Bruni's reviews, in my opinion, don't embarrass the Times. He is not too insidery and beholden to the particular currents of the New York restaurant world, as the interim critic appeared to be. He is not ponderous, as the former critic was, using endless tropes and blow-by-blow description of each dish devoid of context. Bruni can turn a phrase that makes you smile, and he keeps your attention through the end of the review. He has appetite, a quality too many reviewers lack. He does the reporting. He gives due credit to the chef de cuisine. But it was the Per Se review that made me give up as a reader. I don't want a review of this restaurant to be the one where the reviewer works "dizzingly rich" and "perfect accent" out of his system. I don't want to hear another restaurant reviewer make a lame joke about having to share food. The context in which Bruni frames an observation can seem inexperienced. Any decent jicama will be "packed with moisture." As a diner, I know there can be nothing decadent about summer truffles regardless of the tableside show. Would it not have been more accurate to describe the sous vide foie gras as "vacuum sealed" so as not to make it sound like a bologna sandwich in Saran Wrap? And there's -- so far, at least -- not much poetry in his writing. I liked it when he said that the marble potatoes popped like grapes. But did an "exquisitely balanced" vinaigrette have to give them a "subtle zing?" Bruni has potential. But he needs a season in the minors first.
