Leonard Kim
-
Posts
232 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Help Articles
Posts posted by Leonard Kim
-
-
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dl.../602220319/1005
full article including pictures and multimedia.
-
Checked back here and the count is now up to 7. Also posted a summary review. Marc/Oakapple, do you or anybody else know this blogger? He claims Morimoto is better than Nobu and Masa.
-
other new things in oakland cty:
frittata in clawson (main st nr 14 mi). surprisingly inviting and cheery breakfast spot that i find far more enticing than the usual offerings (toast, breakfast club, ohop). a little pricier, though.
Ate here today for breakfast. I agree with the above general characterization. My frittata (vegetarian) was $9. The basic frittata is $5 + $1 per extra ingredient. I'm glad this place exists, allowing one to get breakfast food that incorporates things like greens, balsamic vinegar, shallots, artichoke hearts, and sun-dried tomatoes.
We enjoyed it despite having been in a hurry and failing to anticipate that the food would take slightly longer in coming compared to cheaper, "usual offerings" breakfast places.
We may return, though honestly, I felt just the slightest bit queasy afterwards, but then again, the same thing happened to me after Cafe Zola omelettes, so it might just be me. Actually, Cafe Zola isn't the worst comparison in terms of approach to breakfast, though Frittata is, I think, a cheerier and neater space, albeit with a smaller menu.
Irrelevancy: there's no back door from the parking lot. The door that looks like it might be the back door to Frittata is to the next door burger and ice cream place. The place is called "Grumpy's", which I hope is not a reaction to the undoubted numerous people making the same mistake we did, and walking through the (at the time empty) place to go to Frittata.
Here's the Free Press review (the one they have posted in the restaurant.)
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:nI5L-z...s&ct=clnk&cd=11
-
Was re-reading Bruni's revew online and found this at the bottom. Most prudent thing would've been not to bring it up here at all. I'll settle for presenting it without comment.
Readers' ReviewsReader Rating (3.75 stars, 12 votes)
MOST HELPFUL READER REVIEW
February 8, 2006
I've been a restaurant reviewer at a major Canadian newspaper for 24 years. I also teach The Art of Restaurant Reviewing at a University here in Toronto. I just want to say that Frank Bruni's review of Gilt is an example that I will take to class. He has used extraordinary skill to analyze an extremely complex dining situation, utilizing humor, foodie knowledge and just plain good taste. I applaud him and I hope you will pass my remarks on to him. thanks. sara waxman
-
For those interested, a complete list of third season challengers and a presumably incomplete list of judges has been posted:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_ia_th...6_28006,00.html
The first three eps to air (starting 2/26) are Batali vs. Besh, Flay vs. MacMillan, and Cora vs. Dotolo/Shook
For the lazy:
Challengers:
John Besh (Restaurant August, New Orleans)
Richard Blais (ONE midtown kitchen, Atlanta)
David Bull (Driskill Grill, Austin)
Joey Campanaro (Pace, NYC)
Homaru Cantu (Moto, Chicago)
Ian Chalermkittichai (Kittichai, NYC)
Josh Dechellis (Jovia and Sumile, NYC)
Roberto Donna (Galileo, D.C.)
Vinny Dotolo and John Shook, "The Food Dudes" (Blue Palms Lounge, L.A.)
Christophe Eme (Ortolan, L.A.)
Elizabeth Falkner (Citizen Cake, S.F.)
Gale Gand and Rick Tramonto (Tru, Chicago)
Susur Lee (Susur, Toronto)
Ludovic Lefebvre (Bastide, L.A.)
Beau MacMillan (Sanctuary on Camelback Mountain, Arizona)
Morou (formerly Signatures, D.C.)
Ralph Pagano ("Hell's Kitchen")
Michael Psilakis (Onera, NYC)
Walter Royal (Angus Barn, Raleigh, N.C.)
