Only 1 star for Calle Ocho?
I'm sure Dave Feldman must be as disappointed as I am
at Calle Ocho's one star review in the NY Times.
Seems like from reading the review, it should merit 2
stars. Unless Grimes had tried and didn't like them,
he missed the wonderful Puerto Rican rum glazed
shrimps, the sweet corn arepa with bacalao, and the
sweet corn and goat cheese tamal.
Who knows what standards Grimes uses for assigning
stars? All too many reviewers believe that multiple
stars have to be reserved for Major Cuisines (French,
Italian, and maybe Chinese and Japanese these days). I
don't know if Grimes is hung up on that, but it's
re: Josh Mittleman
I agree - one star does not fairly represent the place.
It has occurred to me after reading Mr. Grimes'
reviews in the past few weeks - he's new on the job and
he follows in the footsteps of The Ruth, she of endless
controversy. May be he's setting the bar high now to
allow himself some wiggle room later. Got to impress
those impressionable readers, y'know. Or maybe it's
gone to his head. What a power rush to humble the
mighty Daniel! Revenge for all those times he couldn't
get a table.
re: Barbara S
Please note that I didn't say that I think one star is
an inappropriate rating for Calle Ocho. I haven't
tried it yet, so I can't express an opinion. I did
point out that different reviewers assign wildly
different meanings to stars. I would be very
surprised, for example, if Calle Ocho would rate a star
under the system used by Guide Michelin.
Ruth Reichl's use of stars never seemed to me to bear
any useful relation to reality, except perhaps when she
was reviewing expensive French or Northern Italian
restaurants. Grimes is so new on the job that we
simply don't have enough data to interpret his ratings
-- and I doubt Grimes himself really has a clear idea
of what they mean. Give him a couple years to settle
into the job.
In the mean time, I agree with PastryChef: Read the
review and judge for yourself. I read this one and
immediately made a reservation for dinner.
re: Josh Mittleman
Calle Ocho, like Red Cat a few weeks ago, deserved
more than one star. But Mr. Grimes, unlike Ms.
Reichel, is determined to upset the star system. Now,
Ms. Reichel swore she would change the star system
when she took over 5 years ago, but all she really did
was give 3 star reviews to restaurants that didn't
deserve them. Union Pacific, please, has anyone been
there lately? Cena? 3 stars last summer, now gone.
Four stars to Le Cirque 2000? What did that cost? Now,
here comes Grimes, who's finding his way and Daniel?
Three stars? So what's his idea of a 4 star joint?
Maybe he should re-review Jean-Georges. Would that
rate 4 stars? Doubtful. My new favorite restaurant is
Vice-Versa, and I can't wait for the star-according-to-
Grimes on that one. When Ruth was in charge, Calle
Ocho would have gotten 3 stars. And in the six times
I've been, it deserved 3 stars. Red Cat is also a
great place. But one star? No way. It's better than
that. And so is Calle Ocho. Mr. Grimes will get his
stuff together, I'm certain. But in the meantime
think of his reviews as the restaurant equivalent of a
Ben Brantley theatre review. It all sounds pretty and
knowing, but it's all about the delicious texture of a
man in love with the sound of his own voice.
I think it's pretty comical how worked up so many
otherwise sensible chowhounds can get about some
stupid stars. Did anybody disagree with anything Mr.
Grimes said in his review? Does anybody think his star
ratings have had any internal inconsistencies? This
obsession with stars is somewhat pathetic, I think.
And to say that Calle Ocho deserves three stars, even
on the Reichl scale, is absurd, unless you want to
redline the Upper West Side and hold the neighborhood
to a lower star standard than the rest of the city. As
for the four-star ratings, it may very well be that
Mr. Grimes doesn't believe there are any four-star
restaurants in the city at all right now. I sort of
agree, what with David Bouley and Gray Kunz, our two
most gifted chefs, marginalized for now. I bet Mr.
Grimes will give Daniel four stars in a year or two,
when the restaurant works out its kinks, but four
stars to an underperforming restaurant would have been
wrong. I'm going on break for most of August, so I'll
see you all in September.
YOU REALLY HIT IT ON THE HEAD.PEOPLE DO GET WORKED UP
ABOUT STARS,I DID AS A CHEF REVIEWED BY MILLER,AND
RUTH BUT AS CONSUMERS IF U ENJOY GO ,STARS R SET BY
THE REVEIWER,I THINK GRIMES IS JUST MARKING HIS TREES
AND I THINK ALL HE SETS AS FAR AS STARS GO WILL ALL BE
HIS OWN STANDART ,WHY COMPARE TO RUTH SHE HAD HER OWN
STYLE AS MILLER DID.
re: Josh Mittleman
Riva & I tried Calle Ocho last night, and it lived up
to the review: loud and cheerful with excellent food
and great service.
The space is interesting, too. The bar is comfortable
and airy, if a bit underlit. They have an interesting
selection of Latin American beers and tropical drinks.
They make a good caipirinha.
When you walk into the dining room, it's like a
different restaurant. Grimes called it "cavernous",
and he wasn't joking. Get a table in a corner or under
one of the arches if you don't like eating in a middle
of a vast space with people snuggled up against both
elbows. The noise was pretty bad, too, until the crowd
began to clear out around 10:00.
But the food is splendid. It starts with an excellent
basket of breads. As appetizers, we had octopus &
squid salad with grilled hearts of palm, and the day's
special empanada, filled with Spanish blue cheese.
For entrees, I had the pork loin that Grimes praised,
which is flavored with adobo and served with chipotle
mashed potatos and an excellent salsa. Riva had baby
rack of lamb, which she requested with the same side
They have a nice wine list, with a good assortment by
the glass. If you're not familiar with South American
wines (and I'm not), ask the waiter for help. Mine
knew the wines well. He recommended a Chilean pinot
noir that was remarkably good.
Dinner for two with drinks came to about $90.
You are correct, Gary. I was disappointed in the
review and particularly about the point you
mentioned: given the text, one would assume that two
stars would be assigned. Given a choice among, say,
Picholine, 222, Cafe Luxembourg, or whatever the UWS
competition in upscale restaurants is supposed to be,
I'd be at Calle Ocho in a shot.
It's true that it can get noisy (although I've never
had a problem carrying on a conversation) and that
occasionally food is slow. But from the review, the
impression could be received that the place is so
"hot" that there is an attitude problem or trouble
getting a table. Nothing could be further from the
truth. I've encountered nothing but friendliness.
Yes, it can have a party atmosphere, but everybody is
I'm sure Calle Ocho will survive the review, but I
really feel for the entire staff of the restaurant,
which has coped with their early success with grace
As most of you have noticed, Senor Biff, yet another academic in the wacky world of food writing, grades on a rather steep curve, and his star ratings are consistently one or two below his predecessors. So with this in mind, a Sr. Biff one-star roughly equalling a RR two-star, the rating seems just about right on Dr. Grimes' Planet. Beacon seemed to be his favorite restaurant in the world, and it only got two.
re: Al Pastor
Two points in addition to Mr. Pastor's (with which I
First, we should all be reading the reviews and not
getting all hot and bothered about the stars. It was a
very positive and fair review. Only a star-struck
reader could think it was anything but a strongly
Second, I support Mr. Grimes's use of the stars. Ms.
Reichl was giving three stars to any restaurant that
could put together a decent plate of food, which made
the rating meaningless. One star should be considered
high praise for a fledgling Upper West Side casual
neighborhood joint. Grimes is just bringing the stars
back in line with common sense.