JOHN CHUCKMAN REVIEW OF THE SAMUEL DE CHAMPLAIN RESTAURANT IN MONTREAL'S CHATEAU CHAMPLAIN HOTEL, A MARRIOTT HOTEL
My wife was coming home by train from a visit, and we wanted to have dinner at "hotel style" restaurant near Montreal's Central Station.
I had thought of the Queen Elizabeth, but its new restaurant, called Rosélys, despite eye-catching looks, is, judging from its internet site more of a bistro, a limited one, with a small menu and wines by-the-glass. Some reviews indicated poor service, too. So, we avoided it.
So far as I know, the Chateau Champlain Hotel, with its wood-paneled lobby and central location, is regarded as pretty high-end, and one just naturally expects a fairly high-end restaurant.
You know, the old "hotel style" with crisp white linen, excellent service, and very good food? We are an older couple, and we like that kind of indulgence periodically when we go out.
We know you can still find it at some Montreal hotels, notably the Sofitel and the Ritz-Carlton.
And if you look at Chateau Champlain's internet site, the picture definitely is intended to communicate that very thing.
But what a total disappointment the Samuel de Champlain restaurant is.
It was early evening, and there were only place mats on the bare tables, but we were tired and hungry and, as I say, we're not young, so who's going to start a new search in the busy evening streets with luggage in tow?
The waiter was friendly and, at first, seemed helpful, but I would have to say that through the meal he simply disappeared for long periods.
I believe he was also working the bar/lounge next door, and that, too, is an unpleasant distraction for a dining room - a large open door to the kind of bar that has television in it. We never go into bistros or bars that have televisions blaring in them, something all too common today.
I ended pouring most of the wine myself from the ice bucket the waiter had brought. Rather odd, to say the least, going to the extent of bringing an ice bucket, but letting the customer do most of the pouring?
When the waiter did show up, he also tried to upsell us several times, and that is something unpleasant in what is supposed to be a place for fine dining. Needless to say, the "tipometer" was set to low by his performance.
But the main thing in a restaurant is the food, of course, and I advise readers that not only are my wife and I both excellent cooks, but I served a stint as a city's newspaper restaurant reviewer years go.
And it is in the food - likely the same stuff served in the bar - where the Samuel de Champlain restaurant stands out, as it were, as a hopeless effort that should simply be closed down.
I'll give just a couple of examples as enough to have readers understand.
My wife's Thai soup was certainly Campbell's canned Thai soup with a couple of items added. She knows the canned soup, so there is little doubt, and, of course, if it wasn't Campbell's, then it tasted and looked exactly like it. Some culinary achievement, that.
My fancy sandwich plate contained corned beef that was so overcooked and tired and dried-out that its salt content had become more concentrated. It was unpleasant to look at, and I didn't finish it.
I find it hard to understand how any hotel management could allow this to happen. One, of course, thinks of complaining, but who wants to add creating a big scene to an already-unpleasant experience? We're not built like that, but we will never cross the hotel's threshold again, and I hope my words can inform others. read more