Walter Scheib (formerly the White House)
Laurent Tourondel (BLT ..., NYC)
Johnny Vinczencz (Johnny V, Fort Lauderdale)
Patricia Yeo (Sapa, NYC)
Food-related (however tangentially) judges:
Tony Abou-Ganim
Ted Allen
Karine Bakhoum
Monisha Bharadwaj
Melissa Clark
Chris Cognac
Dana Cowin
Barbara Fairchild
Gael Greene
Ed Levine
Naomi Moriyama
Drew Nieporent
Maureen Petroskey
Julie Powell
Art Smith
Jeffrey Steingarten
Barry Wine
Media celebrity types:
Candace Bushnell
Paquito D'Rivera
Mark Ecko
Andrew Firestone
Michael Gelman
Lester Holt
Cady Huffman
Joel McHale
Mo Rocca
Steve Shrripa
Hannah Storm
-
I had duck's blood soup in metro Detroit as recently as 6-7 years ago. For the life of me, I can't remember where. The experience as a whole wasn't all that memorable, obviously. But if anybody really wanted to know, I could find out where it was.
-
I prefer to think of it as historical perspective rather than statistical analysis. Speaking of which, remember this?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A965958260
-
Well, there's the added consideration that Bouley was only his 3rd review ever. Sure things are never simple, but it's not Kremlinology, just rocket science
Interesting how a quarter of his *** ratings were accomplished in the space of his first three reviews (Babbo, too.)
-
A couple comments on the comments:
I guess it would have been clearer to say that I read the evidence as saying:
1) regardless of aspirations, no restaurant can (or should) have a "baseline" rating of ****. So that it shouldn't come as a shock if a top-gunning restaurant ends up with ** because of perceived flaws. And yes, in such reviews, he needs to explain those flaws.
2) his reviews indicate that to get ***, the food must either be flawless (the "no bad comments" thing) or must be transcendent enough in some respects to offset a few negatives (Per Se, Perry St.) I didn't mean to imply that he considers *only* food for ***, but that the food must meet this minimal standard to achieve ***.
Wasn't this what his premiere review on Babbo was all about? That perfect food (as he seems to consider Babbo's) is his *** standard but more is needed for ****?
3) I do view demotions to *** as an exception and, as I've stated before, I'd venture to guess that if these were first reviews, rather than re-reviews, Bruni might have given at least Bouley **.
4) Interestingly enough, another thing he said in the Nobu 57 review was that he thought it was better than the original.
-
I wish I had ended my last post a little differently, perhaps a little more crankily. While I continue to believe the Times and Bruni essentially know what they're doing, I should have drawn this contrast between Grimes WD-50 review and Bruni's Gilt review.
My reading of the Grimes review is that the ** is one thing and Wylie Dufresne another, and that Grimes wouldn't presume to offer Wylie Dufresne advice about things he could do to get a higher rating.
On the other hand:
He's an evolving young artist who needs to draw sharper distinctions between his greater and lesser ideas.I could do without the classic example of critic's arrogance. (It's really just the one word, "needs," so I'm not really complaining. Nobody should be held to the every word just right standard.) But it's one thing for a critic to point out a possible disconnect between chef and Everydiner. It's quite another for the critic to presume to tell a chef what he or she should be doing. "Paul, you just listen to me, and you'll get those *'s in a couple of years."
-
Some assorted observations in the wake of Bruni's ** review of Gilt.
Bruni has still done relatively more **** reviews than any other NYT critic since 1981. (He's given out 3: Per Se, Masa, and reconfirming Le Bernardin, in the space of 89 ratings.)
Bruni has given out roughly the *same* percentage of *** reviews as his predecessors: 8 so far, or about 9%. Actually, he is on the stingy side. Grimes and especially Reichl were more generous.
2 of those *** ratings (ADNY and, essentially, Bouley) were demotions, giving him only 6 "fresh" *** ratings. It could be that had he been the first reviewer of the two aforementioned places, he might have actually given **. (It calls to mind Reichl's account of her demotion of Le Cirque in Garlic and Sapphires where her impulse was to give ** but the powers-that-be pushed for *** instead, reasoning that the only thing people would care about was that she had taken the 4th * away.)
