The Saturday Dining Conspiracy: July, 2007

July 7, 2007: Roy's Restaurant.

340 E. 2nd St
391-1500
30.26339° N, 97.74119° W

Pepper grinder rating: 3.5.
Men's room rating: 3.
WiFi: None.

Dwight's comments:

Mixed bag. I'll gladly eat at Roy's if someone brings it up, but I'm not a huge fan; it always struck me as being relatively expensive, and having small portions.

The $35 prix 3 course (appetizers, entree, and dessert) menu sort of takes care of both problems. So I figured, "What the heck, I'll order that. And share some extra appetizers, too."

Problem: two out of three courses were pretty good. But the one that wasn't was the main course: a braised short rib. Perhaps I made a mistake in ordering beef in a seafood restaurant: I don't think so, however, since Roy's promotes itself not as seafood, but as "fusion". The dish just didn't work for me: I didn't think any of the components had much flavor, and I frankly wish I had ordered fish.

There were things I liked other than the appetizers: the chocolate soufflè and the weirdly architectural Cesear salad (I didn't order this; someone else did. I didn't have any of it; I just liked the design). But I can't say I really enjoyed the experience that much.

Lawrence's comments:

We've been meaning to do an SDC here for quite a well, since Dwight has been waxing enthusiastic about the place. And there is much to like. The interior is very attractive, the service was generally fine, and everything I had was very good to excellent. But there are a few things that keep me from giving Roy's a whole-hearted rave.

Things started very well with the appetizers; though pricey (as you would expect), all of them were quite tasty. The calamari was just a hair less delicious than perennial favorite The Clay Pit, but made up for it with an excellent chili and lime dipping sauce that had a pronounced (and very welcome) kick to it. Likewise, the Szechuan Baby Back Ribs that came with the appetizer sampler plate were probably the best Chinese-style ribs I've had; though the sauce was close to that offered at Austin mainstays such as Pao's, it just seemed tangier. And all the other appetizers, including the sushi, were very good as well, as was my salad.

And then my entree arrived, and The French Problem reared it's tiny head. I had opted for the Surfer Platter because it had offered three different kinds of fish (Ahi, Salmon, and Butterfish, if memory serves), which proved to be a mistake. Evidently Roy's doesn't think that surfing works up much of an appetite, since there was about two ounces of each on the plate, along with equally tiny portions of the accompanying sides. All of it was quite delicious, but there was even less of it than the entrees on the prix fixe menu. Even for a high-end restaurant this was way too little food for the money. Opt for one of the three fish, but not this sampler.

I finished up with the pineapple upside down cake, which was fine, but not nearly memorable enough for a dessert you have to order 20 minutes in advance.

Service was generally good, but I did have to wait for a few soft drink refills; at these prices, there shouldn't be any perceptible wait.

I'd certainly be willing to make a return trip to Roy's, but I'll steer clear of the Surfer sampler.

July 14, 2007: Rome's Pizza.

Rome's Pizza
9225 W. Parmer
996-8890
30.47846° N, 97.76647° W

Pepper grinder rating: 0.
Men's room rating: 2.5.
WiFi: None.

Dwight's comments:

Very, very solid pizza. I liked the Italian wings, too: they remind me of Kentucky Fried Chicken, back when Colonel Sanders was still alive and they were using the original orignal recipie. I'm not sure how far I'd drive for this pizza, but it is a darn good neighborhood joint.

Lawrence's comments:

This is a no-frills order-at-the-counter pizza place with good pizza, adequate appetizers (the Italian wings were OK, but the garlic bread was dull) with a nicer interior than Rudino's.

The biggest problem with Rome's is location, in two senses of the word. First, this strikes me as more of a grab-and-go joint than a destination restaurant, but they're horribly situated for a pickup place; there's no direct access to 620 and there's no direct turn lane from Parmer to this strip center; you have to go down to the turn lane at the light and wait. Second, this is less than two miles from Brooklyn Heights, which has comparable pizza, a nicer interior, and a much wider range of appetizers and desserts. While I wouldn't mind ordering a pizza from here, with Reale's and Brooklyn Heights so close, I just don't see this cracking my pizza rotation anytime soon.

July 21, 2007: Texas Roadhouse.

13435 US Highway 183 North, Bldg. 7
336-7427
30.44716° N, 97.78871° W

Pepper grinder rating: 0.
Men's room rating: 2.
WiFi: None.

Dwight's comments:

Lawrence's comments:

Lots of problems here, although I'm not sure they're ones anyone can do anything about.

First of all, I'm not really in much sympathy with the entire concept: An over-crowded and tightly-packed faux-down-home mid-priced chain restaurant blaring country music. I mean, that's what they are. We knew the job was dangerous going in.

And I'm not sure what you can say about the poor service when it was obvious that our waitress just wasn't very bright. A. T. spilled his glass on the table (no opprobrium here, as I've managed to do the same on more than one occasion). Now, when you're waiting a table, and you see that your patrons have managed to soak their napkins by putting them on the table in an effort to stem the flood, and then ask you to bring a towel, you don't bring out five more tiny under-the-glass napkins to soak up the puddle. Likewise, when your patrons, having mopped up the table themselves, ask for more napkins, you don't bring another five tiny under-the-glass napkins. And when they point out to you that this is woefully insufficient, you don't take another 5-10 minutes to remedy the situation. I mean, what can you say? The woman is obviously working pretty close to the edge of her own intellectual capabilities envelope. Thank God she's working as a waitress at Texas Roadhouse rather than working for Homeland Security or performing brain surgery. (Hell, forget brain surgery; our waitress wasn't sharp enough to work as an assistant to Dr. Nick Riviera.)

And the food? Eh. I really liked the hot rolls and the cinnamon butter combo, but everything else (Awesome Blossom fried-onion rip-off, steak, ribs) seemed adequate at best. It wasn't bad, but there are lots of better versions available in this price range.

I can't come up with a compelling reason why I would ever want to eat here again.

July 28, 2007: Le Soleil.

9616 N. Lamar #156
821-0396
30.36674° N, 97.69578° W

Pepper grinder rating: 0.
Men's room rating: 2.
WiFi: None.

Dwight's comments:

Lawrence's comments:

As a Vietnamese restaurant, I rather like it. Apparently run by one (post-divorce) half of the Sunflower team, and it shows in entrees like the Shaken Beef (every bit as good as Sunflower). The eggrolls were fun, though I do think the appetizer sampler platter works better as performance art (hint, you're supposed to dip the rice paper in water, then roll your spring roll up) than as actual food. Service was the usual "semi-indifferent Asian service to white guys" standard. (And you pay at the register.)

Unfortunately, the biggest problem with Le Soleil is it's location, in the North Lamar Dining Zone of the Damned. An exterior ambiance of heroin addicts and half-empty storefronts make it hard for me to recommend this to any but the most adventurous diners.

See the logs for August of 2007.

See the logs for June of 2007.

Return to the main Saturday Dining Conspiracy page.

Return to my home page.

Send email to Dwight Brown (stainles@bga.com).