Who (if anybody) is your "anti-reviewer"?

A couple of recent posts in various threads made me think about somebody I hadn't considered for many years. Virginia Gerst was the food critic for the north shore Pioneer Press papers for many years, back when I was growing up in Wilmette. I'm sure Ms. Gerst was a sweet lady, and I disapproved of how she was let go (it was a controversy but I don't remember the details).

But for me, her restaurant recommendations were Kryptonite.

Inevitably, when Ms. Gerst liked a place, and we'd go try it, the consensus would be that it was awful. Similarly, places we loved, she'd pan. Of course, a few places were just so good in those days that we'd agree, such as Hackney's on Harms, or Walker Brothers back when there was just one. But it was at least a 75% chance that we'd strongly disagree.

Conversely, in film, I really miss Gene Siskel. My favorite movies were always the ones that he loved, and Roger Ebert did not. I like Ebert as well, but there's something in the differences between them where I could find an understanding, and I could bet on Gene almost every time.

Who are your food anti-reviewers? People who you know are well-meaning, intelligent, and thoughtful, (as opposed to being lazy idiots).... but you know that lavish praise means "STAY AWAY!" for what you personally like to eat.

LOL! I totally agree about the egregious circumstances of Ms. Gerst's departure from the Pioneer Press. That said, she also used to do film reviews for the Pioneer Press (way before Bruce Ingram) and I felt the same way about her film reviews that you felt about her dining reviews. If she hated a film, it was bound to be a good one and if she loved a film, it was almost certainly one to avoid.

As for dining reviewers, I don't really have an anti-reviewer per se, but I can pretty much bank on being infuriated by just about anything Alan Richman writes. I doubt that even he believes half the ignorant crap that comes out of his mouth.

=R=

A quick Google search reflects the source of Ms. Gerst's demise, from the LA Times:

Working at the Pioneer Press in the suburbs of Chicago, she was ordered to publish a favorable review of a restaurant that didn't deserve it. Her publisher, eager to get the restaurant's advertising dollars, insisted. Unwilling to mislead her readers, Virginia Gerst lost her job after twenty-seven years at the paper.

So like I said, I am sure she is a fine reviewer. We just don't have the same taste in food.

threadkiller wrote:Conversely, in film, I really miss Gene Siskel. My favorite movies were always the ones that he loved, and Roger Ebert did not. I like Ebert as well, but there's something in the differences between them where I could find an understanding, and I could bet on Gene almost every time.

Not food related but I always seem to disagree with Peter Travers, the film critic for Rolling Stone (especially his review of Syriana). We'd probably disagree on restaurants too.

pugsley wrote:Not food related but I always seem to disagree with Peter Travers

I am then forced to conclude that you hate every movie ever made.

"The Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies!" --Peter Travers on Shakes the Clown

Anyway, I think my anti-reviewer is clear: John Mariani.

Mike G wrote:"The Citizen Kane of alcoholic clown movies!" --Peter Travers on Shakes the Clown

Shakes the Clown, one of my favorites, think I'll flip it on the DVD this very moment.

HI,

Please read this outline of why Gerst left.

http://www.chicagoreader.com/hottype/2003/030905_1.html

Regards,

Pat Bruno is hands down the worst writer I've ever read. He also has no taste.

But I simply can't turn away.

There's this one guy who writes some reviews in the reader... Gary Widiott, I think it is. Man, I can't stand him!

threadkiller wrote:Conversely, in film, I really miss Gene Siskel. My favorite movies were always the ones that he loved, and Roger Ebert did not. I like Ebert as well, but there's something in the differences between them where I could find an understanding, and I could bet on Gene almost every time.

Buh-whaaa??

I generally could count on any time Siskel hated a film, I was going to adore it. His #1 knee-jerk reaction was perceived 'torture' of children. Films such as Labyrinth, featuring a kidnapped baby tossed in the air by the goblin king, he considered unwatchable, but I loved.

I've always found Ebert's tastes, with his appeal of the perverse (he after all, did pen some porn back in the day), would be closer to my own.

gleam wrote:There's this one guy who writes some reviews in the reader... Gary Widiott, I think it is. Man, I can't stand him!

Oh my aching back.................

Ooooops, your username just got deleted from LTH.....sorry 'bout that.

I don't have anyone who's consistently my food anti-reviewer, but no one will ever irk me more than David Denby. My blood pressure has been known to spike reading his film reviews.

I'd like to know what LTHers think of the quality of professional restaurant reviews in Chicago...admittedly, I compare the Chicago reviewers to those for the New York Times, which is a very high standard.

I find Phil Vettel's reviews to be descriptive but contain very little useful criticism. I look at all the two and three star ratings that he awards...he seems to be very generous with three-star ratings, e.g. both Schwa (an acknowledged LTH favorite although I have yet to go there) and Fixture (an indifferent small plates place with mediocre atmosphere) were awarded three stars while both Xel-Ha and Entourage (a "just-OK" place in Schaumberg) were given two stars). I don't think that Vettel has given a no-star or "poor" rating in living memory. While some people feel that they only want to know about good spots, I myself would like to be warned away from restaurants that are mediocre or (God forbid) awful.

The reviews in the Reader and Time Out Chicago are much more lucid, observant and fun to read, and thus more useful and enjoyable. Perhaps this is attributable to their niche, as opposed to that of the Trib, but I still think that a general interest newspaper can have insightful criticism (e.g. look at Chris Jones' writing on theater, Greg Kot and Jim DeRogatis' pieces on pop music, Roger Ebert on movies...none of them hesitate to give bad reviews).

The same goes for Bill Daly's wine column, which seems to me to be more collections of quotations from industry types than thoughtful, insightful writing on wine.

111134ld wrote:I find Phil Vettel's reviews to be descriptive but contain very little useful criticism. I look at all the two and three star ratings that he awards...he seems to be very generous with three-star ratings

Welcome to LTH!

There was actually a pretty recent discussion about this very issue in the Aigre Doux thread.

You seen to have caught the same pattern. In general I prefer reviews that just try to describe a meal. I don't care if they don't boil it down to a score.

I really never see the "mainstream" reviews unless they are posted on the wall in a restaurant.

111134ld wrote:The reviews in the Reader and Time Out Chicago are much more lucid, observant and fun to read, and thus more useful and enjoyable.

It turns out that several LTHers write for those pubs. You can get notice when people spot things like that in the LTH Forum Total Media Domination thread.