It shouldn't be hard to read six reviews to see what they say about Bruni's standards for a *** restaurant.
The restaurants are: Babbo, Blue Hill at Stone Barns, BLT Fish, Cru, Nobu 57, and Perry St.
Setting aside one's own opinion of these restaurants --
In 5 out of 6 cases, Bruni has *nothing* bad to say about the food (though he will find fault with other things.) The worst thing he writes about the food at Nobu 57, for example, is "most of the food was terrific."
The exception is Perry St. where he does find flaws but also writes, "But when Perry St. scores, it scores much, much bigger than most restaurants."
Hey, he's not a robot, so can't be 100% consistent. But I think it's fair to say that if he or his dining companions genuinely didn't like something about the food, he's not going to give it ***. I tend to agree that you can't rate something highly if people have problems with it, even if a vocal, expert contingent "know" it's better. And he's good about giving credit to the chefs' talents despite any such reservations.
Contrary to the previous post's quoted assertion, I believe the evidence is there that *** is, for Bruni, clearly about the food.
I think the dining companions are important here (though I know others here don't like Bruni's invocation of them). If it were just him, then I can see the argument that one man's taste shouldn't dictate the rating. I think he recognizes that something as rare as a *** or **** review needs to have some consensus behind it. Previous critics have recognized this as well. Put another way, it does not seem to be policy to give a high rating to a restaurant where some or even many people *for whatever reason* will have a transcendent experience and others will be disappointed. In Bruni's case, I think what incenses so many people here is that "the reason" appears to be the "uneducated, non-expert" palate of the reviewer and his buddies. But it's still a legitimate reason and arguably as legitimate a reason for the vast majority of readers and restaurant goers as Reichl's socially non-elite and faux-non-elite diners at Le Cirque and Daniel.
Again, Bruni is not a robot. He'll pull rank with the readership if he wants. That's part of the fun of being a critic.
I regularly field complaints from friends who found their experiences there disappointing.Because of the restaurant's legend they expect a riot of flourishes, an explosion of fireworks. Nothing less than being made to levitate above the table will do. Le Bernardin does not work that way. Sure, it musters bits of incidental theater: in keeping with its French background it serves many appetizers and entrees with a final, fancy application of broth or sauce at the table.
But it eschews high drama, both in the dining room, which has all the sex appeal of a first-class airport lounge, and in the dishes, many of which are paradigms of subtlety.
As far as ratings go, he seems to give no extra credit for innovation and originality (nor demotion for lack thereof) though he will acknowledge these characteristics in the reviews. I believe the following quote, from the Nobu 57 review, is crucial:
. . . regular folk were my usual companions. What mattered most to them, and to me, wasn't whether Nobu 57 was exploring new culinary horizons. . .I believe one can legitimately take issue with a "no credit for innovation" stance because it's a no-win situation. He will penalize a restaurant if he feels the innovation, especially of the ostentatious sort, detracts from taste. Innovation can't help your rating, but it can hurt it. That doesn't seem right to me (if it's in fact true), especially since I think this is an issue where Bruni does let his personal preferences color his evaluation.
. . . at moments too intent on culinary adventure or too highfalutin in its presentation and descriptions of dishes. . . . But Per Se also dares to be different, and insists, sometimes to its slight detriment, on departing from favorites like grouper or Dover sole for something like cobia, a game fish that, at least at Per Se, was too chewy to warrant the trouble.Dessert almost spoils the party. The pastry chef, Will Goldfarb, has been known, in past jobs, to use tobacco and mentholated cough drops in his concoctions. While he restrains himself at Cru, I still sensed inclinations toward both rebelliousness (pools of chocolate from which most traces of sweetness had been banished) and self-conscious showmanship.I understand the complaints I read about him here. But I strongly believe that he *knows* he's not writing for an audience like egullet. I think practically, considering that it is the New York Times, that's the right decision.
