CJ drops one-star bomb on Lentini's suburban Da Vinci

[Robin Garr]

Marty drops the one-star bomb on Da Vinci by Lentini, the suburban outpost that replaced Buckhead's on Shelbyville Road, and his negative review seems well justified by the facts. He also gets a fairly generous 643 words to do the job, reversing a recent trend of shrinking reviews in the new, ad-like Scene. I can't quibble with his findings, although some might ask why he expended a full weekly column on a suburban, chain-like establishment that's not likely to be high on most serious foodies' radar.

[url=http://cityguide.courier-journal.com/fe/RestaurantReviews/Profile.asp?businessid=47438]Dinner at Da Vinci
Lentini's outpost served up disappointing fare[/url]

<B>Da Vinci Ristorante by Lentini's</B>
10430 Shelbyville Road
(502) 245-0205

although some might ask why he expended a full weekly column on a suburban, chain-like establishment that's not likely to be high on most serious foodies' radar.

This comment puzzled me. I never thought the CJ dining column was geared toward serious foodies, but for the public at large. I bet a lot of folks are pretty happy that Marty saved them from a bad meal at this place.

[Robin Garr]

This comment puzzled me. I never thought the CJ dining column was geared toward serious foodies, but for the public at large. I bet a lot of folks are pretty happy that Marty saved them from a bad meal at this place.

Tough call. I hear what you're saying, but given that the Scene format allows the incumbent to review only one restaurant per week, far too limited a space to accommodate all the new serious restaurants and any reasonable effort to get back to the more significant spots with new cooks or menus, it seems like a shame to "waste" one on a chain-like suburban spot that can't earn more than 1 star.

Given the CJ's overall decline, particularly with Scene's "new look" that makes it harder than ever to distinguish from an advertising insert, I doubt that many people - foodies or otherwise - pay much attention to the reviews or anything else in the paper.

I see your point, but I wonder if this restaurant's affiliation with the Lentini's group had some influence? I know that people in my family, who loved Lentini's, might have been tempted to try this place because of the connection even though it's new ownership and all that. Pointing out a poor or mediocre restaurant can be just as valuable as finding a great one.

[Robin Garr]

Pointing out a poor or mediocre restaurant can be just as valuable as finding a great one.

Absolutely. As I said before, I'm not quibbling with your basic premise. I'm just saying that if I were limited to just restaurant per week in a print publication, I'd probably reserve that kind of bomb for a place that's generating a buzz. Cheddar's or Cheesecake Factory, for example, where long lines form for pedestrian fare.

But even with the Lentini connection, Da Vinci wasn't making any waves as far as I know. I don't believe Marty ever reported on the other Lentini operation, either, by the way, the short-lived Milano Cafe on Baxter, which quickly dropped back to bar fare and, I think, may now be gone.

I live in the area and had asked about this restaurant in particular in an earlier post so I'm really glad to know that it's not worth my bother/money/time.

and yeah, I agree, I don't see serious foodies as the target audience for any newspaper, since they have to appeal to a wide range of people.

marty rosen definitely made the place sound unappealing. I'm glad to be saved the trouble of trying it out. (and yeah, I guess I'm not a serious foodie for even thinking about going in the first place.)

[Robin Garr]

I guess I'm not a serious foodie for even thinking about going in the first place.)

Nah, thinking about it is okay.

Okay, I'm going to try to come up with a constructive idea here: Since Scene is largely going over to little one-paragraph blurbs about things, if Marty hits a place that's really poor, why not just trash it in a little short item? This would get the message out, and leave his full page open to tell us about something interesting.

Because if the Scene went back to only doing full length reviews that were positive, we would be right back in the Riegler era where nothing got lower than 3 stars. I like the fact that Marty is not scared to use all the stars on the scale. It gives them more meaning.

[Robin Garr]

Because if the Scene went back to only doing full length reviews that were positive, we would be right back in the Riegler era where nothing got lower than 3 stars. I like the fact that Marty is not scared to use all the stars on the scale. It gives them more meaning.

I must be nuts ... I'm arguing with a lawyer.

I still see a distinction, though. I would love to see a critic (even me) spread the top restaurants across a scale wide enough to show meaningful distinctions. Give Cafe Metro 1 1/2 stars on the basis of its wine list, or Lilly's 2 stars for failing to keep up with the times, and you're talking about something.

