Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

Nathan · October 31, 2007

perry street

Fat Guy · November 1, 2007

I think the Bar Room and Perry Street both have enough of the trappings of fine dining to cross that Bruni three-star threshold. Although they're casual, it's a studied sort of casualness in the style of DB Bistro Moderne and the like. Neither has the true casualness of Ssam Bar. In addition, the Bar Room in particular (though Perry Street has many of these features too and it's worth noting that Jean Georges was recently renovated and now happens to look a bit more like Perry Street) benefits from shared services with the Modern: an extensive Wine Spectator Best of Award of Excellence wine list, a space that should be the envy of most any other restaurant in the city, serviceware from elite Scandinavian designers, Union Square Hospitality Group oversight of service, very expensive Danish Modern furniture, a real pastry chef.

ulterior epicure · November 1, 2007

Today, Bruni's review of L'Impero and Alto was published; the two cobbled together. He gives L'Impero 2 stars and Alto gets 3.
I'm familiar with both only insofar as it was Conant's stage. However, I am not so experienced (having eaten at neither) as to know the difference... it was always my impression that L'Impero was the "elder" of the two?
←
L'Impero put Scott Conant on the culinary map when Eric Asimov awarded 3* in 2002. Alto, which came later, was designed to be more upscale than L'Impero. Anything less than 3* was going to be a major disappointment. Sure enough, Bruni gave 2*, and Eater put Alto on deathwatch. When I visited Alto, I thought it deserved 3*. To be fair, it's my understanding that Conant tweaked the concept quite a bit, so I wasn't sampling the same menu that Bruni did, but some of Bruni's complaints didn't make much sense.
Today's reviews rank Alto where it was always intended to be. In recent years, L'Impero has been somewhat off the culinary map, so perhaps 2* is indeed the correct rating. However, as Grub Street notes today, under Bruni the two-star rating is a kind of "limbo". You've got would-be three-star restaurants like L'Impero that are being penalized for poor performance, alongside $25-and-under one-star restaurants like Franny's that are being given a bonus for inexpensive excellence.

So, I gather from this that Alto was actually meant to be the higher-end experience... that is to say, that it isn't unnatural (or surprising) for Alto to receive a higher rating than L'Impero.

Fat Guy · November 1, 2007

That's correct, UE. Bruni got the hierarchy right.

raji · November 1, 2007

I hadn't noticed until today, but what do you guys think of the Eater Index?

It is the same mechanism as the Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes, which works remarkably well. However, it is a much smaller sampling of critics so can't possibly work as well.

Nathan · November 1, 2007

it's insanely stupid (and I told them as much) because it doesn't weight the critics by influence. it's moronic.

oakapple · November 1, 2007

it's insanely stupid (and I told them as much) because it doesn't weight the critics by influence. it's moronic.
←

I might be perceived to have a conflict of interest...but that issue doesn't bother me as much. A weighting by influence would give Frank Bruni a 50% score, Adam Platt 30%, and perhaps 20% to divide among the others. With Bruni having that much dominance, Eater might as well just print Bruni's rating, and forget everyone else's.

For me, the stranger thing is how the reviews are somehow converted into numerical scores. On my blog, I awarded two stars each to Pamplona, Tailor, and BLT Market. Somehow, those ratings have been converted into scores of 58, 55, and 53 apiece—how it was done utterly eludes me. Of course, the method is even more opaque where a particular critic doesn't award stars.

There's also a "wild card" vote. In one case, the score for Pamplona is pulled way down because some chowhounder really panned the place.

Fat Guy · November 6, 2007

Restaurant Girl filed a scathing review of Bobo today. A couple of gems:

The chicken grandmere (a classic French fricassee) looked like it had been on a reality show for weight loss - and won.

If you're not the eating type - or particularly hungry - then Bobo's beguiling setting is a perfect way to spend the evening in someone else's home. For those more concerned with culinary matters, you may want to eat before you check into this house of style.

Nathan · November 6, 2007

so Bruni reviews Pamplona tonight.

