Sneakeater

Which latter two, to be clear, DON'T require that you have the phone number.

Not to start a fight (and in a spirit, I hope, of comradeship), I think you're being a bit unfair, ewindels. You've admitted that you like certain restaurants for reasons not necessarily going to food quality (i.e., Landmarc -- another restaurant that you often have to wait a long time to get seated in, BTW). It seems to me that if people like a place like Freeman's for reasons going beyond the strict quality of the food, it's kind of unfair of you to say that your non-food reasons for liking one place are better than their non-food reasons for liking another. Even Bruni admitted in his review that the room at Freeman's is amusing and kind of cool; he even remarked that he smiled every time he entered. I think that that's what draws the crowds there; not blind obedience to some mass status directive. (Which is why I also would distinguish Freeman's from the Asian and Meatpacking Multiplexes: to me, those places seem much more cynically "packaged" than this rather low-key place -- and aimed at a completely different crowd.) And in anticipation of a rebuttal that the food at Landmarc is much better than the food at Freeman's, I'll note that the prices at Landmarc are a good deal higher than at Freeman's. That may not matter much to you or me -- but it does to the younger crowd Freeman's is designed to cater to. I'm not trying to defend Freeman's as a really good place. I think it richly deserved its "Satisfactory". I just don't think it's fair to tar its partisans as a bunch of ignorant sheep.

And we both forgot THOR.

I think I read that they announced that they had, but then something got screwed up and they haven't. So they're still doing their no-corkage BYOB, which is great for customers if not for them.

Not that it's important (or changes your point), but just to be obnoxious and show-offy, Orchard.

Hey waitaminute. I like Freeman's.

Sure. But Bruni doesn't ultimately review every place he checks out. He could have decided not to do a review of Freeman's after he determined he didn't think it was starworthy.

Yeah, but just to clarify the point I was muddledly trying to make, my suspicion is that Bruni did this no-star review to make a point (i.e., to show that he won't give a star or two to every modest neighborhood place, and to show by negative example what he thinks makes some such places deserve stars) (sort of like how his very first review not only reviewed Babbo but also attempted to give an idea of what he thought a four-star restaurant is like). I'm not saying there's a "new Bruni" or that Bruni's succeeded in either rationalizing his star distributions or remedying any damage he's already done to the star system. Only that I see this Freeman's review as a possible attempt. (Fortunately, Freeman's is sufficiently "Teflon", as Eater put it, that being used as an example probably won't hurt it much.)

She had a much better figure than the sculpture would lead you to think.

When I was a young hipster the vast spaces in which the parties we went to were held, where large groups of people lived together, were in caves. Not only did the inhabitants purport to be artists, but they inscribed their works (mostly depictions of buffalo hunting, as I recall) right on the walls.

(Of course, the real answer is that you can't rate places like Freeman's, Little Owl, and Trestle on the same scale as places like Alto, Del Posto, and the Modern. But we all know that.)

At first, I had the same knee-jerk reaction I'll bet almost everybody had: why waste a review slot on an inexpensive place like Freeman's, appropriately (and, in fact, already) covered in "$25 and Under", if you're only going to rate it "Satisfactory"? But when I thought about it, I saw that Bruni's Freeman's review actually sort of served a purpose. He's been reviewing all these relatively modest neighborhood places, putting a lot of stress on the star system by giving some of them relatively high (for what they are) two-star ratings. And he's been taking a lot of heat for it. Whether by design or not, I think this week's review of Freeman's, and last week's review of Trestle on Tenth, operate as a sort of corrective. Trestle is fairly a one-star restaurant: there is a level of technical expertise there, but the food is not of a consistent level -- and even the best of it isn't that great. And, much as many of us enjoy Freeman's, it's fairly a no-star restaurant (indeed for pretty much exactly the reasons Bruni stated): while the food is mostly perfectly edible, the only stand-out dish is the famous artichoke dip; everything else is rather dull and lacking in any special expertise. Now you might say that Freeman's is a prototypical "$25 and Under" place: fun decor, fun experience, decent food that's good enough for the price but no better. But on the other hand, taken in conjunction with the Trestle review, the Freeman's review goes a way toward establishing what the rating parameters are at the "modest neighborhoody place" level. Although I'm not condoning two-star ratings for places like Little Owl, you can sort of see how Little Owl could get two stars, Trestle could get one, and Freeman's none. By reviewing Freeman's and denying it any stars, Bruni showed by negative example why he thinks some such places deserve the higher ratings he gives them. (Although I also suspect there may be some sort of retrenchment going on, and that we can expect to see fewer two-star "Bruni kisses" for modest places in the future.) Now he'll have to do something to reconcile the ratings he gave Alto, Del Posto, and the Modern. And to reconcile those with two stars for Little Owl, Al Di La, and the Red Cat.

Lobster Box (but the subways don't go there).

Palm????????????????????????????????????????????? Sparks??????????????????????????????????????????? 21 Club???????????????????????????????????????????

Oh come on phlawless. The country that makes probably the most flavorful beers in the world, and a shitload of them, and there's like one flavorless Bud-like beer they make, and somehow that's the one that becomes incredibly popular here?

Not that there's much good to say about Stella Artois.

Oh sorry. Misread you. That's great that you were able to dodge that bullet! Sorry again.

I guess you hadn't read the last four posts in this thread?

(Non-Philadelphian butt-in:) But would that be a GOOD thing? It would be good for the restauranteurs, certainly, but would it be good for the integrity of the board?

These days, what phlawless is describing almost means "grownup".

I guess Roberto Passon (50th St. & 9th Ave.), an Italian place that's probably more like what MJP is looking for, also requires a mention.

Someone has to mention Grand Sichuan International (9th Ave. btwn 50th & 51st Sts.). It's, like, obligatory.

And, in light of all the recurrent questions there've been here lately about date spots, this dialogue, in a cab heading back to Manhattan after dinner in Queens, may be of interest to some: DATE: What should we do now? ME: I thought we could go somewhere special for drinks and dessert. DATE: Where is it? ME: Lafayette between Kenmare and Spring. DATE: YOU MEAN ROOM 4 DESSERT! WE'RE GOING TO ROOM 4 DESSERT! ME: Oh, so you've been? DATE: NO! I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO GO, BUT COULD NEVER FIND ANYONE TO GO WITH! THIS IS GREAT! I think Room 4 Dessert is such an effective date spot because it demonstrates to these incredibly svelte girls, who spend most of their time hanging out with their incredibly svelte girlfriends, that there are advantages to spending time with overweight fat guys.

It's probably not worth very much to add that the chocolate plate on the current menu is one of the very best desserts I've had here. It's all very light (which is not how it looks). The parfait in particular is sort of magical -- you can tell it's quite different from "normal" parfaits, but at least if you're unschooled like me, you can't tell exactly how. That's what's so good about Room 4 Dessert: the cooking is highly technical, but it just works, even if you're unequipped to appreciate the niceties. (Oh, and that Mojito variant lambretta enjoyed -- which is still available even though I didn't see it on the menu -- is just great!)

I have to say, though, that just wandering around the Ghetto, I've had some truly bad food in places I just walked into with no advance information. (Obviously, I can't remember what any of them were.) So be careful.