Do you trust any restaurant critics? What makes a good critic?
Recently, I noticed a review of a Chinese-American restaurant that I've always liked in my (NJ) area that I've always loved but have trouble dragging people to go the oh, 20 minutes to eat there--it's not traditional fare by any means, but just really solid renderings of American Hunan dishes, very fresh, and so forth.
I was excited, hoping the review would be good--and it was, but it was so stupid, I can't imagine anyone wanting to go there from what was written--mostly about how the reviewer's dining companions were 'weirded out' by the experience, details about how he made jokes with the Chinese waiter, and he didn't even order the dishes the place is known for--just the few quasi-Thai dishes that make up a tiny part of the menu. No balance of selections at all.
That was a local critic who I find singularly unhelpful but overall, I have to say I feel a lot of restaurant reviewers seem to have a conscious or unconscious bias/ seem to be looking for something different in what I am looking for eating out. I love Ruth Reichel, but I was too young to read her reviews in the Times when they came out. Bruni is okay, but he seems so easily recognized, and plus as a vegetarian with any critic there is always the fact that they tend to eat only one or two of the dishes that I would be able to eat, at all.
I usually trust word of mouth and blogs and the Internet (Serious Eats, of course!) more than (most) professional, traditional reviewers.
What about you--what type of restaurant criticism do you trust, and what do you think makes a good restaurant critic?
Add a comment:
Previewing your comment:
HTML Hints
Some HTML is OK: <a href="URL">link</a>, <strong>strong</strong>, <em>em</em>
Comment Guidelines
Post whatever you want, just keep it seriously about eats, seriously. We reserve the right to delete off-topic or inflammatory comments. Learn more at our Comment Policy page.
If you see something not so nice, please, report an inappropriate comment.
Start Talking!
Need a question answered? Have advice to share? Start a Talk topic now!
Sign up to get your questions answered and share advice.
14 Comments:
I find that be it a movie or a restaurant if the critics hate it I will love it. WHY??? I assume I am crazy but they are rarely right. But I don't know what makes a good critic but i do think I would be great at it. :)
love2cook at 8:32PM on 08/20/08
I trust my palate more than a writers words.
joessausage at 10:54PM on 08/20/08
Judging anything - food, art, music, theater, film - is SO subjective.
A good critic in any field would have to be well informed, a true subject matter expert, and honest and a good writer. Beyond that, it's a matter of taste. You say tomato, I say tomato ....
Find a critic whose tastes mirror your own by reading their reviews of places (or books or records or whatever) that you like. Then read his or her reviews and forget the rest.
kjgibson at 11:17PM on 08/20/08
the best restaurant critic *ever* is actually a restaurant critic critic: Jules on her blog, brunidigest.blogspot.com, where she skewers NY critic Frank Bruni with some of the most brilliant, witty and scathing writing ever. I challenge anyone to read the archives without laughing out loud.
mendicity at 12:37AM on 08/21/08
I trust NO critics. Years ago in my (large) town, a reviewer was being paid off by restaurant owners for favorable reviews. It was a serious and large scandal resulting in the critic committing suicide. The new batch of critics have become, for the most part, easily identifiable. (This comes from DH who is in the restaurant biz.) Ultimately, when a critic is in the restaurant and has been "spotted", other diners wonder why they are not getting the over-the-top service that the other table is receiving.
I say, let us SE devotes loose on America as critics! We have no ax to grind and it would make for a new, interesting category ;-P (Tongue in cheek!)
Josdean at 12:22PM on 08/21/08
I live in a smallish-medium sized town, and until recently, there was no restaurant critic for the daily paper. Suddenly, we have reviews. My best guess is that they're sending interns on these meal quests, and using different ones each time. It seems obvious to me, because the writing style changes so much from review to review. Can't believe it's the same person. And it makes me extremely skeptical of the opinions.
One reviewer gave a bad review to a fairly upscale (for this area) restaurant, picking on completely irrelevant things. Letters to the editor after that review were a hoot, with people writing in to say that the reviewer was all wrong, the restaurant was good, and some of the dishes that the reviewer complained about were in fact the way they were supposed to be and the reviewer just didn't understand what the dish was about.
