Colonic décor! I LOL’d. 
My kids dumped leftover frozen meatballs and canned mushroom soup “gravy” into the two-day-old pasta with Aldi’s red sauce.
The dogs liked it, but they are dogs and, as I’ve said before, idiots. I’m considering adding my spawn to that class.
A contrasting opinion. With good pictures, though, so you can see the “labially pink cloths,” “vaguely proctological stove,” and such for yourself.
The fact that Thomas Keller likes this place is reason enough for me to visit it, despite the New York Times review.
If that wasn’t some kind of satire I’d say he is indeed.
Here’s his original article. I don’t think it’s satire.
I’m not so sure that’s a contrasting opinion. He says at the start of the article that this is the place you are not supposed to write about. He took it one step further and wrote a bad review.
If it’s such a horrible place, why did he go back there?
But he does like the food better, and is nicer about the decor.
To each their own.
Myself, I love Italian pasta dishes. Especially bolognese sauces. I have a recipe at home that takes me four hours to cook, and it was much better than this one.
Unfortunately there is a kind of reviewer who believes that their column is for people to appreciate their satirical wit, rather then give the reader a genuine idea of what the establishment, show, film, food, wine,whatever, is actually like.
They are not above being "creative"in their account of events, quality of product etc. if it can feed them what they consider to be a good line that they hope the unwashed masses will quote to each other at work, over lunch or in similar situations.
The whole point of the exercise is to demonstrate their intellectual and cultural superiority over the norm, and often attract a certain kind of reader with the same aspirations.
The flowery language used is there to admire, not inform.
Many years ago in the British magazine “Punch”, there was an equally useless reviewer, a jazz musician in his day job.
It was pointless reading his column, as unless a movie was made in B&W, in the forties with iconic stars, it was rubbish, fit only for the brain dead and so on.
As a result his column was only read by those who wished to enjoy some sort of sardonic entertainment and ignored by those who wanted to find out if the new film in the cinema would suit them.
The resteraunt in this review may well be as dire as the reviewer makes out, or it could be excellent, or in some place inbetween.
As the reviewer is not a true witness we’d have to find out either from our own experience or read more down to earth reviews elsewhere.
If I read a review, thats exactly what I want.
Not a rehearsal for the writers next stand up act on open mike night.
The writer may have been showing off, but that doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t think the restaurant was particularly good.
George Melly?
Yeah, but Keller is not exactly unknown, even if he does supposedly call ahead to restaurants and tell them not to make a fuss. They’re not going to serve him a bad plate.
What I suspect is that they’re capable of turning out great food when someone like TK, Bill Clinton, or Woody Allen comes in, but may or may not give a shit when it’s just the average diner.
That’s unforgivable at those prices. If I’m paying $79 for an appetizer, I’d better need to change my pants afterwards no matter who I am. At those prices you don’t get to have bad days.
Yeah, but was he known the first few times he went in there and, apparently, fell in love with it? (I actually don’t know. Perhaps he was already the darling of the high-end restaurant world and a household name at L’Ami Louis during his first visits.)
Look, I’m not going to that bistro anytime soon, and for simply prepared rustic French cooking, I’m sure there’s plenty of other choice in France with a much better quality-for-price ratio. That said, I’m always a little :dubious: whenever I read a “tear down the idols” type of reviews, especially when written in that kind of snotty, sarcastic style. This is not to say those types of reviews are not valid. I’ve certainly been to acclaimed food spots and have wondered “what’s all the praise about?”
But I’m going to put more stock into Keller’s impressions of the restaurant vs this reviewer’s impressions.
That said, that style of review is a more compelling and interesting read for a lot of people, so, were I a writer, I could absolutely understand why you’d write it that way. The writing is good. I just don’t trust his opinions on the subject.
Purhaps the joke’s on us. He could just be keeping out the ‘riff raff’.
I’m just reading up on this guy, and he does appear to be a bit of a controversial food critic.
I think this quote summarizes best what I feel when I read the L’Ami Louis review:
The sense I get is that he’s regarded as either a bit of a tool, or a bit of an entertaining writer that’s not supposed to be taken too seriously.
This is not uncommon in restaurants that cater to tourists and foreigners. What is the average patron going to do? Not come back? Well, how many people visit Paris so often that they will usually have that chance anyway.
The usual advice is that when you are a visitor or tourist in a city go to a restaurant where the clientele is local, chances are the restaurant is good, at least by local standards.
He’s a talented writer, but is nevertheless a gigantic bellend, perhaps for professional reasons. A bit like Jeremy Clarkson, but less likeable, and with less of a sense of self-parody.
Bolognese is supposed to be made with beef, veal and pork. Added to a carmelized mirapoix of celery, carrot and onion. Finished with cream. The sauce is a specialty from Bologna and dates back to the 15th century. Spaghoots with red gravy it ain’t.
That’s exactly how my husband makes it (OK, most times without veal). He says it’s awesome, not that I care for it, since I don’t eat meat.
Unlike the original (with tagliatelle), he prefers penne with it.