81147 Fri Apr 21 15:43:28 -0700 2006 13 2 Los Angeles Area 0 449698 The Emperor is in the house. The front of the house that is, but he should have spent more/some time in the back of the house, namely the kitchen. I was hoping that all the press and buzz about the restaurant was due to the food, service, and atmosphere. How naive am I? This is Hollywood. Instead of seeing to the expediting and finish of the plates leaving the kitchen, the "Chef” spent the entire evening chatting up his bevy of bodacious groupies (I guess they’ve heard about his “cured salami”). Last night’s experience at FFS was less than underwhelming. 4 people, 2 starters, 2 salads and 2 entrees = $60 per person, not including beverages. (We only ordered 2/2/2 because frankly the rest of the menu was totally uninspiring). And that's the good news. Now, the bad news. Ordered a cocktail... cocktail never arrived. Went to the bar, got cocktail (apparently we’d been seated at the "Self Serve" pump). 30 minutes later, cocktail arrived... Oops, wrong cocktail. The "Cheese Platter" - 3 small slices, not even properly cut wedges, tossed on a plate. The "Cured Meat Sampler” - 3 types of cured meats, haphazardly strewn about the plate with a hunk of bread. Flat Iron Steak...whatever. Risotto... Decent, at best (but I’ve been spoiled by Ago’s Risotto al Fungi). After dinner I ordered a double espresso. Fifteen minutes later I was informed the espresso machine was out of order. Outside patio looks like Starbucks. Somebody stop me. Well, I may not be alone in my thoughts because last night being Thursday night, the crowd was quite light and had all but cleared out by about 10:00pm. Used to be that a satisfied customer would tell one person, and an unhappy customer would tell ten. But, that was before the internet. To be fair, I’ll try FFS one more time. Fool me twice? Fri Apr 21 15:43:28 -0700 2006 0 Wiley's Hungry Again 1 449705 Four people x 60 bucks a person = 240 dollars. You ordered six dishes (2 + 2 + 2). 240 divided by 6 = 40 dollars a dish. Is that possible? I went there once, two people, two entrees plus a beer and a cocktail and a soft drink and we were out for about 60 bucks all in. I don't doubt your review, but it makes me feel like prices have gone up since I was there a month ago. (FWIW - Everything is subjective of course, but we had great service. Were seated at a nice table without a reservation on a crowded week night. The table was against the wall and we both faced the room and could people watch, there were pillows to lean on and everything. Very attentive wait-staff including the bus-staff. I had the fish and chips, wife and the ox-tail stew (or something like that). Food wasn't sublime, it wasn't an all time meal for the record books, but it was mostly good and some of it more than good. I haven't been back, but I'd go back ...) Fri Apr 21 16:31:48 -0700 2006 449698 0 PaulF 2 449718 well, it makes sense since a single cap there is 5 bucks, and double would be 7 or 8 bucks right there, desserts are a good 8 bucks or so, and entrees range from the mid teens to the early 20s, it could easily be 50 bucks a person. now if got fish and chips, maybe it's like 15 bucks, and a small salad to share, no desserts, and no wines, and maybe an iced tea or sea, i guess you can possibly get out of there with tax and tip for 60 bucks, seems like you got a good deal for the place. i got just a capp and dessert and it cost be close to 18 bucks with tax and tip. Fri Apr 21 17:09:14 -0700 2006 449705 0 kevin 3 449781 The fish & chips is $19, and consists of 2 steak-fry type pieces of potato, 2 pieces each of battered and fried asparagus, shrimp, and fish (quite tiny pieces of fish), and a couple weird, vinegary carrots. It is much more like an order of mixed tempura from an average sushi joint than "fish and chips." Which might have been okay if it had been good. But it really wasn't -- too soggy. And maybe it's just all the Friday fish frys I went to growing up in Milwaukee, but when I order fish and chips, I want FISH! I was there last Friday night, rather late. I acknowledge it was a terrible idea to go on a weekend night the week they were reviewed in the L.A. Times. And, in retrospect, it was a bad idea to go to a restaurant that counts on a lot of outside space on a rainy night. My companion arrived late, so I wasn't too upset that they did not seat me when I arrived on time for my reservation, but I was annoyed when I stood near the bar waiting to be seated, watching them seat walk-ins in the main room. Much later, they seated me on the side patio. The side patio is enclosed with one of those heavy canvas/plastic awnings with sides and looked and felt like the storeroom of a Cost Plus. Last Friday was cold and wet, and it was drafty out there. The wait for the table was unpleasant, too (granted, as I was still waiting for my friend, I had more time to think and get annoyed). Ford's uses its bar both as a waiting area and for bar dining, crowding the space with additional tables. On a busy night like last Friday, it inevitably means that the bar area is packed with people eating and those without reservations hovering over waiting for seats, leaving those waiting for tables struggling to order a drink and getting knocked around trying to stay out of the way. It's something I'm more willing to forgive if I'm the one without a reservation, but I really think if they're trying to create a bar scene and offer dining at the bar, there needs to be a little more space for people to wait for their tables -- taking a couple of their bar tables and stools out on really busy nights would help immensely. And this was no doubt much worse due to the rain. Once we were seated and ordered, I started to chill out a little. Our server was very friendly, if a bit clueless. She couldn't identify the cheeses available (and as if we didn't already feel