I’ve been reading the NYTimes Restaurant reviews avidly for 12+ years. I’ve gone down rabbit holes reading Sifton’s, Bruni’s, and Reichl’s reviews. I’ve been fortunate enough to hear Ruth Reichl speak on many occasions and so inspired by her writing and restaurant reviews (and her [very self-aware piece](https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/10/magazine/lives-why-i-disapprove-of-what-i-do.html) on why she disapproves of what she does.)
I (and many of my restaurant colleagues) are so ready for Pete Wells to move on. He has perfected the review that reads like three stars, but is actually a two-star critic’s pick. The recent Café Carmellini is a perfect example. He calls out one under cooked dish and says “a rare misfire for Carmellini”, otherwise perfect. Why not three stars?
He has shortchanged so many restaurants with this garbage review-style for too many years. Please step aside Pete, you’ve over stayed your welcome by 5-7 years.
by quietalker
12 Comments
Pressed much?
If I had a job where i got to eat free food and then write snooty reviews about how it wasn’t absolutely perfect, I would keep it until I died.
In today’s day and age with blogs, IG etc
He isn’t holding a monopoly over the reviews.
If you don’t want to read his reviews, keep reading other peoples.
IDK why he’d step down from a great position.
Not soon enough
What 3 star reviews of his do you disagree with? That’s more telling— if he just basically never gives out 3 stars that’s kind of a reasonable, and typical, position for a critic who has to rate things— even if it doesn’t track with Michelin, there are plenty of other rating systems that basically never top out .
I actually prefer Wells’ acerbic style. Two reasons.
1) Wells’ has a penchant for pointing out what might go wrong with dishes and in so doing provides clues as to how to navigate a restaurant’s menu, and indeed whether there might be deeper issues within the kitchen.
2) Dining out is expensive these days. You probably don’t get to do this too often. You’d like to make the best choice. Too many outlets write generally glowing, inflated reviews (a number of others, especially on social media, are explicitly paid placements). I contend these aren’t very informative. You can usually count on Wells to tell it how it is. Genuine criticism needs to be retained in this today’s environment. Pete Wells is a stalwart of this style.
His take down of EMP was epic and my friends and I still occasionally laugh about it and quote snippets at opportune times.
“Vegetables being asked to do what no vegetable should be asked to do” 😂
classic. Witty. Thoughtful insights
about actual sustainability woven in.
A little critical thinking and wit is so welcome in today’s overhyped insta/TikTok BS. I hope he stays on for many more years.
I think many don’t catch the fact that *any* stars is a positive review. Two stars means a “very good” restaurant. And that’s what a Cafe Carmellini is.
Every dish may be perfect for what it is but maybe they’re also not aiming particularly high, despite the prices. Unlike Michelin, NYT reviews *do* take price into consideration. A rabbit cacciatore is not the same as, say the Tout Le Lapin at Le Coucou.
I hope soon, this guy just doesn’t excite me anymore – The NY Times needs some new flavor.
I don’t even see the Cafe Carmellini review anywhere. But two stars is a very good restaurant. Cafe Carmellini is is a hotel restaurant that doesn’t seem to breaking any new ground.
I like Pete’s reviews a lot, and appreciate how he’s expanded the scope of NYT restaurant reviews way beyond his predecessors. Also, he’s not writing reviews for your “restaurant colleagues,” he’s writing reviews for diners. If you think that he’s too tough, you’re welcome to pay attention to the pay-for-play websites and tiktokers instead.
Preach! I’m flabbergasted he lasted after Covid with all the diversity shake ups and fresh voices across all industries.
Every review just describes a few dishes and nothing about beverage or cocktail program, little or no mention of service whatsoever.
The write ups are never close to comprehensive.
So much disappointment week after week.