I can't make up my mind whether I think it gets one-star or none.

my experience there was somewhat underwhelming...as opposed to Urena, which I greatly enjoyed. but I'd guess one-star is fair. it's just that it seemed like every course relied upon cheese as a crutch.

Fat Guy · November 6, 2007

it seemed like every course relied upon cheese as a crutch.
←

You say that like it's a bad thing.

oakapple · November 6, 2007

so Bruni reviews Pamplona tonight.
I can't make up my mind whether I think it gets one-star or none.
←

Bruni tends to reserve his zero-star reviews for commercialized, over-produced disasters. (Freemans was the odd exception.) A restaurant like Pamplona, if he hates it that much, he simply does not review. Also, he filed a zero-star review on Wakiya just five weeks ago, and he tends to do only a few of those per year.

So the only realistic outcomes are one star or two. Bruni loved the food at Urena. His enthusiasm seemed very close to the three-star level, with the rating heavily affected by the ugly ambiance and some service glitches.

Once Bruni forms an attachment for a particular chef's food, he tends to keep liking it, and he has given two stars to plenty of earnest neighborhood places with a husband and wife in the kitchen. Given that background, I think Pamplona has a real shot at two stars. The only question is whether, in dumbing down the original concept, the former Urena has sunk so far that it's now only average. In that case, it will get one star.

Edited November 6, 2007 by oakapple (log)

Nathan · November 6, 2007

it seemed like every course relied upon cheese as a crutch.
←
You say that like it's a bad thing.
←

heh. yep...I'm not a fan of cheese.

Nathan · November 6, 2007

so Bruni reviews Pamplona tonight.
Once Bruni forms an attachment for a particular chef's food, he tends to keep liking it, and he has given two stars to plenty of earnest neighborhood places with a husband and wife in the kitchen. Given that background, I think Pamplona has a real shot at two stars. The only question is whether, in dumbing down the original concept, the former Urena has sunk so far that it's now only average. In that case, it will get one star.
←
that's fair. I'm betting on one cause I just didn't think it was that good. not in the same ballpark as say Little Owl.

BryanZ · November 6, 2007

This is an interesting review for a few reasons. First, as other have mentioned, Bruni has stated a strong liking for Chef Urena's cooking, perhaps more so than any other major critic. He also tends to like casual, honest dining. Pamplona has obviously moved in that direction. With that said, the reviews many of us have read have been mixed, suggesting that this could be a two Bruni star restaurant at times but is perhaps not consistent (across the menu and over time) enough to justify the deuce.

Of course there's the super outside theoretical that Bruni will pull a Bar Room, but the Pamplona objectively lacks the Bar Room's panache/trappings and doesn't have what some may call the USHG curve (much like the somewhat systematic Brooklyn or Italian curves/biases that Bruni also demonstrates).

oakapple, I read your calls every week and I usually agree with them, but this time I think one star has to be the way to go.

Nathan · November 6, 2007

having been to Pamplona (and a look at its menu should be convincing regardless), I can assure you that it's not in the same league as the Bar Room. neither is it to be favorably compared with Casa Mono.

the menu is really dumbed down...

BryanZ · November 7, 2007

Naturally, I'm wrong.

The deuce for Pamplona.

oakapple · November 7, 2007

oakapple, I read your calls every week and I usually agree with them, but this time I think one star has to be the way to go.
←

That's very kind of you. I must say that this was one of the harder calls I've made, and even after posting I kept tossing it back and forth in my head.

having been to Pamplona (and a look at its menu should be convincing regardless), I can assure you that it's not in the same league as the Bar Room. neither is it to be favorably compared with Casa Mono.
the menu is really dumbed down...
←

From the menu alone, I can't see any rational basis for stating that Pamplona is below the level of the many casual restaurants that have earned two stars from Frank Bruni. If it's "dumbed down," that's only in relation to Pamplona's predecessor, Ureña.

Obviously, it comes down to execution. Based on one visit, I was more enthuisiastic about Pamplona than Little Owl. If I paid as many visits as Bruni does, I might have a different opinion. I've not gotten around to Casa Mono (the difficulty of getting in seemed too daunting). I agree that Pamplona isn't quite in Bar Room's class, but nevertheless, I would have given Bar Room two stars, not three.

