I have heard good things about Juan in a Million for breakfast, and I would be willing to give them another try for that. However, dinner seems like an afterthought, right down to the menus, which are actually the breakfast and lunch menus: there's no actual dinner menu. Which is okay, because dinner ends up being priced like lunch. But it kind of isn't okay, because you're basically getting a lunch portion for dinner.
The other problem was that I didn't think lunch/dinner (lupper?) was all that great: the chicken fajita plate wasn't terribly spicy, or much of anything else. Enchiladas Y Mas does a similar plate, but better executed, I think.
I did like that the owner came around to check on us: he seems like a pretty friendly guy. If he could just perk up the dinner menu some...
I've liked the breakfast tacos I've had at Juan in a Million, so I was happy to see they were finally open for dinner. I also like the fact that they charge the same for dinner as for lunch. As for the food, well...
First of all, they got our nacho order wrong, and if there was any meat on the plate, it was so small compared to the beans it was mixed in with (i.e, the same beans I told them to leave off), it was all but undetectable. I've had worse nachos, but not this century, and I expect a hell of a lot better for $7.
Aside from that, however, everything else was pretty decent. There was less meat on my beef fajita plate than I like, but it was a decent quantity for a pretty low price, and they brought me extra onions and cut peppers (fresh jalapenos) on the side like I asked. And the extra egg and chorizo breakfast taco I had was good.
Service was generally acceptable, a little slow early on but better as the meal progressed. I did like the fact the owner came out to check on every table, a feature you usually see in Italian restaurants more than TexMex places.
Juan in a Million strikes me a only a sliver above the Austin TexMex average, but with the potential to be better. It's still a much better place for breakfast tacos than dinner, but as long as you avoid the nachos you should be fine.
Disappointing.
Aesthetically, there's nothing wrong with Sullivan's, except that the wood wood wood steakhouse look is starting to get tired. They have a pretty nice bar, but the extreme sports show on the TV (while fun to watch: especially the spectacular bicycle crash) didn't really belong.
I thought it was kind of strange for our waiter to start out by pushing the stone crab claws. While I applaud steakhouses that offer some variety for those who don't eat red meat, the server's hard sell set the wrong tone.
One of my fellow diners (who had been to Sullivan's several times in the past) commented that he had better steaks at Outback. I think that's harsh, but accurate. My steak lacked the tenderness and flavor of those I've had at both Ruth's Chris and Fleming's: I finished about half of it and tossed the rest later.
I am glad that Sullivan's does include a (decent) wedge salad in the price of the steak: I wish that more high-end steakhouses would do this. As for the sides, the au gratin potatos were competent, but pale in comparison to Fleming's kicked-up version. I was unimpressed with the sauteed mushrooms and onions.
It is possible that Sullivan's was having an off night. But since it also seemed to be prom night, I would expect them to be at their best (unless what they were interested in was hustling the rubes). I might consider a return trip, if I heard better things from people I trusted. But at these prices I'd only give them one more chance.
It was time once again for our yearly Big Steak trip, and having sampled downtown's other high end options (Ruth's Chris Steak House and Fleming's), we decided to try Sullivan's. While it has its virtues, I have to rank it as the least interesting of the three.
As for ambiance, the restaurant is attractive, but doesn't have the touch of elegance that elevates Fleming's, nor the Serious Wood Tone look of Ruth's Chris. Also, while the restroom is better designed than Ruth's Chris, its overwhelming ordinariness (save for the nice, thick paper towels, which I do appreciate) pales in comparison to Fleming's swanky water closet. For appetizers, we skipped the hideously overpriced crab claws (did they swipe this idea from Truluck's?) and instead went for escargot, calamari, and a cajun crab cake. The escargot was very good and quite large, thought it could have used more garlic. The crab cake was also fairly tasty, and a much better deal than that offered at Mrs. B's. The calamari was fine, but I'm afraid that The Clay Pit's numinous offering has ruined merely competent calamari for us.
One virtue Sullivan's has over its competitors is the inclusion of a wedge salad with your steak. Though smaller than the gargantuan field of greens Ruth's Chris lays out, the price savings makes it worth the tradeoff. I also very much liked my side of hashbrowns (real hashbrowns, not that cubed potato crap lazy restaurants try to pass off as hashbrowns these days). And my porterhouse? Tasty enough, but still disappointing, being neither as generous nor "vertical" as that offered at Ruth's Chris, nor as flavorful as either Ruth's Chris or Fleming's offerings. The creme brulee was very good, but the caramelized topping seemed just a touch thicker than I usually prefer it, leaving Ruth's Chris the winner here as well.