But wasting one of your weeks on a lackluster new suburban spot that's not even generating a buzz, when you only get one review per week? That's the problem I see here. It's not the principle of giving it one star, and it's not the principle of reviewing only positively. It just doesn't strike me as the best use of limited resources.

Robin wrote: "But wasting one of your weeks on a lackluster new suburban spot that's not even generating a buzz, when you only get one review per week? That's the problem I see here. It's not the principle of giving it one star, and it's not the principle of reviewing only positively. It just doesn't strike me as the best use of limited resources."

Although DaVinci hasn't created a buzz on this forum, it's possible that it has among a broader audience. Maybe Marty was trying to do a public service by critiquing a place that average diners might be drawn to, especially given its Lentini's connection.

My quibble with the place is it's unimaginative name.

[Robin Garr]

Although DaVinci hasn't created a buzz on this forum, it's possible that it has among a broader audience. Maybe Marty was trying to do a public service by critiquing a place that average diners might be drawn to, especially given its Lentini's connection.

All reasonable, Sonja. I don't honestly have the impression that the "buzz" is there, either from the forum or my eyes and ears around town - it's certainly not at the level that accompanied, say, Cheddar's or P.F. Chang's, and I don't get the impression that there have ever been crowds or even a wait for a table at Da Vinci.

But sure, I agree that a trustworthy negative review can be a useful thing to anyone who's considering dining at <i>any</i> eatery.

I can't quibble with his findings, although some might ask why he expended a full weekly column on a suburban, chain-like establishment that's not likely to be high on most serious foodies' radar.

It seems to me that any restaurant in the metro area shared by the publication and the readers is fair game for the critic, so I don't understand your objection to a suburban location. Heck, several other local places with Highlands roots are opening in the 'burbs (see Seviche thread). And, I wouldn't put da Vinci in the "chain-like" mode. I think Marty is justified in reviewing it. Many had high hopes for a restaurant associated with (albeit, loosely) the Lentini name.

I've not been to daVinci's, but my experience at the latest reincarnation of Lentini's, not to mention Marty's review, don't inspire me to go.

My wife and I went there soon after it opened a few months ago. We were not impressed-- my wife thought that her pasta was no better than chef boyardee-- but we were going to chalk it up to opening week jitters. Apparently it has not improved.

I think its prominent location and exposure justifies a review. There's a great deal of traffic in/out of that shopping center. Marty's review in this case was a public service. Isn't the purpose of a review 2 fold? A good review generates traffic to a great experience and a bad review alerts owners /managers of what needs fixing with the establishment. It gives the restaurant a chance to clean up their act before it's too late to fix a dying business.

I can only surmise that CJ's advertising staff had already been turned down repeatedly by Da Vinci before the CJ let a negative review of them fly.

Back when we lived in Chicago, we lived in the Northern suburbs. While there were some 5-star restaurants there back then (Le Francais, for example), my wife and I used to drive downtown all the time for dinner. it was a roughly 75 minute one-way drive.

I grew up in Cleveland, in the far Eastern burbs. When we ate downtown or on the near-West side, it was a 45 minute drive one-way.

Now, I work periodically in the Chicago western suburbs. When I drive downtown to dinner, it's almost 90 minutes, and if I meet someone in the Northern burbs it's close to 2 hours.

Then I read Robin saying that Marty Rosen shouldn't waste time on this suburban spot that's what - 15 minutes maybe? 10 minutes? - from the Highlands. Whoopee.

I live in the general Prospect area, and in the past two weeks have eaten at Varnese, Basa, several places on Bardstown Road, in the Springhurst area, North End Cafeand downtown. I think once we had a 20 minute drive.

What's the big deal in this city? If you can't walk there, it's by definition too far, and shouldn't be reviewed?

Louisville is growing, it actually has some areas that could be called "suburbs", but it's easy to get around and worth exploring. We should be happy for the growth, and stop bemoaning the fact. Sure, there are chains in the suburbs, but there are other restaurants also, from interesting sushi houses to the new Seviche, Mojito, et al.

Louisville remains an interesting and easy to navigate city, with good restaurants all over, and poor restaurants all over. Some in each category are chains, more in the "good" category are local, why not review all, experiment with all, visit all, and make your own choices assisted by these reviews and these forums, rather than disparaging anything outside of the Watterson by using "suburban" as a way to denigrate it!

And, while we can call some of these new areas suburban, it ain't nothing like larger cities!