+1... I was also quite disappointed with C despite the hype about its seafood. I went to West when it was still Ouest and found the food to be very very good.

Bouchon didn't do much for us either. They had a great pork belly appetiser, but after that the steak was small and totally mediocre just with a stupidly large portion of frites, and the dessert of profiteroles we sent back because the pastry was hard.

Table 10, over in the Palazzo, is great however.

Actually the Venetian is pretty dull overall. Give me a Wynn-designed resort any day.

This is interesting, for sure. Not that this comment makes me want to cross this off my 'bucket list', but I would probably be making the trip just for El Bulli, so every negative I hear moves it down a bit further. Would love to hear more about this..

My votes:

Blackbird - Foodie friends say this is one of the 'real' best restaurants in Chicago, pastry chef just spent a year at the French Laundry, yadda yadda yadda. But when I went a few years ago the atmosphere was just terrible - noisy, bland - like a train station. Service was mediocre. Food was just okay. Couldn't wait to get out of this place.

Fountain - Zagat has (had?) this as the top place in Philly, and I'm just not buying it. My companion ordered the pheasant, I believe, but whatever it was, it was overdone and tasteless. The menu was just sort of... meh. I had a hard time finding something that looked good, rather than deciding between many great options.

While I like Nobu London, I'm not surprised that people have listed it here - but one poster had it dead on - while doesn't quite live up to the hype, there are some dishes that are just to die for. Call me cliche, but the black cod... oh my...

Funny, I was thinking the same thing by this point in the thread...
 

We have a serious vendetta going here...

+1. I, too, was ready to make a pilgramage to el Bulli, but after reading such a negative post about it, I am probably not going to. If I am going to fly 1/2 across the world, coordinate hotels & vacation time, and then drop $500/person for a meal, it better be "amazing", "mind-blowing", or "out of this world". If it is just a better than average place, it's not worth it. I think that this post is very helpful for those of us who are thinking of going to el Bulli.

There is no vendetta here, but this is a thread about the most overrated restaurant.

I have been eating a CP since I was a teenager growing up in Berkeley in the 70's and always accepted it for what it is.

When I discovered it was receiving rave reviews and accolades, I went back to see if things have changed, but I have never had anything aproaching a good meal there.

You go to Harry's Bar in Venice for the Bellini and the experience.

You go to Chez Panisse for the mesclun salad and the experience.

Both will set you back a pretty penny.

The difference is that Harry's Bar rates a 19 while Chez Panisse a 28.

That's why CP is astonishingly overrated.

Yes- in fact given the super hype (Best Restaurant in Canada, National Post top 10, etc) it is a real let down.

I do have to agree West IS one of the best restaurants in Canada- have been there three times in the last year and each was better than the one before- very impressive!

Did they drop the prices? I haven't been for several years. Even when the dollar was strong, I found it outrageously expensive. But one doesn't go there for the food, does one? So how can it be overrated? One goes there to say one went there. Just like Cafe de flor across the street - Hemingway, Gertrude Stein, etc.

I enjoyed Nahm. Probably the best Thai meal that I have had outside of Thailand. Certainly better than any Thai meal I've had in the U.S. Yes, it is expensive for what it is, the style of the food is not particularly traditional, but I thought the ingredients and flavors were spot on and reminded me very much of Bangkok street food.

Fleur dy Lys in San Francisco on the otherhand was absoultely horrible. I do not understand how they were given a Michelin star. Easily the most dissapointing meal I have ever had.

There is a nick name we call it here in San Francisco: "Fleur dy Waste-of-money"

Sorry, was a bit late on that one.
I know some 3* starred chefs personnaly, so I assume I am somehow used to "very high end gourmet whatever places". As for the molecular cuisine, I have yet to find a place (beside Marc Veyrat, but it's sadly closed now and not really molecular) where it's used for something else than to hide an absolute lack of talent and taste.
It's usually a wow/Aha effect when you see the plate coming, but that's about it. Ingredients tend to be on the very cheap side, beside freezing and using potentialy unhealthy ingredients there is no technique to speak of. And then there's the taste. I really have to wonder who tries that stuff and says ok, let's do it (then again, I often ask myself the same question with movies).
The clientele is usualy also on the very cheap side, lots of upper-backpackers who just want to go to the "best restaurant in the world", so they're done with food. Fact is, it's like wine, art, cars or whatever else, you need to undertsand the whole culture to be able to appreciate something.
Service is not up to a 3* place, at all. Then again, it's very cheap, for all what that means...
As for what places I do like, i'd say Marc Veyrat was really good (even if somehow expensive), Robuchon @Galera & @Mansion, Michel Bras, Philippe Rochat in Crissier (outstanding), Lameloise etc etc.

Bouchon over rated
 

Was excited to try Bouchon on an expense account but was not impressed with the food at all. Tried it for two meals and it was just OK with nothing that stood out for the high prices. The desserts they had were great but came to find out the chef was training for the World Pastry compition at the time so not sure if this was typical. Still most meals and service in Vegas is better than you can get in the Midwest.

While I have read some reviews that fault elBulli for being too far out and using some strange flavour combinations, I have never ever seen anybody claim that "there is no technique to speak of". With that statement alone you just completely undermined your credibility from my perspective.

If you are going to badmouth elBulli, at least try to do it credibly.

Cheers,
T.

Typical Bulli-lover ignorance/arrogance.

Since you probably never went there, you probably don't know that there isn't even a kitchen at the "restaurant", simply a big workplan where they arrange ingredients on the plates. So no, there is no technique, they might have a big chemistry team (financed by Nestle and the likes), but that has nothing to do with cooking tecnhniques... Try Rochat's surprise egg for technique...try "pommes soufflees" that you need to fry perfectly twice, try a fish "cuit sur l'ecaille" etc etc... But you don't want to hear about that, right...And again, on top of that the ingredients are pure crap. Very cheap..not worth 3* at all (then again, many conventional restaurants don't deserve them as well).

Typical stubborn traditionalist thinking.

A classical French kitchen used to have only a wood fire stove with very little temperature control. Ancient (European) cooking "technique" once only went so far as roasting a carcass and then serving and eating with your individual knife. Technique and technology evolves with time and so does the idea of "cooking".

What was called "nouvelle cuisine" in France in the 60s/70s/80s has been pretty well incorporated into modern Western restaurants, so much as be to considered normal.

Now, I'm not a 100% Ferran Adria (and acolytes) true believer; many of his "creations" are too avant garde for me. I enjoy classical French cuisine and cook it all the time, frustrating techniques and all. However, to say that Adria is doing no "cooking" and not creating any interesting "techniques" is going too far.