BLT Fish affirms the enormous appeal of the middlebrow. It presents great food without airs.[66, Spice Market, and V Steakhouse] rely as heavily on the novelty of their overarching conceits (Chinese goes sexy, the steakhouse does sarcasm) as they do on what happens in the kitchen. It was Jean-Georges the high-wire entrepreneur more than Jean-Georges the culinary genius who sired them. They have vacuous showmanship in their DNA.Perry St. doesn't. This one is from the heart, not the head. And while it is undeniably flawed and surprisingly inconsistent, it's cause for celebration, chiefly because it marks Mr. Vongerichten's return to the straightforwardness of Jo Jo, which he opened in 1991, and of his flagship, Jean Georges, which came along in 1997.
I think Bruni is probably right to reject the notion that the restaurant's aspirations (n) sets the baseline and that n+1 or n-1 constitute particular successes and failures. And it's his right. As time goes by, it's probably true that new restaurants will become more and more ambitious, and objectively that raises the bar. The key question is whether the Times should raise its standards to maintain the relative numbers of starred ratings, or whether they should keep constant standards, resulting in greater numbers of *** and **** star restaurants. I believe one can validly hold either opinion, but that Bruni has chosen the former. In order to maintain ratings scarcity, he is holding ambitious new entries to higher standards than might have been held in the past, simply because there are more such entries with such ambitions. If he gave *** or **** to every restaurant that people here thought might possibly merit it, he would become the "softest" NYT food critic in at least 25 years.
My last point isn't about Bruni directly, though I think it's relevant. I'm thinking about Grimes' review of WD-50. He gave ** and stated directly that some people didn't derive much pleasure from the food. He cites other diners and admits that he himself is somewhat in agreement. I believe that's a very Bruni-esque rating and rationale. But Grimes, and perhaps Bruni too, realizes that though the stars are for the masses, they are nobody's end-all, and writes
in the end, Mr. Dufresne should listen to his muse and ignore everyone else. -
I'm not so sure I stand by my stars explanation any more, at least where Bruni is concerned, but I need to do a little more research before I post on the subject in the Bruni and Beyond thread.
Sorry for the following irrelevancy: in the context of the movie, I thought it was to be understood that Mozart *did* use too many notes, at least in "Martern aller Arten," in that he had composed essentially extraneous passages for the sole purpose of giving his singer the opportunity to show off, and that opportunity was paid for (not in ducats.)
-
Ate tonight at Fiddleheads in decidedly not-downtown Royal Oak. For what it is, I would recommend it. Especially since it's been open a couple of years now and I don't think I've seen it mentioned here.
The only review readily available online is listed below. For what it's worth, the daily papers also like it -- it's a "Molly Abraham fave" and Rector wrote of it, "I've never come home disappointed from this stylish little spot with the sophisticated but unpretentious menu on Thirteen Mile in Royal Oak. Even after founding chef Gavin McMillian left and sous chef James Gundy took over last summer, Fiddleheads' fresh, seasonal, creative American cuisine has continued to blossom.")
http://www.metrotimes.com/metropolis/resta...iew.asp?id=8623
The review gives an idea of the place though of the dishes cited, only the "pretty mainstream" spaghetti with veal meatballs is still on the menu. And the ice cream is still made off premises (it's Ray's though, so that's OK.)
Everything we tried was good enough to make it a pleasant evening and parts of it were even better. At 15-25$ an entree, I'll certainly take it.
The menu is more varied and interesting than what the following might indicate (we were unusually unadventurous tonight.)
We tried:
prosciutto cannelloni with vinaigrette appetizer -- not cannelloni in the pasta sense, since the prosciutto is the tube.
roasted carrot soup -- the dollop of goat cheese in the middle made those spoonfuls better than "good enough", and I wish it had been bigger.
ocean trout with leek risotto -- a bit underdone for my wife's taste
the rest, spaghetti and veal meatballs, chocolate moonpie dessert, bread and wine -- no complaints.