I do reviews now and then for a different publication, and I pretty much don't do bad reviews. If a place is bad, I don't write about it at all. Most of the bad ones disappear on their own, I don't need to help them go away.
And I always keep in mind that my taste, and my opinion, is not the same as everyone else's. So if I don't like something, I'll go with hard facts rather than bad/good judgements.
For example, when I was reviewing a new Mexican restaurant, I pointed out that it wasn't authentic Mexican, it was the American version of Mexican, and that it would be a good starting point for people who are a little afraid of spicy food. The food was good for what it was, the presentation was nice, the place was nice, the service was very good and very friendly.
Overall, it was a good review, but given my choice of Mexican restaurants, this one wouldn't be my top choice, since I prefer more authentic dishes. However, the fact that I prefer I different style of food didn't mean it was bad, it just meant that it wasn't what I like best. For what it was, it was done well. People who like that type of food will love this restaurant.
dbcurrie at 1:34PM on 08/21/08
Like Love2Cook, I've noticed the same thing -- if they hate it, chances are I'll love, or at least like, it.
When I scope out a restaurant, I read what people have said online and take everything I've read and draw a conclusion from that. I'll check it out if it sounds interesting enough, but if everyone says they hated the service, saw a roach, or unsanitary practices, I don't even want to walk in. If the food sounds boring, I won't bother either.
Ironically, I don't really trust most "best of..." polls done by local magazines or newsstations, because of the outcome I've seen. The first place I look at is Best Japanese Restaurant. If it's some fake expensive restaurant, I know that my views aren't aligned with their viewers. However, those polls serve some purpose since they introduce new/previously undiscovered restaurants.
Cassaendra at 1:36PM on 08/21/08
I think that the best reviewers can write well enough that whether or not they like the restaurant, you are then armed with the information of whether or not you might like that place, or if it is a place you might consider eating. That means you will have an idea of the ambience, the menu and the service. Additionally, they will supply you with the information--tender chicken, rubbery lobster, that you can aid your decision with.
To me, the best reviewer is one who doesn't neccisarily come to a conclusion, I don't care about stars or what not, but if you can read it and have an idea if you yourself will like it. Here in Seattle, I'm a big fan of Jonathan Kauffman, the Seattle Weekly's reviewer, he tends to do that quite well, as did Nancy Leson, when she reviewed for the Seattle Times.
dagoose at 1:56PM on 08/21/08
Our own Ed Levine, despite his iconoclastic and self conscious bias against "fancy pants" restaurants is my favorite critic. If he says something is good, I trust him to be right. Frank Bruni loves anything and everything Italian too much to be trusted. The other NY critics are either irrelevant, incompetent, or have enormous chips on their shoulders. I tend to go by Zagat ratings more than anything else.
simon at 2:27PM on 08/21/08
@josdean: agree 100% - go and taste for yourself. Also I found that most consumers review only when they have a bad experience.
mminardo at 5:26PM on 08/21/08
@Cassaendra re: "the best of polls", you are smart to distrust them. Restaurants routinely buy every copy of said magazine with the poll form. They decide the categories in which they want to win, then bombard the ballot box with massive positive votes. The winners end up with a little plaque to hang in their lobby and bragging rights :-(
Josdean at 7:09PM on 08/21/08
One of the only critics I might trust right now is Alan Richman. He always cuts to the chase and is a no B.S. kinda guy. Do yourself a favor and read his book "Fork it Over." It's concise, to the point and, at times. hilarious.
bessfour at 7:30PM on 08/21/08
In short - I don't. Tastes differ, be it food, service or ambiance. There is a well-reviewed, highly-rated and very expensive Japanese restaurant in our area, which also happens to be extremely overrated in my opinion. On the other hand, my favourite Japanese place is barely noticeable from the outside unless you know where to look for it, and it's certainly not fancy but their food is amazing. So yes, I trust my palate better than anybody's reviews.
brooke29 at 7:54PM on 08/21/08
I may read their reviews but usually ignore them cuz many of them set thier words in stone and who knows, they may have been having a bad hair day the time they went to the place. I like to go and judge for myself.
pjracz10 at 5:56AM on 08/22/08