Service was reasonably attentive but a bit "average" by high end steak house standards. The water refill busgirl managed to slop water on one of Andrew "Simple Minds and Severed Heads" Wimsatt's fortunately empty side plates while refilling his glass, then walked blithely away. I also had to wait a bit longer than necessary for soft drink refills and ketchup for my hashbrowns. These lapses were small enough that I wouldn't usually note them (except perhaps for the water; that was a bit odd), but it did provide an unwelcome contrast to the hyper-attentive service offered at other restaurants in this price range.
All in all, there's nothing particularly wrong with Sullivan's. While a bit more affordable ("affordable" being a relative term) than it's swanky competitors, it seems to lack those special touches that elevate the fine dining experience. It lacks sizzle At these prices, I expect sizzle.
This used to be a place called Golden China, which I kind of liked: it was one of the better strip mall cheap Chinese places in town. Then they reconfigured themselves into Imperial Asia, a Thai/Chinese combo, which is just plain weird.
One of the wait persons reminded me of my paternal grandmother, if she were 30 years younger and Asian. The male half of the duo had a habit of laughing maniacally and sycophanticaly at just about everything we said: after a while, he was really starting to creep me out.
They also have sushi. Sort of: they have a sushi chef and a sushi bar, but you can't order sushi by the piece, only in various combination trays, and the selection is extremely limited. However, there wasn't anything wrong, as far as I could tell, with the actual sushi.
The Thai food is a mixed bag: I liked the soup and the pad thai just fine, but the panang was a little heavier on veggies and a little lighter on chicken and curry than I like.
This is eccentric enough to be interesting: I'd go back and try them again, if I'm in a mood to put up with that. It isn't so good, though, that I'd recommend it to people who have a low threshold for odd.
If you've often thought to yourself "Man, I'd really like to served Thai food and sushi by a cheerful gay Asian man with blond hair," then Imperial Asia is here to answer your needs. We got waited on by the aforementioned, and the grandmotherly woman, and the anglo sushi chef as well. Except for briefly forgetting Chuck's order, service was very attentive.
And the food? Both the calamari and the Tom Kai Guy were pretty good, and disappeared pretty quickly. Despite asking for it as hot and spicy as possible, yet again my beef panang was pretty wimpy, but otherwise adequate.
Except for a few pieces of Ye Ubiquitous California Roll I spooged off Dwight and Milton, I didn't try any of the sushi. The presentation was OK, but the inability to order sushi by the piece rather than as part of a combination tray puts it pretty far down the sushi list. Pretty decent wasabi, though.
I do admit that I find the Thai/sushi combination puzzling, if only because Thailand is pretty far from Japan. (Also puzzling is that between this, Oishi, and Kimchi, North I-35 seems to be turning into something of a Discount Sushi Corridor.) And while they seem competent in each, the Thai food isn't nearly as good as that at Thai Kitchen or even Thai Village, and the sushi can't compete with Mikado or Umi Sushi. It also doesn't help that they're in a Strip Mall of the Damned. I wouldn't mind visiting again, but I didn't find anything here really compelling either.
This practically defines bad TexMex. Unimpressive fajitas, bad nachos, bland sauce: the queso flamedo is okay, though, and the service wasn't horrible, but those are the only good things I can say: I left about half of my combo dinner on the plate because it was so awful. I suspect most of the customers are more interested in getting drunk than eating.
Make no mistake: Baby Acapulco isn't a restaurant, it's a bar with a restaurant attached. And as a restaurant, it's a pretty mediocre bar.
The food aspires to mediocrity, but doesn't reach those mids. The fajita nachos were pretty close to the biggest nacho rip-off we've ever had (I think Jorge's were worse): seven whole large chips, with melted American cheese. The salsa has a consistancy close to ketchup. Likewise, the fajitas were undersized and not particularly tasty. To top it all off, service was iffy at best (we discussed tipping the water boy but not the waiter). And they forgot to bring out the extra chipolte sauce.
With Pappasitto's, Amaya's Taco Village, and a Taqueria Arandas all within a mile of this place, there's no reason for anyone ever to eat here.
See the logs for May of 2003.