I would go back. Admittedly it is very convenient to where I live and work. Definitely the prices are attractive in the sense that many places you would pay that much to get something boring and/or bad.
-
According to the Food Network website, Besh is battling Batali, not Flay. It will air February 26 and, to my knowledge, is the first of the new, recently taped episodes to air.
-
I think I'm most in agreement with philadinings post and would add that
1) In all the publicity, there's not much we've heard from Mr. Morimoto himself, perhaps because of his somewhat limited English. However, in an essay he wrote for the Iron Chef book, he says the following, written before Morimoto NYC and even Morimoto Philadelphia:
What if I die five years later, amid all these congratulatory words? Then nothing has come out of my being an Iron Chef. The real battle for Masaharu Morimoto begins now. I plan on opening my own restaurant in New York in the year 2001. I plan to go as far as I can as a chef. Do I have a chance? Of course I do. Failing in Tokyo is one thing, but I cannot afford to fail in New York. I will succeed in New York.I think these aren't words of a chef just attaching his name to a restaurant. I suspect that Philadelphia was, sorry, a trial run, a stepping stone, call it what you will, with New York always the intended goal. So it's probably not fair to view this as a Philadelphia export, at least from Morimoto's (if not Starr's) standpoint. Actually, given the fact that people's dining experience at Morimoto Philadelphia seems awfully well-correlated to whether Morimoto was actually in the kitchen, things may take a turn for the worse there.
I suspect Morimoto considers himself a New Yorker leading me to
2) Of course Nobu is the reference point. Morimoto was head sushi chef there. Reichl's 1995 review is framed by her interactions with Morimoto (which I find rather charming as this was before he became IRON CHEF MORIMOTO) and she uses him as the exemplar of the Nobu spirit.
In New York, Mr. Matsuhisa's spirit of invention lighted a spark in the kitchen, igniting each chef to new and increasingly daring feats. The fire started slowly; in the beginning the kitchen seemed lost when Mr. Matsuhisa, who spends only one week a month in New York, was not on the premises. But then the head chef, Shin Tsujimura, who spent many years at Hatsuhana in Manhattan, and the chefs who work with him began to seem excited by the possibilities of being liberated from tradition."Do you like my 'sorbet,' the head sushi chef, Masaharu Morimoto, asked one day, stopping by to introduce his latest creation. The little ball of white fluff looked like ice cream but turned out to be grated turnip with a single enormous peeled grape inside. On top, like the icing on a sundae, was a fan of marinated abalone. Each bite was clean, refreshing, delicious. . . .
Sushi lovers will find that no kitchen in the city turns out a more spectacular plate of raw fish. And sake lovers, having learned to love the flavor of the Hokusetsu sake, which trickles out of iced bamboo pitchers with the pure flavor of melted snow, will find it almost impossible to drink the stuff served in other restaurants. Even dessert, once the Achilles heel of the kitchen, has improved. Melon balls dance across slabs of slate framed by stars made of jellied fruits and chocolate. Grape sorbet arrives in a bamboo box. And what is this on top? A feathery toothpick that looks like no other in the world.
"Do you like it?" Mr. Morimoto asks, laughing with delight. "I carved it out of a fish tail."
And say wasn't Nobu itself an import of another city's restaurant? Here's Reichl again, in words that could be recycled, should Morimoto succeed:
But while you're waiting for these new ventures, let me suggest a visit to Nobu, a remarkable restaurant that epitomizes the energy of the city at this exact moment. When Nobu opened last year, most people assumed that it would be a clone of its Los Angeles sibling, Matsuhisa. In the beginning, despite flashy digs designed by David Rockwell and management by the restaurant impresario Drew Nieporent, that is pretty much what it was. But the restaurant's instant popularity had a remarkable effect: as Nobu matured, it gained confidence and developed its own personality. It has grown into a restaurant that cannot be compared to anything else.3) But this is 12 years ago, which is the point some of you are making with respect to the prospects of this restaurant "at this exact moment." And the other point is, taking away the hype, how good is Masaharu Morimoto really? Good enough to be head sushi chef at Nobu. And how far has he come since then? Where does that place him now among the city's Japanese chefs? Is it good enough for the success of Morimoto NYC? I have no answer to these questions, but it seems to me this is the way to approach the food question, and probably some of you can take a good stab at it.
