HollywoodChicago.com RSS   Facebook   HollywoodChicago.com on Twitter   Free Giveaway E-mail   

TV Review: Gordon Ramsay Returns For More Culinary Abuse in ‘Hell’s Kitchen,’ ‘Masterchef’

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionE-mail page to friendE-mail page to friendPDF versionPDF version
No votes yet

CHICAGO – If you’ve ever said to yourself, “You know, one sub-par cooking competition show isn’t enough, I need two back-to-back!,” then FOX is set to make your Summer, pairing Gordon Ramsay’s two culinary programs, “Hell’s Kitchen” and “Masterchef,” back-to-back on Monday nights.

HollywoodChicago.com TV Rating: 2.5/5.0
TV Rating: 2.5/5.0

From the mindset that has had his chefs cook the same thing at Hell’s Kitchen for a decade (when I hear the words “lobster” and “spaghetti,” I picture his snarling face), one should expect that little has changed on either program. Whereas vastly superior shows like “Top Chef” are constantly trying to tweak their formulas with new locations, challenges, rules, Ramsay sends out the same cold entrees year after year. There are are few glimpses of the reality show fun that could provide a bit of escapism on Monday night but the sense that these episodes are so repetitive that they might as well be repeats of last season’s premieres is ridiculous.

Hell's Kitchen
Hell’s Kitchen
Photo credit: FOX

“Hell’s Kitchen” kicks off the night with the start of its tenth season, one that promises the most high profile winner to date as the champion will be the chef at Ramsay’s steak restaurant at the Paris hotel in Las Vegas. It’s quite a prize and one would then assume that the competition will be stiff, filled with a higher caliber of chef than the program has ever seen before. Ramsay is going to hand over his kitchen to this winner — he better have a good pool from which to choose.

Masterchef
Masterchef
Photo credit: FOX

Nope. It’s more of the same “Hell’s Kitchen” formula. Some of them seem relatively talented but others can’t figure out how to sear a scallop or to get anchovies from a refrigerator. There’s something so bizarre about the formula for “Hell’s Kitchen” in that it’s CRYSTAL clear that some candidates were chosen not because they were good chefs but because they were good-for-TV chefs. The show seems to blend the “American Idol” auditions round with later ones in that there are people on the show that are meant to be laughed at, mingling among the actual potential winners. Does anyone think that Ramsay is handing over a Vegas restaurant to a 22-year-old? To the guy who’s so big that he can barely breathe much less survive on a line? These people are meant to make mistakes.

And that’s my problem with “Hell’s Kitchen” - the level of competition. Some of these chefs wouldn’t survive at a Chili’s. I wouldn’t allow a few of them to cook me pancakes. And so why should I watch them on a reality show?

“Masterchef” feels a little more honest in its set-up in that none of the contestants are professional chefs. The concept is similar to “Idol” in that there are three professionals passing judgment on home chefs who think they can break through to the next level. The third season of “Masterchef” feels more confident than when the show began. Less high profile names like Joe Bastianich and Graham Elliot (the other two judges next to Ramsay) have developed their own confident roles on the show and feel less nervous than before. Even Ramsay is way more toned down than on “Kitchen.”

And yet there’s still that “made for TV” feel about the whole thing with contestants who were clearly cast for their entertainment value and not their culinary ones. The producers of “Top Chef” proved that talented chefs could be entertaining and that they didn’t need larger-than-life personalities like the woman named Monti Carlo (with a son named Danger) or the seven-foot chef. It’s just goofy. It’s a modestly entertaining show overall and I did find a few of the contestants interesting but it’s not a meal anyone will remember.

“Hell’s Kitchen” and “Masterchef” return on Monday, June 4, 2012 on FOX.

HollywoodChicago.com content director Brian Tallerico

By BRIAN TALLERICO
Content Director
HollywoodChicago.com
brian@hollywoodchicago.com

Dale's picture

Tallerico's "undercooked, flavorless" review

First off, Brian, unfunny food puns won’t help your argument (but then what should I expect from a site called HollywoodChicago?). Secondly, what you fail to understand perhaps about entertainment in general, but specifically about the value of a Hell’s Kitchen vs. a Top Chef is that the former is about the entertainment, while the latter is about the food. The real difference? While Hell’s Kitchen is ridiculous, the formula is fun. And while Top Chef’s formula is fun, the contestants are not. Get it?

cynchicago's picture

Brian Tallerico's Review of Hells Kitchen/Master Chef

Sorry, not everyone has cable. I don’t and never have and I am surviving thank you very much! I enjoy both shows and I am quite happy to have the opportunity for a double dose of Ramsey on a rather dull and boring Monday night. If you actually watched either show, they are NOT the same or rehashed menu choices.

They cannot be, they have different contestants and it’s always a surprise what we will see! I love these two shows, which just proves again, that critics don’t necessarily ‘know’ what is best, liked or wanted!

Joel Carlo's picture

So let me get this straight...

You don’t like chefs whose cooking you haven’t even tasted because of their height or their names?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Hot stories on the Web


User Login

Free Giveaway Mailing

TV, DVD, BLU-RAY & THEATER REVIEWS

  • Bad Words

    Looming over “Bad Words” is the potential it could have had, as is, were it released ten years ago. With its focus of R-rated behavior poking at the projected innocence of children, along with the couple of chromosomes that keep Bateman’s Trilby from being a Vince Vaughn character, this movie is certainly a product of the comedies that have sculpted out the manchild story in the past decade.

  • Winter's Tale

    The theatrical poster for “Winter’s Tale,” after promising that “It’s not a true story, it’s a love story,” made a large demand from its viewers at the bottom: “This Valentine’s Day, Believe In Miracles.” While there is indeed a difference between filmmaking and marketing, it is hard to not imagine writer/director Akiva Goldsman whispering “believe in miracles” into the ear of every executive who helped “Winter’s Tale” come to life, immediately after throwing glitter on them.

Advertisement


HollywoodChicago.com on Twitter

archive

HollywoodChicago.com Top Ten Discussions
tracker