d try them with hot cider. And there will definitely be a next time.

Overall, this was like cinnamon roll’s cuter cousin from out of town came to visit. We had a winter fling and now I’ll go back to cinnamon – until hot cocoa visits again.

(Nutrition Facts – 1 roll with icing – 300 calories, 60 calries from fat, 7 grams of fat, 3.5 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 530 milligrams of sodium, 56 grams of carbohydrates, 1 gram of dietary fiber, 24 grams of sugars and 5 grams of protein.)

Purchased Price: $3.78
Size: 17.5 oz. tube (5 rolls)
Purchased at: Walmart
Rating: 9 out of 10
Pros: Hot Cocoa Rolls > Bomb Cyclone. Laid-back chocolate flavor. Packaging that scares the bejeezus out of me.
Cons: Having to share with others. Limited Edition = having to say goodbye to my winter romance.

Can someone tell me what number Nabisco has reached with unique flavors of Oreo cookies? It has to be in competition with the number of volumes of Now That’s What I Call Music (which is up to 64, by the way. I still remember rocking out to volumes 14, 15, 16 and 17 with my brother as pre-teens). A few new flavors hit the shelves, including these Limited Edition Chocolate Hazelnut Oreo Cookies.

My first thought – which I’m guessing is everyone’s first thought – is “Are these going to taste like Nutella?” The sweet, smooth Italian spread has a flavor of hazelnut cocoa, which made me think these cookies would taste similar.

Keep reading, my friends…

I applaud Nabisco for the smaller package sizes they’ve had with the limited edition cookies. That way you’re not stuck with a huge amount if you don’t like them, and your waistline will thank you if you do. As I opened the package, there’s a strong scent that in my opinion wasn’t super pleasant. I couldn’t place it exactly, but maybe a little artificial?

That aside, I grabbed a serving of two cookies and dug in. At first bite, the cream inside is smooth. I’m talking super smooth – even more so than the vanilla cream in a regular Oreo cookie. Dare I say, even creamier than a Double Stuf Oreo. But here’s the catch: No trace of hazelnut found. The cream tasted like good old chocolate. My husband even tried them and he said the same thing. He tasted a hint of hazelnut on the second bite, but I still struggled.

These cookies definitely taste better than they initially smelled. I enjoyed the smooth, rich cream in the middle, and I like that they were sweet, but not overwhelmingly sweet. But I’m disappointed in the lack of hazelnut. If Nabisco is going to make a chocolate hazelnut Oreo, then they might as well partner with Nutella and make a Nutella Oreo. It would be more authentic and recognizable. My husband deemed these “Nutella’s cheaper brother.”

I debated with what to rank these cookies because here’s the dilemma: I enjoyed the taste, but they don’t taste as they are marketed. They are a nice alternative to your standard Oreo – I like flavors that have the vanilla cookies because I love vanilla-based desserts. But they missed the mark with the chocolate hazelnut flavor, and I’m interested to know if others felt the same.

(Nutrition Facts – 2 cookies – 140 calories, 7 grams of fat, 2 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 80 milligrams of sodium, 20 grams of carbohydrates, 0 grams of fiber, 11 grams of sugar, 1 gram of protein.)

Purchased Price: $2.99
Size: 10.7 oz package
Purchased at: Giant Eagle
Rating: 6 out of 10
Pros: Smooth cream in the middle. I wish all Oreo cookies had cream this smooth.
Cons: Lack of hazelnut. They just taste like a vanilla and chocolate cookie.

I have never met an Oreo I didn’t like.

That said, not all Oreos hit the mark. Some of them taste too artificial, and some of the special flavors are too similar to the regular ones. I had lots of questions going into the Hot & Spicy Cinnamon Oreo. Would it taste like cinnamon candy? Would the cinnamon clash with the chocolate cookie? So many possible outcomes!

It has always bothered me that the serving size for Oreo cookies is only two cookies. Let’s be honest: nobody is ever going to eat only two of them, especially since there are at least three ways of eating them.

The first way I wanted to eat it was by isolating the red creme. How’d they do with making it taste like cinnamon candy as promised on the package? They nailed it! It tastes just like Red Hots/cinnamon bears/your favorite cinnamon candy of choice, but with the flavor of Oreo creme mixed in. I wouldn’t call it hot, though it might be too spicy for the smallest children. The texture is the same grainy goo of most Oreo cookies.

The second way I wanted to try it was the boring way: just biting directly into it. This would be a chance for it to mess up: would the cocoa cookie clash with the cinnamon candy–flavored creme? Nope! The cinnamon shines through without overpowering the cookie. We’re two for two.

But how about the third and best way to eat milk’s favorite cookie?

As much as I liked the cookies dry, they’re even better in milk. The cinnamon is more flavorful, yet still not overbearing, in a dipped cookie. I wondered if the cinnamon would clash with the milk, but it doesn’t.

I had thought these would be a good April Fool’s Day prank. You could buy a package of the plain Winter Oreos with the red creme, then replace them with cinnamon and trick your friends. But now that I’ve tried them, I realize that would be a benevolent prank, because the Hot & Spicy Cinnamon Oreo Cookies are better than the original.

At the risk of giving you high expectations and then having them dashed when you try them yourselves, I will say this: these are the best Oreos I have had. They are also the best cinnamon-flavored product I have had.

(Nutrition Facts – 2 cookies – 140 calories, 7 grams of fat, 2 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 0 milligrams of cholesterol, 85 milligrams of sodium, 21 grams of carbohydrates, 0 grams of dietary fiber, 13 grams of total sugars, 13 grams of added sugars, and less than 1 gram of protein.)

