It seems early to post a review of Lucier (or is according to the polls we’ve run), but Heidi Yorkshire of Willamette Week, has posted a review that pretty much echoes my feelings, and also rakes a bit of mud:
In his official biography on Lucier’s website—and in an interview with WW—Chureau stated that during the period from 1986 to 1990 he worked at several restaurants in Paris that had three Michelin stars, a ranking held by a tiny handful of restaurants. Yet the restaurants he names as his employers were not then and have never since been awarded three stars. Perhaps he’s truly forgotten the ratings of the establishments where he’s worked. But if he’s trying to establish his bona fides for attempting this kind of food, what he’s got on his résumé isn’t as important as what’s on the plate.
Interesting no one else has pointed this out before. Overall, her view of the food is that it fails to reach its potential:
Lucier’s menu comes across as a disjointed array of ingredients and techniques. It seems to have been written by feeding a swarm of trendy food buzzwords in several languages into some kind of random computer recipe generator: ravioli, harissa, picholine olives, micro greens, ice cream, jus, emulsion, cacao nibs, cromesquis, reduction, kumquats, gastrique, yuzu, lemongrass, griottes, guanciale, cappuccino, white anchovy, heirloom and infused oil each make an appearance. The diner is left wondering what the chef is trying to say, and why.
Excellent review, and based on two early visits, I’d I agree with her conclusions. You can read the entire piece at the WW website: The Trophy Wife.