exiled, the menu simply refers to selections "on the board" which is, of course, in the dining room), and despite my pointing out that the (very good) Australian shiraz we had ordered had a twist-off cap, repeatedly tried in vain to open the bottle with the blade of her corkscrew until I finally insisted on opening it myself. We started with cheeses (I don't even know what they all were, since our server didn't) and salumi (I picked jamon serrano, winter salami, and hot sopressata from a wide selection), both of which were very tasty. The bread and olives were good, too. Unlike the OP, I didn't take issue with the quantity or presentation, and I'd happily go back to Ford's to sit on the patio and have a glass of wine and a salumi plate. My friend had trout, which she said was good, and I had the aforementioned fish and chips. We didn't have dessert. Despite my little rant, I would go back -- now I know what to (and what not to) expect. This place is clearly trying to be more of a scene than a great restaurant -- which I like now and then. And it has to be acknowledged that you have to create a scene to get some people to figure out where downtown Culver City is and seek out a new restaurant there. So if I'm going for that, I'll dress the part and fortify myself for noise, crowds, and paying a premium. If not, I'll wait for a warm weekday, and chill on the patio with some wine and salumi. Fri Apr 21 19:35:58 -0700 2006 449718 0 jnovgirl 4 449892 ..."fish (quite tiny pieces of fish).." Do you remember what kind of fish they used in their version of Fish-n-Chips (tempura)? Also, I was curious what types of fish were served in the Milwaukee fish fries of your youth that you're using to compare FFS's with? TIA Sat Apr 22 10:05:03 -0700 2006 449781 0 JBC 5 450015 Sorry, I don't know what kind of fish Ford's puts in its fish and chips. I don't know whether it's that it was on the menu and I forgot, or whether it didn't say at all (and I didn't ask). As I said, the fish was really a bit player (and was the soggiest, as it was buried under the others). I wasn't concerned too much about what kind of fish I was eating when I was a kid, but if I'm not mistaken, most often fish fries (in the 70's and 80's at least) were cod or perch. Sun Apr 23 00:07:28 -0700 2006 449892 0 jnovgirl 4 449893 ..."fish (quite tiny pieces of fish).." Do you remember what kind of fish they used in their version of Fish-n-Chips (tempura)? Also, I was curious what types of fish were served in the Milwaukee fish fries of your youth that you're using to compare FFS's with? TIA Sat Apr 22 10:08:24 -0700 2006 449781 0 JBC 3 449846 But he said what the 240 was for ... and it didn't include any drinks, capps or desserts. Just the 2 2 2. It doesn't add up for me. Fri Apr 21 23:33:51 -0700 2006 449718 0 PaulF 4 449849 As I said, "no drinks". Remember I went to the bar and paid for my own cocktail. We had two bottles of wine at $80 each. Actually the first bottle was not what we ordered. Imagine that. We may have had a soda, an iced tea, oh and I do have some vague recollections of a Saccharin sweet Butterscotch pudding. Still $60 a head. Fri Apr 21 23:55:22 -0700 2006 449846 0 Wiley's Hungry Again 1 449775 Why would you ever go back there (except for the "scene") for over-priced mediocre food and lousy service, when you can go to a nice restaurant with consistently good food (been that way for many years), a great polish vodka martini, nice people and good service AND get out the door for around $30 per person (including salad/appetizer and full dinner)? I'm talking about Warsawa in Santa Monica. No 'SCENE' there -- just good food and service at reasonable prices. I guess you must be young and foolish -- been there, done that, and don't want to do it again! Give me a good meal that doesn't cause me to take out a second mortgage on my home. Fri Apr 21 19:18:13 -0700 2006 449698 0 EJ 2 449806 I may be more foolish than I am young however,any profesional food critic though I'm not one, would try a restaurant at least twice if not three times in order to give a thorough and level critique of an establishment. It's ony fair. Fri Apr 21 20:55:56 -0700 2006 449775 0 Wiley's Hungry Again 3 450200 Wiley, you may be right about giving it a second chance. When you do, please write again -- I'd love to hear if they've made any improvements. Wonder if they read Chowhound (they should!). Mon Apr 24 14:32:18 -0700 2006 449806 0 EJ 1 450104 We went on opening night (Valentine's day) and needless to say, Ben's dad was there with Calista. The service was actually adequate, but the food definitely is overpriced and was quite bland. It was opening night and they were trying to work the kinks out, but quite frankly, Ben Ford's menu was not very flavorfull. In all fairness, I have heard that the burgers were pretty good since my last visit (burgers weren't on the menu the night I went), but to create all this hype over a restaurant whose only appeal are the burgers and reliance on the Hollywood connection is pretty weak. If I were Ben, I would recommend getting another chef and just have him run the operations as I did not find his culinary skills very satisfying. Sun Apr 23 22:05:26 -0700 2006 449698 0 David 1 450496 I would tend to agree, overpriced and mediocre at best. I went with my mother for a quick dinner last month and didn't find any reason to return. The mojito was quite possibly the sweetest most foul drink I've ever ordered. They recommended the fish and chips, the fish was on the edge of turning and rather fishy, the chips were undercooked and soggy, but the fried asperagus that was in there was divine. That was the ONLY divine thing that night. I was willing to give it a shot, because I had had wonderful meals at Chadwick's. I guess that was a bit of a fluke, and Ben isn't the genius he was proclaimed. Tue Apr 25 19:00:55 -0700 2006 449698 0 Suzsqueak