Purchased Price: $2.99
Size: 10.7 oz package
Purchased at: Lee’s MarketPlace
Rating: 10 out of 10
Pros: Tastes like cinnamon candy, but it doesn’t clash with the chocolate cookie. Tastes better with milk. The best Oreo I have had. The best cinnamon treat I have had.
Cons: Serving size is only two cookies. I might have made your expectations too high. I fear that people won’t buy these and they will be discontinued.

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. After a year and some change of photographing the gooiest, greasiest, and goopiest fast food known to man, I finally managed to drop my camera, lens first, into a review item.

And, of course, it just had to be Burger King’s new Rodeo Crispy Chicken Sandwich. Twenty-four hours later, and my camera STILL smells like barbecue sauce and mayonnaise.

Outside of making my Canon smell like an explosion at the condiment aisle, I can’t think of too many negatives about BK’s newfangled burger. The ginormous offering includes a thick, crispy chicken patty coated in melted American cheese, topped with a handful of fried onion rings and three half-strips of bacon, with the whole shebang topped off with a smattering of BBQ sauce and mayo.

The BBQ sauce/mayo combo gives the sandwich an extra kick. It’s subtle, but it adds a layer of gustatory intrigue to what otherwise would be a predictable “Western” style burger variation. The chicken fillet is also surprisingly juicy, with the carapace of melted cheese definitely giving the patty an extra level of zest.

The bacon is crispy and flavorful and the onion rings (while inconsistently shaped and sized) never got too mushy for my liking. And – not that you need me to tell you this – the humongous, almost softball-sized sandwich is undeniably filling.

Of course, it’s also an extremely salty sammich, and one of the sloppiest you’ll eat in this or any other year. Seriously – we’re talking Arby’s Meat Mountain levels of splashback here, so definitely keep the napkin dispenser nearby for this one.

There’s nothing too creative about the burger, but considering its robust flavor and ultra-filling nature, it’s hard to shower this unoriginal but satisfying L-T-O with anything but praise.

Purchased Price: $5.29
Size: N/A
Rating: 8 out of 10
Nutrition Facts: 960 calories, 60 grams of fat, 15 grams of saturated fat, 1 gram of trans fat, 105 milligrams of cholesterol, 2230 milligrams of sodium, 72 grams of carbohydrates, 3 grams of fiber, 14 grams of sugar, 33 grams of protein.

Despite its oblong-shaped filet, squished profile, and two perfectly-centered pickles, McDonald’s Classic Chicken Sandwich is not as good as Chick-fil-A’s namesake chicken sandwich.

That said, it’s a better and more economical showcase for McDonald’s buttermilk chicken than the Buttermilk Crispy Chicken Sandwich and a dramatic upgrade over the McChicken.

It’s built similarly to the bygone

Overall, its minimalist approach works great. I’ve had McDonald’s buttermilk chicken on three or four occasions and always thought it was okay if not a little out-of-place in the Buttermilk Crispy Chicken Sandwich. Sans mayo, tomato, and lettuce (and $1.89 cheaper) the buttermilk flavor really comes out.

With a crispy, uniform breading, the buttermilk chicken checks the prerequisite boxes for adequate juiciness and flavor, although it doesn’t wow you. Nevertheless, a slightly spicy aftertaste, with strong notes of black pepper and garlic powder, tastes wonderful with the tangy-sweet signature sauce, which like a mustard-spiked ketchup. The pickles add a nice layer of crunch, but otherwise go unnoticed.

It’s good, but not Chick-fil-A good, lacking the succulent, plump texture from Chick-fil-A’s pressure cooking, as well as the sweet and nutty flavors imparted by the peanut oil and seasonings. Additionally, I found myself missing Chick-fil-A’s buttered bun, as well as the steamed effect when you get it to go in one of those specially-designed pouches. Still, the Classic Chicken Sandwich is probably the most enjoyable McDonald’s chicken sandwich I’ve ever had, and at 45 cents cheaper than Chick-fil-A’s, it’s a good value.

That said, I’m not crazy about the national rollout of the $1-$2-$3 menu at McDonald’s, which killed the 2 for $3 and 2 for $4 deals that had been staples at my local restaurant. Pressed between spending $3 on a medium fries and double cheeseburger or spending the same amount on the Classic Chicken Sandwich, I’d choose the latter 9 out of 10 times, if only because of its modest size.

All things considered, if you love McDonald’s buttermilk chicken, you’re going to love this sandwich. I can only hope the Golden Arches finds a way to increase the value a bit more by including it on the 2 for $5 menu.

(Nutrition Facts – 510 calories, 210 calories from fat, 23 grams of total fat, 4 grams of saturated fat, 0 grams of trans fat, 65 milligrams of cholesterol, 1040 milligrams of sodium, 50 grams of carbohydrates, 0 grams of dietary fiber, 6 grams of sugar, 25 grams of protein.)

Purchased Price: $3.00
Size: N/A
Rating: 7 out of 10
Pros: Chicken is both crispy and juicy, with strong buttermilk flavor. Tangy and sweet signature sauce pairs well with the kick of the chicken’s seasoning. Cheaper than most similarly sized chicken sandwiches.
Cons: Not as good as Chick-fil-A’s. Bun is lackluster and would be better steamed and buttered. Moderate size and not the greatest deal if you add a medium fries, which McDonald’s somehow decided to leave off the value menu.