-
In the first season, the Iron Chef Americans went 7-3, which is pretty much the same winning percentage as the original Iron Chefs.
In the second season, the Iron Chef Americans went 7-5-2. Two of the Iron Chefs (Morimoto and Cora) are batting .500 overall, and Cora actually had a losing record in the second season.
So yeah, I'd say compared to the Japanese show, the challengers have a better shot at taking it.
-
For what it's worth, RR doesn't have any illusions about her being on the show:
I was really nervous; I'm not a chef," says Rachael. "I don't belong on 'Iron Chef.' To be asked was honor enough, but I really didn't want to do it. Then I thought about it and I said, 'You're so frightened of that show, why don't you give it a shot. -
My wife and I have been to Jeremy twice in the recent past and they were two of the most enjoyable dining experiences we've had in the area. The menus were quite different the two times we went, so that is worth keeping track of for planned vists and re-visits. The second time we went, there were a number of Mediterranean/Middle Eastern touches which were not there the first time.
-
Please, call me Leonard.
As for Sheraton's zero star ratings, here's a sampling. I've selected restaurants that were either re-reviewed by a later critic (and therefore was considered "review-worthy" by a later critic) or a restaurant that is (I think) still open today, so that somebody here can opine whether such a restaurant would merit a review today.
Note I do not view this as evidence for or against star inflation, except in a limited way. Obviously, restaurants can change greatly in 10-20 years, and often re-reviews are prompted by major changes in the restaurant in question.
Also remember there was no "satisfactory" rating when Sheraton was reviewing. So, "fair" should be taken to equal "satisfactory."
Anche Vivolo -- Fair (1/8/82).
Ben Benson's Steakhouse -- Fair (2/25/83). (Asimov gives * on 7/16/93).
Brasserie -- Fair (1/30/81). (Grimes gives ** on 3/15/00).
Capsouto Freres -- Fair (2/6/81). (Reichl gives Satisfactory on 3/21/97).
Century Cafe -- Fair (11/5/82). (Miller gives ** on 9/11/92. This is not the Chinese place currently open under this name.)
Elio's -- Fair (1/22/82).
Empire Szechuan Balcony -- Fair (10/30/81).
Gallagher's -- Fair (9/25/81). (Miller gives Satisfactory on 1/22/88).
Hosteria Fiorella Italian -- Fair (6/3/83). (Miller gives ** on 7/24/92).
Joe Broadway Steakhouse -- Fair (3/19/82).
Le Relais -- Poor (5/28/82).
Nicola's -- Fair (5/6/83).
Quo Vadis -- Fair (6/11/82). (Burros gives Fair on 7/15/83 and Miller gives ** on 1/23/87).
Raoul's -- Fair (6/25/82). (Miller gives * on 4/5/91).
Sardi's -- Fair (3/6/81). (Miller gives Poor on 12/9/88 and Satisfactory on 3/8/91)
Victor's Cafe 52 -- Fair (4/3/81). (Miller gives * on 9/18/87 and 12/20/91).
I certainly wouldn't know, but it seems to me that of these only Empire Szechuan Balcony would be unreviewable today.
I'm pretty sure the single greatest reason for the death of the zero star rating is Reichl's shift to "one review, one restaurant." Before that, it was quite common to see Miller or Sheraton rate two restaurants in a single review, often one being starred and one not.
