I like DDD, and I like the character Guy plays on the show. He won the Next Food Network Star competition precisely because his strong persona stood out in front of his timid, wishy-washy competitors. And he’s one of the few winners that has endured.
Yes, but it’s also not a good thing when a restaurant is more about the celebrity chef or owner than it is about the food.
I’ve been to his place in Sacramento, Tex Wasabi’s. It was pretty good.
Guy Fieri went on The Today Show today to respond to the review.
I like Fieri, and I like his food. That said, he’s still a douche. Flip-flops in a kitchen should get you 86’d every time.
Sure it is - food writing is writing. People read restaurant reviews because they’re fun to read.
I certainly question any review in that light. Let’s face it, a person’s enjoyment of a meal is largely subjective. The Times review does seem to be raising some legitimate objective issues. But at the same time, you get the sense that a lot of these complaints are being written by unsuccessful attention whores who are jealous that Guy Fieri is a successful attention whore.
Really? The guy holds the most prestigious food writing job in the country. I’d say he’s plenty successful.
I read restaurant reviews to see if I want to eat at that restaurant. I guess I’m not people.
I seem to recall an equally vitriolic food review many years ago–I think someone posted it here–about some restaurant that’s apparently a Parisian institution. Only all the locals hate it, the food is disgusting, the wait staff are inexcusably rude, and only stupid foreign rubes go and eat there. Short of a link, does anyone know what it is I’m talking about? THAT one was hilarious.
And re: the over-the-top commentary, I feel like, as an artist–I’m a musician myself, but let’s chefs are artists of sorts, as well–you want to draw out some reaction from your audience. In a way, a crazy scathing review is more helpful than a 3 stars out of 5 “meh” that doesn’t tell me anything about it. It’s a good way to gain notoriety. Now, whether or not you can spin this to be a Stravinsky-esque, “food out of its time” is another matter entirely. 
I do believe you’re talking about Vanity Fair’s review of L’Ami Louis, which was my first result on googling “worst restaurant in Paris.” 
And yes, I’d read it before (but was unable to recall the name) and thought it was jaw-droppingly fantastic.
When Fieri came to Houston last year, we learned that he only visits single owner operated establishments. We’ve got a couple of 2 or 3 restaurant local “chains” that are unpretentious, ethnic places; they didn’t qualify. But his own places seem to show the worst qualities of the most soulless chains.
I can withstand his douchiness for DDD because the restaurants often seem pretty good. What a pity he doesn’t practice what he preaches.
He also visited the Hopleaf in Chicago, which is neither a diner, drive-in, nor dive. It is a bar with a gigantic, amazing beer menu and a wonderful little restaurant with a small, seasonally-changing menu that uses small local farms’ produce/meats whenever possible, with Belgian-influenced cuisine. They also won the Michelin Guide’s Bib Gourmand award (IIRC) two years in a row, for places with superb quality and cheaper prices. (They were robbed of it this year - I assume the turmoil from the expansion caused some disruption, and Michelin judges hate inconsistency.) So frankly I have no idea why some spots are chosen; Hopleaf deserves recognition but I wouldn’t have suspected they’d end up on this show.
Go ask a hundred random people who Pete Wells is and who Guy Fieri is. You’ll see which one’s a celebrity.
That doesn’t mean that Guy Fieri is better at his job than Pete Wells is. But if somebody cares about fame, seeing somebody who they regard as being less talented than they are becoming more famous is even more maddening.
I agree. But that said, compare the Times review to the Observer review and you’ll see some big differences. The Times review looks pretty restrained in comparison and as other posters have noted the reviewer discussed a bunch of real problems with the restaurant. The Observer review is mostly about what a dick Guy Fieri is.
It sounds like Fieri is a perfectly acceptable chef, but he’s a horrible restaurateur. The food would probably be fine, if idiots weren’t preparing it. The quality of the drinks is super easy to fix too.
Is Times Square really known for sucky food?
I’m sure I wouldn’t order lasagna nachos though.
If it was a review of just some unknown chef’s new restaurant, I’d agree. But when the restaurant and the owner are so completely over the top to begin with, and the review is going to be so objectively bad anyway, I’m willing to read an over the top review as well.
Who gives a damn about celebrity? People seem to be under the impression that all food writers secretly wish to be celebrity chefs, but nothing could be further from the truth. This guy is at the top of his game and at the pinnacle of his profession. There are literally thousands of people who would give almost anything to be where he is right now. It’s ridiculous to imply that he’s sitting around seething about his lack of success.
Who gives a damn about celebrity? People seem to be under the impression that all food writers secretly wish to be celebrity chefs, but nothing could be further from the truth. This guy is at the top of his game and at the pinnacle of his profession. There are literally thousands of people who would give almost anything to be where he is right now. It’s ridiculous to imply that he’s sitting around seething about his lack of success.
This writer may well want to be famous, but I doubt seriously that he would want to do it via the route Fieri has chosen. He’s a writer, not a TV guy.