The role of a food critic

Interestingly, Red Robin had opened a number of "Burger Works" fast-casual places, but recently closed most of them down.

 

Just doesn't work with millennials. They see it as posing.

 

The food critic at my former paper is a former sports columnist, of all things. He then was a metro columnist for about 15 years before switching to the food critic job about a year ago. Does a good job, too -- he's reviewed everything from gourmet restaurants to the hoagies at Wawa, which is making a big push in this area (he gave them a thumbs-up).

Saw him at one of the paper's frequent going-away parties recently and said he really liked the food critic gig. After 15 years as metro columnist, he felt he was going stale and was ready for a change. Also said it doesn't hurt that he's doing less work for the same money (one of my definitions of a good career move).

 

BWs prices are way too high. That's why business is suffering. If it's even suffering. Stock price is $142/share.

You can get the same or better quality of food and dining experience for much less elsewhere. I'm sure more than millennials have figured this out.

 

Nope.

When an entree is smaller than my fist, they're wrong, not me. You can accept nouveaux portion sizes if you wish.

 

Laugh.

Jesus.

 

Yeah, he wouldn't have accepted them either.

And my BP, taken three minutes ago, is 106/62. To preempt your next point.

 

More interesting stuff. The Hollywood Reporter reviews a pricey, secretive menu just four nights after opening. It's a negative review, and to my mind, a good one.

Is It Wrong to Review a Just-Opened Restaurant? A Response to Angry Food Critics

The customary waiting period, however, for reviews is generally 4-to-6 weeks. Other food critics = not happy.

So the THR responds, and makes an interesting point.

Is It Wrong to Review a Just-Opened Restaurant? A Response to Angry Food Critics

In other spheres of criticism, the agreement is this: As soon as you're open for business, you're open for judgment, because mainstream journalistic reviewing is, at root, a consumer service.

While Broadway producers might prefer the leniency of a month's latitude after opening night, they don't receive it. Neither still can filmmakers wait for later, refined cuts to be reviewed after that first screening at Sundance or Cannes, or showrunners hope to be redeemed by the overall first season instead of a mere pilot.

 

Broadway analogy isn't great. Shows run in previews prior to the official opening, and charge admission during this period. Critics wait till the official opening to write reviews.

 

If a new restaurant opens in my area, I don't think, "Oh, let's wait 4-6 weeks to eat there bc they need to work out the kinks." I worked in restaurants for many years and I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to service, especially a new place, bc it takes a while for a staff to gel. So if a drink order comes out late or they don't refill my water glass, no biggie. But the food itself? No, that should be judged to high standards from the get go. It's not going to get appreciably better after a month.

 

Critics wait, in part, because they want to tell you about what you can expect if you go. A restaurant in its first week is not comparable with a restaurant two months later.

Where I worked, we waited three months to make a visit.

 

For six months at the Boston Phoenix, I was the restaurant critic. I reviewed a place when it first opened because I didn't know any better and it was a catastrophe. They weren't ready to open and it sure showed. My wise editor said, let's put this one on hold for a month and go back. It was better, but not that much better, but the second visit and its follow-up were the review meals.
PS: I hated being a restaurant critic. For whatever reason, having to constantly be on the alert while I was dining took the pleasure out of the experience.