3 ms·

Bros., Lecce: We Eat at the Worst Michelin Starred Restaurant, Ever

16 points by rmason 5y ago

rmason 5y ago
The author here is Rand Fishkin who is the founder of Moz and SparkToro. This may be the single best restaurant review that I have ever read in my life.
- leephillips 5y ago
  It was amusing, but what pushovers these people are. No way would I have paid that bill. But, also, I would have left after the first 25 minutes, and never had this bizarre experience to write about.
beardyw 5y ago
Why are reviews of terrible meals so funny. I am crying.
dhej 5y ago
*The author is Geraldine DeRuiter (and it may be the best resto review I've ever read also).
jfengel 5y ago
Ugh. I'm sorry they didn't enjoy it, but I wish I had been there. It looks amazing. The price of 130-200 Euros is actually quite reasonable for a meal like that. These dishes are a ton of work. Equivalent restaurants in the US usually cost around twice that. It does sound as if the service was rude, and that's entirely inappropriate at any restaurant at any price. The waiter should never scold the customer, and a place this innovative absolutely must be prepared for food allergies. I don't know why this one failed so badly. It is sufficient reason to avoid the restaurant. The only caveat I'd place on it is that the reviewer didn't seem to understand what kind of restaurant they were eating at, and so I can't take their description of the service entirely at face value. I'm sure they're being honest, but they were on a very bad foot for the entire experience, and they were going to be unhappy the entire time. This is dinner-and-a-show. You shouldn't be hungry afterwards: 27 courses, even tiny ones, is a lot. (Assuming, of course, that you get all 27. If they aren't making substitutions for food allergies, that is a serious failing.) Of course there's no "main"; you should be too full to eat a big piece of anything at that point. These were 27 creative, interesting, innovative dishes. You don't have to like all of them: if they weren't pushing the boundaries, they wouldn't be as interesting. Some of what they're describing is actually quite dated, which may account for the comparatively low price. This stuff was fashionable 20 years ago. Some of it has become trite. The untasteable drops of sauce on a plate are going out of fashion, and good riddance. They're pretty, but not delicious, and this kind of meal needs to be both. OK... the foam in the cast of the chef's mouth is in poor taste, and clearly the restaurant is reaching. The citrus foam is actually probably delicious, and 20 years ago it was a novelty, but for the effort it takes to produce they really should have found a more interesting presentation. So, what I'm reading is that they misunderstood the restaurant. At the very least they needed different expectations, or skipping it entirely. As for whether I'd like it, I have to read between the lines. It sounds as if there are some good ideas, though I'm not sure I'd have the patience for four hours of that particular dinner and show. Similar meals at other places take under three (so that they can have two seatings a night), and the pacing is important. I'm getting the impression of a formerly-innovative place that is coasting on its reputation. What I'm not finding is anything hilarious in the review. They don't know what they're looking at, and that's not especially funny to me. They just look dumb. I'm sure they're not. But I suspect that I could have helped them enjoy the meal better if I'd been there. Maybe it's not for them, but certainly not if they're expecting the wrong thing.

16 points by rmason 5y ago

The author here is Rand Fishkin who is the founder of Moz and SparkToro. This may be the single best restaurant review that I have ever read in my life.

leephillips 5y ago
It was amusing, but what pushovers these people are. No way would I have paid that bill. But, also, I would have left after the first 25 minutes, and never had this bizarre experience to write about.

beardyw 5y ago

Why are reviews of terrible meals so funny. I am crying.

dhej 5y ago

*The author is Geraldine DeRuiter (and it may be the best resto review I've ever read also).

jfengel 5y ago

Ugh. I'm sorry they didn't enjoy it, but I wish I had been there. It looks amazing. The price of 130-200 Euros is actually quite reasonable for a meal like that. These dishes are a ton of work. Equivalent restaurants in the US usually cost around twice that. It does sound as if the service was rude, and that's entirely inappropriate at any restaurant at any price. The waiter should never scold the customer, and a place this innovative absolutely must be prepared for food allergies. I don't know why this one failed so badly. It is sufficient reason to avoid the restaurant. The only caveat I'd place on it is that the reviewer didn't seem to understand what kind of restaurant they were eating at, and so I can't take their description of the service entirely at face value. I'm sure they're being honest, but they were on a very bad foot for the entire experience, and they were going to be unhappy the entire time. This is dinner-and-a-show. You shouldn't be hungry afterwards: 27 courses, even tiny ones, is a lot. (Assuming, of course, that you get all 27. If they aren't making substitutions for food allergies, that is a serious failing.) Of course there's no "main"; you should be too full to eat a big piece of anything at that point. These were 27 creative, interesting, innovative dishes. You don't have to like all of them: if they weren't pushing the boundaries, they wouldn't be as interesting. Some of what they're describing is actually quite dated, which may account for the comparatively low price. This stuff was fashionable 20 years ago. Some of it has become trite. The untasteable drops of sauce on a plate are going out of fashion, and good riddance. They're pretty, but not delicious, and this kind of meal needs to be both. OK... the foam in the cast of the chef's mouth is in poor taste, and clearly the restaurant is reaching. The citrus foam is actually probably delicious, and 20 years ago it was a novelty, but for the effort it takes to produce they really should have found a more interesting presentation. So, what I'm reading is that they misunderstood the restaurant. At the very least they needed different expectations, or skipping it entirely. As for whether I'd like it, I have to read between the lines. It sounds as if there are some good ideas, though I'm not sure I'd have the patience for four hours of that particular dinner and show. Similar meals at other places take under three (so that they can have two seatings a night), and the pacing is important. I'm getting the impression of a formerly-innovative place that is coasting on its reputation. What I'm not finding is anything hilarious in the review. They don't know what they're looking at, and that's not especially funny to me. They just look dumb. I'm sure they're not. But I suspect that I could have helped them enjoy the meal better if I'd been there. Maybe it's not for them, but certainly not if they're expecting the wrong thing.