Excoriating (Yet Hilarious)Restaurant Review

I've got no love for Guy, but really, he's a bit of an easy target. I've been to plenty of places (locally and abroad) that deserved these types of reviews, but they get very kind "3 of 4 star" ratings from the local media instead. So we can only give negative reviews to chains and universally-reviled creeps like Guy Fieri?

[Robin Garr]

I've been to plenty of places (locally and abroad) that deserved these types of reviews, but they get very kind "3 of 4 star" ratings from the local media instead.

I hope this doesn't sound defensive; I'm more curious. If you're talking about any of my reviews, I'd be happy to discuss any specific review. And if you're talking about other critics, I'd be happy to pile on.

Sorry Robin, I was talking mostly about Lexington (that's where I live, and I know that I have complained about the Lex restaurants enough already) and the way that our local media rolls out the red carpet for any new independent restaurant, regardless of quality . I actually remember the original Taco Punk review, and how grateful I was that someone was willing to give an honest, negative opinion about a locally-owned place.

I've got no love for Guy, but really, he's a bit of an easy target. I've been to plenty of places (locally and abroad) that deserved these types of reviews, but they get very kind "3 of 4 star" ratings from the local media instead. So we can only give negative reviews to chains and universally-reviled creeps like Guy Fieri?

As previously noted in some (many?) newspapers its about not wanting to tic off the restaurant owner for fear he won't buy advertising from you. A newspaper won't mind a big chain restaurant taking a well deserved hit because they almost never buy local advertising anyway. Getting hold of the marketing department for a chain restaurant then convincing them to pay for advertising that covers only a small fraction of customer area is not unheard of but it is difficult and extremely time consuming. Most advertising sales reps won't even try. So... If the restaurant review is less than stellar it doesn't get tempered.

Returning to Robin and his reviews written for LEO... I don't think I ever read one of Roins reviews where he pulled any punches. And that's why I asked to cover Arts and Religion and not Dining advertising.

[Robin Garr]

I don't think I ever read one of Robin's reviews where he pulled any punches.

In fairness, I do prefer to be kind if I can. It's part of the deal with being both a food critic and a seminarian. But kindness has to be tempered with honesty.

And that's why I asked to cover Arts and Religion and not Dining advertising.

[Robin Garr]

Sorry Robin

No apologies needed, Blake. I set up this forum originally primarily to give people direct access to me if they wanted to discuss my reviews. It ended up being much more than that, but I'm always willing to either defend my opinion or, if convinced, to admit that I was wrong, and correct it.

Too bad about LEX, though. For a while there it seemed like the Lexington newspapers were going to eat the CJ's lunch, but then the Lexington papers seemed to topple over the same precipice that the CJ had discovered earlier.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/peop ... k/1706207/


(Guy fires back)

He went on to say, "The tone, the sarcasm, the question style." Fieri didn't think it was fair to visit the restaurant four times in two months. "That's tough times, especially this size of a restaurant."

4 visits in 2 months and he thinks the review wasn't fair?! Jeez Louise how many chances is he suppose to get before he gets it right? You'd think he had never opened a restaurant before. He's not exactly a novice at this. 4 bad visits is certainly more than I would have afforded him.

[Robin Garr]

. 4 bad visits is certainly more than I would have afforded him.

With us it's generally one and done, both for budget reasons and because I'm only willing to do this work if I don't have to sacrifice my health and good looks to do it.

But that said, if I have a horrid enough experience to justify a scathing review, I'll address that in one way or another - experience and a solid understanding of how and why specific things go wrong - and won't absolutely exclude a second visit. But four times in two months? Nope.

One way of looking at this is that consumers aren't likely to give a place a re-do after a really bad experience. A restaurant gets one shot from most paying customers in the real world.

. 4 bad visits is certainly more than I would have afforded him.

With us it's generally one and done, both for budget reasons and because I'm only willing to do this work if I don't have to sacrifice my health and good looks to do it.

But that said, if I have a horrid enough experience to justify a scathing review, I'll address that in one way or another - experience and a solid understanding of how and why specific things go wrong - and won't absolutely exclude a second visit. But four times in two months? Nope.

One way of looking at this is that consumers aren't likely to give a place a re-do after a really bad experience. A restaurant gets one shot from most paying customers in the real world.

I'm usually one-and-done when I judge a restaurant except in certain situations. The biggest example of this is Mozzaria which I had a terrible experience with initially, was willing to give them a second chance because my initial visit was so soon after opening, and will eventually give them one more chance after a post-transition settling period.

In a fluke of circumstances my sister happened to dine at Guy's restaurant on Tuesday night, as it was next door to the theater where she was going. She and a colleague hadn't sought it out but had 1 hour to eat before curtain and they had openings. Sister is incredibly picky bout her dining experience, not a chain eater by any means, very big on doing the Louisville Originals and all the locally-owned establishments. She called me from LGA yesterday morning, completely unaware of the review and "hoohaa" going on, to say she had a great meal, perfectly cooked medium rare steak, great service and out in time to make her curtain. She said its a bar food menu and feel and she would definitely go back. I'm not a big Guy fan (can't stand folks talking with food in their mouths! shudder). Take it for what its worth. Your mileage may vary.

[Robin Garr]

Take it for what its worth. Your mileage may vary.

I love it that this was a totally independent review without any knowledge of the NYT media explosion. Thanks, Amy!

Midtown Manhattan has too many chains and, I suspect, Guy Fieri, being so popular, saw a golden opportunity for a tourist restaurant in a highly visited area. The restaurant, I suspect, is not even remotely geared for the average New Yorker or even the bridge and tunnel crowd. (Growing up as part of the bridge and tunnel crowd, I say this with great affection.)

The restaurant sounds awful. My guess is that, like many places in Midtown, some good meals can be had there and some bad meals can be had there. Frankly, I think many people would have a squid of a chance knowing good calamari from bad. Alas, people go to New York and go to the Carnegie Deli, always a good choice, never ordered the corned beef or the brisket, or the tongue, or the pastrami, or the chopped chicken liver, and order turkey breast sandwiches or hamburgers. Others go to Little Italy and order spaghetti and meatballs; and head to Ferrara's and have apple pie. All in all, I bet this restaurant proves to be a big hit with tourists who will go there and find it 'wonderful,' no knowing what they are missing.

Very funny to me that the NYTimes held a dinner for several hundred in that restaurant the night after the review came out!

The restaurant is pitched for tourists to Times Square; it's enormous, and goes with Guy's mystique (being "out there"). Of course, the Times reviewer would give a highly negative review! TGI Friday's appeals to a lot of people, and from what I read this restaurant has more in common with TGI than with the type of place normally reviewed by the Times.

One thing I personally like about Louisville critics (including you, Robin!), is that casual restaurants aren't always held to the high standards of very upscale expensive places. Why did the Times have one of their top reviewers visit this place, instead of the casual, $25 or under reviewer? Seems like sort-of biased from the get-go.

Quote from the response article:

He mentioned he has 11 restaurants and he's into being a hands-on chef and manager, from creating the menu to training the staff, not just putting a "stamp" on the place.

I think that makes it worse, if possible. I was sorta giving him half a pass, assuming he'd just given his name to a concept that some restaurant corporation came up with, and wasn't actually involved in the details. If that's not the case...I guess there's no excuse.

I would pay HUGE money to see Gordon Ramsay go all Kitchen Nightmares on Guy and his new restaurant.