Let me preface this by saying that I just relocated back to Los
Angeles and that I haven't had a chance to go to L A's fine dining
restaurants in a long time. So seeing the Water Grill in the LA Times
Food section had me interested. I loved it when I lived here, I
couldn't wait to see what's going on.
I was to be very disappointed in the review (at least I think it was a
review). I finished reading the article wondering: How was the
restaurant itself? I could care less about the corporation or their
training, what the menu was like months/seasons ago or the owners. If
I did care I'd be reading the business section.
I want a real review with information about the dinning experience as
a whole. For instance: What are their first courses like? How was the
service or presentation? Does it still have that great ambiance and
professionalism? What about the bar and drinks? Or the wine list, what
did she have with the dishes? Do they still have the oyster bar? Do
they still shuttle to the theaters? I could go on...
Did Irene get her paper's sections wrong? Or should the article's
title be: "Cimarusti left the Water Grill and I can't get over it to
give a real review".
Instead of getting restaurant information from the review I called
them this morning. I got the basic information that should have been
in a restaurant review, some menus and I will answer the rest of my
questions when I go there next week.
In closing I was hoping someone out there could help me understand the
star rating system. What makes a four, three, two or one star
restaurant? And for curiosities sake: what is S. Irene Virbila's
background in food or qualifications as a critic? Who is she and why
does she matter?