Edited November 7, 2007 by oakapple (log)

Nathan · November 7, 2007

A. I was wrong. He gave it two.

B. I never said that Pamplona was "dumbed down" compared to other two-star restaurants. I said it was "dumbed down" compared to Bar Room.

C. Bruni explicitly avowed my take on how he rates restaurants. He states that Pamplona is not as good as Urena (to which he gave two stars) but that it's cheaper and so it still gets two stars. No mention of categories.

oakapple · November 7, 2007

C. Bruni explicitly avowed my take on how he rates restaurants. He states that Pamplona is not as good as Urena (to which he gave two stars) but that it's cheaper and so it still gets two stars. No mention of categories.
←

Bruni gives a rationale only about 5% of the time. From the occasional bread-crumbs he leaves behind, you could not explain his ratings without a lot of imagination. And even the bread-crumbs he does leave might not be the entire explanation. And yes, of course Bruni categorizes restaurants. He does it all the time; he just didn't do it in this particular review.

oakapple · November 7, 2007

B. I never said that Pamplona was "dumbed down" compared to other two-star restaurants. I said it was "dumbed down" compared to Bar Room.
←

The phrase "dumbed down" is normally used in relation to a starting point. Pamplona's starting point was the unsuccessful Ureña. Pamplona isn't a "dumbed down" Bar Room, any more than it's a "dumbed down" Le Bernardin.

Nathan · November 7, 2007

B. I never said that Pamplona was "dumbed down" compared to other two-star restaurants. I said it was "dumbed down" compared to Bar Room.
←
The phrase "dumbed down" is normally used in relation to a starting point. Pamplona's starting point was the unsuccessful Ureña. Pamplona isn't a "dumbed down" Bar Room, any more than it's a "dumbed down" Le Bernardin.
←

cheez. here's my post: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?showtopic=97399&st=1715#

it speaks for itself. I was explicitly comparing it to Bar Room and Casa Mono.

Edited November 7, 2007 by Nathan (log)

Nathan · November 12, 2007

well, at least Bruni hasn't (to my knowledge), copied everyone's favorite legacy admit and left his notes on one restaurant at the bar of a different restaurant....apparently RG's notes make for quite interesting reading....

oakapple · November 12, 2007

well, at least Bruni hasn't (to my knowledge), copied everyone's favorite legacy admit and left his notes on one restaurant at the bar of a different restaurant....apparently RG's notes make for quite interesting reading....
←

When/where did she do that?

oakapple · November 12, 2007

On the Tailor thread, there was a mildly off-topic tangent about how long the critics typically will wait before reviewing. Bruni's norm is at least three months (occasionally less), but but critics these days are usually less patient. To Bruni's credit, he is usually the last of the major reviewers to weigh in.

Today, Adam Platt reviews Allen & Delancey, which has been open for six weeks, awarding two stars. I can't really complain that Platt has rushed it, because in his version of the star system, two is the realistic max for a place like A&D. You can't really say that more time would have resulted in a more favorable rating.

Come to think of it, when was the last time Adam Platt gave three stars to anything? My sense is that, despite working on a five-star scale (one more than Bruni), he gives three stars less often. Can anyone support or refute that?

Edited November 12, 2007 by oakapple (log)

BryanZ · November 14, 2007

Bruni brings out the big guns today. Hell, he levels this restaurant with bazooka-like force.

But what I remember most vividly about that particular night is the potatoes. And I hasten to add that I’m taking it on faith that they were potatoes.
That’s what they visually suggested, those desiccated yellow-beige coins that had somehow acquired the texture of Brillo and could almost have been used to scrub whatever pan they had emerged from.
They weren’t, in fairness, representative of the restaurant’s other vegetables, like the assortment in a transcendently vapid risotto alla primavera, cooked to a state of depressing flaccidity.

This was worse than the Ninja review.

ETA: Is this Bruni's first "Poor"?

Edited November 14, 2007 by BryanZ (log)