KEY POINTS:
Gordon Ramsay, joked Frank Bruni, was so important he was going to have his face printed on the pillows of his waiters.
Alas, all the efforts of Britain's most famous chef to please the influential restaurant critic of the New York Times have been dashed.
Eleven weeks after Mr Ramsay opened his first United States restaurant, Gordon Ramsay at the London (the London NYC Hotel), on November 16, Bruni finally delivered his verdict.
It was critical and not a little humbling for a chef determined to crack the US.
Out of a maximum four stars, Bruni awarded the London NYC just two, "very good" - well short of the "excellent" or "extraordinary" to which Mr Ramsay would have aspired.
The central failing Bruni identified was the timidity at the "icily" decorated restaurant - the first of three Ramsay eateries in the US.
Bruni made much of Mr Ramsay's reputation for being foul mouthed and foul tempered in his television shows, including the F Word and Hell's Kitchen, which has been a ratings success in the US.
But he suggested the brashness had not been matched by boldness in the kitchen.
In a 1400-word review, he wrote: "For all his brimstone and bravado, his strategy for taking Manhattan turns out to be a conventional one, built on familiar French ideas and techniques that have been executed with more flair, more consistency and better judgment in restaurants with less vaunted pedigrees.
"Most ingredients are predictable, most flavours polite, most effects muted.
"Mr Ramsay may be a bad boy beyond the edges of the plate but in its centre, he's more a goody-two-shoes."
Such a verdict is a setback to Mr Ramsay as he expands across the globe rapidly, with openings planned later this year in LA and Florida and in Paris, Prague and Amsterdam.
Although he has made no secret of his intention to replicate his three Michelin stars at his Chelsea restaurant in New York, Mr Ramsay had been careful to avoid antagonising New Yorkers by being too brash.
He has made humble noises about having to earn his customers' respect.
This desire to achieve rather than dazzle appears to have underwhelmed Bruni, who previously complained he was allotted two hours to dine at the restaurant.
Other reviews of London NYC have been similarly lukewarm, with the New York Sun referring to its "unimpeachable adequacy".
The Independent's critic, Tom Sutcliffe, was more generous and pointed out New Yorkers prided themselves on being hard to impress and early reviews carried an overtone of chippy resistance to Mr Ramsay's reputation.
Chippy or not, Bruni complained the menu was cautious and reliant on "default luxuries" and declared himself disappointed with many of the dishes he was served.
The appetiser of caramelised sweetbreads was luxurious but not "gripping"; the roasted chicken was "just a roasted chicken" while there were envelopes of "raw, thinly sliced, unpleasantly papery red beet".
He did, however, like the desserts and praised the "terrific" tarte tartin.
The critic, whose verdict is closely followed by New Yorkers, concluded: "Seldom has a conquistador as bellicose as Mr Ramsay landed with such a whisper".
- INDEPENDENT
