This only appeared in the CT/Madison.com RSS feed in the last couple days, but it went to print last week. A first restaurant review go'round from White, who has served as the Cap Times' beer writer for a little while now. It reads a bit like a first review -- a dish was this, but that; another dish was this, but that; lather rinse repeat -- but props to her for branching out and doing a pretty decent job of it.
Sula's in a mean place right now, taking shots at not just poor restaurant performance, but the people who dine there. I'm not a fan of taking that angle. I mean, I wasn't just overlooking it in every other Reader review, was I?
We're not going to start every review with the restaurant's promotional slogan from now on, are we? This is two in a row. Editorial needs to reinforce the critical tone.
Again, "mini" in the RedEye is a matter of perspective. Speaking of perspective, I know Nagrant's been in the food game long enough to know better, but ugh -- is there a worse description of a churro than a "long john version of a cronut"?
Life in a border town. It's always a little jarring when reviews from some papers covered here hit restaurants located in a neighboring state, like this one, covering a cute Kentucky coffee shop.
One consumer advantage of bottled cocktails, utility that Slaughter questions, is that the bartender doesn't have to take time to make your cocktail -- it's made already, and the staff doesn't have infinite time on their hands. (Jane, I'm sure that you noticed afterward that you used that word twice in the course of a few paragraphs. I know I hate it when that happens.)
Similarly, Abraham deploys "sturdy" thrice in her review of Le Petit Zinc, which as usual for this critic spends valuable inches describing aesthetic and decor when a few more words about the food would be greatly appreciated.
That opening graf is a touch uncomfortable, as it appears the restaurateur is attempting to stifle anti-Arabic sentiment (Baehr doesn't explicitly touch on this appearance) by illustrating that he didn't name his restaurant after the Islamic holy city in Saudi Arabia. It's clear, however, that it's a strongly Arabic restaurant, in human operation if not also in the food itself. Too bad he doesn't feel he can embrace that, because damn, that food looks unapologetically amazing.
"I wish I could have ordered several steaks and compared them." So do I, Polly, so do I. I mean, that's kind of the point of a review, is it not? But in a single visit review, these are the sacrifices that must be made.
I've been reading a lot of discussion of Montreal bagels lately and it's kept me hungry for them; this is a different style but no less enticing. An editorial oversight in the knish graf's grammar is about the only blemish.
The long-awaited 1847 finally steps into the spotlight, and things appear to be progressing nicely. It's a relief, amusingly, to encounter a barn wood-and-stone remodel that's a return to original and not an aftermarket put-on to latch onto farm-to-table trend.
I don't know if the new Edgewater restaurants are trying too hard (french fries potentially OD-ing on Old Bay -- could also be Derby's picky palate -- or the same old "Budweiser's an import" joke) or not hard enough (plastic condiment cups, missed appetizer orders, or the same old "Budweiser's an import" joke). I love some of what Edgewater v.2 is doing, but the reviews are not pulling me into the restaurants at all.
This is how you speak to the varying expecations of different clientele without slamming them. Artisan 179, both the restaurant and the review of it, feels very similar to the Darlington 1847 review from Isthmus this week.
This page has been giving me fits every time I've loaded it, on multiple browsers. So if it doesn't work for you, let me sum up the review: *Homer Simpson open-mouthed drool gargle noise*
I don't raise eyebrows at a lot of food ingenuity, but a duck burger is daring, a little outrageous, and really intriguing all at once. Too bad "underwhelming" is tacked onto that list, by Froeb's experience anyway.
The tone with which the critic addresses comparison and competition is weird. I expected it to be defensive of the restaurant's appeal and Toledo's, I don't know, down-home culinary confidence in the face of Big City Kwee-zeen, but then it seemed to shift into hey, it's nothing special, but [shrug] it's ours?
Confident tone, instructive content, and a Hook's cheddar shout-out. What more could you want? And again, if the link hits a paywall, just google the review and click through there. I don't understand the way that works, but that's how it works.
And see, here's Sula's second review of the week, one where you think he'd really lay into the clientele. Always punch up, never down, right? Yet he barely lays a finger on 'em. What am I missing?