I want to repeat that the New York Times used to state that "comparable establishments" are considered when granting stars. Yes, that language isn't there anymore, but I don't know that the NYT has explicitly repudiated it. If that's the case, what does it matter that different types of restaurants have the same rating? They're not to be compared to each other. No matter how one thinks the system should work, only the NYT and its critics can dictate how it actually does work.
Historical practice suggests that **** and most *** are "absolute" ratings. Restaurants may aspire to these ratings and fall short in the eyes of the critic and hence receive ** or *. Other restaurants without such aspirations are clearly ranked on a separate scale, relative to their own set of peers, where ** restaurants exceed expectations and * restaurants don't (with the odd *** thrown in.) Certainly a restaurant with ** on the former scale and one with ** on the latter are not comparable, and I don't see why that should bother anybody.
-
I'm embarrassed to admit that I did study this, though not all the way to its illogical endpoint. I looked at the reviews that were readily available on-line (comprising almost everything from 1981 with the exception of "Times Select" articles which, as I no longer subscribe to the print version, were inaccessible to me.) That got me over 500 Miller ratings, about 180 of Sheraton's, 280 of Reichl's, and 80 of Bruni's.
What's interesting from the standpoint of trying to figure out the logic of the star system is how differently each critic apportioned the stars. As I mentioned in my previous point, Bruni is in fact unusual for being very similar to Grimes in the way he hands them out. Here's a quick rundown:
Sheraton: her "default" rating is one star (nearly half of her reviews.) There are roughly equal numbers on each side of zero star and two star reviews (20-25% each). In fact, in my sample, there were more zero stars than two stars. Three and four stars are, as with everybody, a rarity. IMO, this is the most sensible system.
Miller: gave out roughly equal numbers of one and two star reviews (35-40% each), with slightly more two stars. However he still gave out a number of zero star reviews (10-15%) mostly in the context of double reviews.
Reichl: the peak has clearly shifted to two stars (over half the reviews.) Reichl was also the most generous with three stars (15%). Zero star reviews have become the rarity we are now accustomed to (4-5%).
Grimes and Bruni: the majority of reviews are back to Miller frequencies, though with more one stars than two stars. However, zero stars are still lacking.
In the broad view, Miller and Reichl were both culpable for star inflation. Nowadays, I think part of the confusion in the usage of one vs. two stars is that zero stars is no longer a really viable or usable rating. That is, it would be easier to understand if we had 2-1-0 stars roughly correspond to above average - average - below average. However, as it stands, it really is only a two star system, so the whole question of what's the average rating and what's the dividing line between one and two stars becomes very murky.
-
While it's certainly fair to question the ratings of individual restaurants, I don't know that we can claim that overall Bruni bestows the "two star kiss." He's handed out proportionately fewer two star ratings than any of his three predecessors: Grimes, Reichl, and Miller. If anybody could have been accused of two-star default-ism, it's Reichl. Over half of her reviews were two stars. Miller also gave out more two star reviews than one star reviews.
As of now, Bruni is most comparable to Grimes in his bestowing of stars: mostly 1 and 2 stars, with slightly more 1 stars.
Again, I'm not saying that individual reviews don't have questionable ratings.
From perusing the online NYT archive, it appears there used to be (pre-1984) an explicit statement in "What the Stars Mean" that "comparable establishments" were considered in rating the restaurants. Obviously that's been changed, but I wonder if that couldn't still factor in somehow, or whether the critics are actively discouraged from it.
Detroit Restaurants: Reviews & Recommendations
in The Heartland: Dining
Posted
Had dinner at Boocoo tonight. In another thread, this place was described as "solid" but not much more beyond that. I'll go with that.
I preferred our recent dinner at Fiddleheads, though my wife would disagree. She loved her veal osso buco. The most enjoyable thing I tried was the duck and chestnut ravioli appetizer.
Portions were gigantic. I was full to bursting and still got to take home enough for another meal.
Pretty space, though all the wood made it quite loud even though the restaurant was not crowded.