Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2006)

[rich]

But the RTR isn't supposed to serve great food. It's supposed to serve top quality caviar, some blini, a bit of borscht, some rubbery chicken kiev and some great champagne.

No one should go there and order burgundy with carpaccio and truffles. The RTR is a landmark and a room with a view (of itself). It would be like going to Tavern on the Green or the Rainbow Room or the 21 Club and expecting great food. That's not why you go to those places. I don't hink the Times review will hurt business. Tourists and well-heeled caviar lovers will allow it to continue for a couple of years. After that the owners will revamp and come up with another twist.

Whether Robins stays is moot. He really doesn't belong there anyway.

[Sneakeater]

That's why I initially thought it was stupid for them to hire Robins in the first place.

Problem was, when I ate there, I really liked the food.

[oakapple]

"Anyhow, practically the only type of bad publicity is none at all,"

tell that to Sascha.

←

Or Craftsteak.

Or Gilt.

Or (I'd imagine) Lonesome Dove.

←

The key word in the post is "practically."

[Fat Guy]

But the RTR isn't supposed to serve great food. It's supposed to  serve top quality caviar, some blini, a bit of borscht, some rubbery chicken kiev and some great champagne.

←

Point of context: the Russian Tea Room, in its pre-closing incarnation, had a talented chef and was pretty damn good. I dined there in 2001, when Renaud Le Rasle was the chef (you may remember him as the chef at Medi, where Roger Verge was consulting chef), and I was impressed. Le Rasle collaborated with Darra Goldstein to create the restaurant's modern takes on Russian Imperial cuisine. The Russian Tea Room's pelmeni were the best in town, and the chicken Kiev was moist and buttery. Beverage director Daniel Hartensteinis was infusing vodkas on premises. It was a good restaurant.

[Todd36]

Having eaten recently at the RTR, which I didn't like, and having eaten twice at the Biltmore Room, which I liked, I think Bruni's review was on. I don't think it was downgraded becuase of service, frankly the food wasn't that good in my opinion. And I think its clear from the review that the food isn't very good. To compare to the Perry Street review is off, Perry Street has both a physical built-out and staffing that suggests an attempt at a high end restaurant, Bruni was probably trying to compare Perrt Street to a four star restaurant, not unreasonable considering who runs the place and what the target audience appears to be.

[Nathan]

"I don't think it was downgraded becuase of service, frankly the food wasn't that good in my opinion. And I think its clear from the review that the food isn't very good. "

that is utterly insane. I understand you didn't like the restaurant, but you clearly didn't read the review.

Perry Street is terrific but it is obviously not intended to be a four-star restaurant and neither was Bruni comparing it to four star restaurants.

If anything, PS is the very definition of the three star category.

Edited December 22, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Todd36]

"I don't think it was downgraded becuase of service, frankly the food wasn't that good in my opinion. And I think its clear from the review that the food isn't very good. "

that is utterly insane.  I understand you didn't like the restaurant, but you clearly didn't read the review.

Perry Street is terrific but it is obviously not intended to be a four-star restaurant and neither was Bruni comparing it to four star restaurants.

If anything, PS is the very definition of the three star category.

←

I read the review. You might want to go back and re-read the review, it doesn't say what you think it says. It starts off by saying some things are wonderful, followed by "more than a few" dishes are not so wonderful, followed by the kitchen is very inconsistent, burned blini is given as an example, followed by the restaurant is very expensive (which is true, a full meal approaches the prix fix at say Danie). Big surprise that something priced almost as high as Daniel with inconsistent food and a significant number of not so good dishes gets one star. Read my review post about the place, those bones in the halibut, and it wasn't very good excluding the bones. Perry Street has pretensions, the build out is fairly nice actually, and there is a high staff to customer ratio, it has also things like nice dinnerware. You can argue what Perry Street is, but it doesn't feel downscale to me. RTR feels like something that belongs in the Grand Hyatt at Grand Central.....it does not feel right.

[Sneakeater]

I know this has been discussed to death, but I think a review today of a restaurant that opened IN NOVEMBER is ridiculously premature.

[Sneakeater]

Also, I wish Peter Meehan's friend were my friend.

[Nathan]

"Read my review post about the place, those bones in the halibut, and it wasn't very good excluding the bones. Perry Street has pretensions, the build out is fairly nice actually, and there is a high staff to customer ratio, it has also things like nice dinnerware. You can argue what Perry Street is, but it doesn't feel downscale to me. RTR feels like something that belongs in the Grand Hyatt at Grand Central.....it does not feel right. "

in other words, you're confusing your review with Bruni's. and that's my point. I'm not advocating that RTR is a good restaurant...but it is 100% clear that Bruni liked (even loved) most of what he ate. That's the point. We're talking about Bruni's review, not about RTR. You seem to be talking about the latter. and "more than a few" doesn't mean much since he only gives two examples.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

in his review, Bruni lauds TEN dishes plus a general homage to the desserts. He uses descriptions such as: "terrific", "out of this world", "kraut to end all krauts" etc.

he then has negative things to say about TWO dishes and a portion of the caviar service (does anyone get good caviar these days?) and notes inconsistency with the blini. He didn't say anything about the halibut.

Now on what planet were we reading the same review? What we have here is a classic case of projection.

Edited December 27, 2006 by Nathan (log)

[BryanZ]

So Bruni's Sasabune report was right on I thought. It reads like a two-star food review (which the restaurant is) but he gives it one star for the restaurant's quirks (of which it has many).

Bruni comments on many of the aspects I noticed were unique based on my recent visit. The efficient but not overly welcoming servers, the temperature of the rice, the strong use of vinegar or citrus on certain pieces, occasional pieces sloppily presented.

Bruni has been all over the place when it comes to Japanese restaurants, and from the prose itself this reads a lot like his "two star neigborhood joint" reviews, but he understands the restaurant well as one that is perhaps not for everyone.

Again, this review seems incredibly premature, as Kenji suggested that he might begin to offer cooked offerings in the next couple months, but it does sum up the overall feel of the place.

[Nathan]

when did it actually open?

I thought the review read a little hastily put together (not surprising considering its the end of the year).