This competition was done very well with very good execution and logic unlike other competitions. The director did a fantastic job also the editing was amazing. Production wise was excellent from all the aspects fantastic work.
My biggest disappointment was on the final script; the final episode with the winner - while this show is supposed to be about new - about originality the judges decided to pick up a winner that he already did the plate before and it was quite obvious that the particular dish was created many times before; as the judges themselves noted it as well, which bring us to the result that they preferred to pick up a winner not for his creativity, not for his resourcefulness, not for his originality, not for his skills but they pick him for the ready made dish he already had in his restaurant which makes it a big foul for me and pity for those great names of culinary cuisines top chefs in gastronomy to make such a poor choice. Especially this behavior was not expected from Grant Achatz which makes me think this might have been a setup or someone pushed him to go over this decision. However, because of such disappointment on the finale I had to downvote my rating by 3 stars because the finale was the final result and it was very expected and predictable, it was the easy way to go with, which it would not be what I would expect from such a great names of chefs.
205 Reviews
Very well done: Conceptually - Resourcefulnes - Production: Big Disappointment at the Result
m_stouris26 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
That ending :(
myco_rondina28 July 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The show was really good although not perfect but still very good up until the finale. I respect the judges' decision but the decision making process was really bad. One chef talking could really influence all the other chefs. It should've been a voting process where no discussion that would influence others could happen. I am not saying that the winner is not good but there were better chefs than him sadly. I am saddened by the results really :(
The Final Table Fell Flat at the End
awhirling-892663 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This show was intense and entertaining. Quite beautiful to watch with all of the creative presentations showcased by the chefs. I wished I could taste their works of art. However, the chefs chose the wrong person to sit at the final table. The result felt very American-centric. And a cop out. Nothing against Timothy, but Mark or Darren should have won. I was quite let down by the result. The fact that only western chefs remained in the final round with no women was bad enough. Then the two chefs who took the most risk didn't win. What were the criteria? Someone with a restaurant? Risk? Taste? Presentation? Seems like the judging criteria should be clearer.
This is my first chef show and got to say it was appetizing.
mayank0987630 November 2018
Being a foodie I have been seeing clips of different shows but never took the plunge in watching one, decided to give this show a shot as it seemed truly an intentional culinary showcase. Twenty four chefs from different background, food schools and countries battle it out with each other in teams of two. The judges are food critiques but the final elimination is judged by a renowned Master Chef. The concept of using different countries cuisine and food products as a theme in each episode, with each and every judge having there on taking on judging gives each episode its uniqueness. It was great seeing the contestants taking advantage of their countries background and others experimenting their way into it. Ultimately it was all about serving plate after plate of gorgeous food. The final episode and the winner did leave me disappointed but it is what it is.
Good Until the last episode
supergirl_fly14 December 2018
Watch it for the entertainment value.
merrieberrie21 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A clean show I could watch. Tired of all the unnecessary filth in the name of entertainment on television. I loved it for its entertainment value. The only thing I didn't care for was the host, he tried maybe I am being too picky. He looked like he was strictly doing his job and couldn't wait to punch out. I liked everything else for what it was. Was it the best cooking show out there?! Maybe not but I watched through all of the episodes and learned a few new things in the process.
I know some of these chefs and their restaurants from watching Chef's table. Now I want to see more of them in Chef's table.
I am an Indian and was obviously waiting to get to the Indian episode, so I could finally maybe understand some of the food jargons. I think Judge Singh refers to Kasoori Methi as being dried Coriander leaves, it's not!! It is dried fenugreek leaves! I was so proud of myself lol for catching on to one thing in the whole season.
I know some of these chefs and their restaurants from watching Chef's table. Now I want to see more of them in Chef's table.
I am an Indian and was obviously waiting to get to the Indian episode, so I could finally maybe understand some of the food jargons. I think Judge Singh refers to Kasoori Methi as being dried Coriander leaves, it's not!! It is dried fenugreek leaves! I was so proud of myself lol for catching on to one thing in the whole season.
Why those Judges...Why
mulambo-818-59645426 November 2018
I won't go to deep into the whole show. I like food.
Novelle cuisine or street food. Doesn't matter.
What bothers me most about the show is that the jury are people who have nothing to do with food except one food critique. Still no chef involved. The chefs in the show are top notch chefs with awards and reputations. They participate in one of the biggest cooking shows ever, and the get criticized by models, singers, actors...WHAT.
I found that for the most part they had no culinary sense. That's fine but a bit misplaced in a show like that. They decide who gets to go to the next round and who has to cook for high class chef. The arrangement didn't do it for me.
I watched it cause i liked what those chefs do. Definitely culinary art. I personally didn't like the decision making process. At all.
Great Show, Educational and Fun
zack_gideon26 November 2018
This show is great. Pulls together the global cuisine landscape and is presented in a good format. I don't watch competition shows often but this one is really fun and the food looks so darn amazing! I can't wait to try lamb tacos at home. Fun learning experience too. Every chef or learning chef should watch as an educational experience too. Enjoy!
Excellent show, terrible finale
ailinlockward9 February 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Every hour, you want to see more and more, hoping that the next episode will be as good as the last one, and it is never dissappointing, until the final episode: The Finale. You think that being an international jury, formed by well renouned chefs, they will give a fare judgement; but no, it is an american show, so they must give the prize to the hamburguer maker gringo, with a dish that did not stand close enough to the others. Very, extremely dissappointing! !!
Addictive but disappointing finale
go_elmo11129 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Loved watching this show and had me hooked. Displayed some great skills, cuisines, food. Had great characters you were rooting for and the ones who drove you up the wall (I wanted to punch Charles!). The Host was annoying with his predictableness and lack of personality - Dax Shephard for next season please. Then so disappointed with the ending, predictable the American wins the American show ( should have been an Aussie - in fact why wasn't an Aussie already on the table and that cuisine displayed, I want to see their take on the lamington ;P - admit slightly biased Australian here). I'll probably return but hope to see some improvements
DISSAPOINTING FINALE
brencoronel2 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
We all know the real winner had to be shane or mark! shaaaameee for that!
it was a really great show but when you realize an american chef won in american show and how grant achatz(american chef as well ) was like very determinate to keep saying timothy has the best dish no matter, was sooo disappointing! SHANE AND MARK HAD THE BEST DISHES PERIOD AND WERE THE BEST CHEFS IN THE ENTIRE SHOW!
Wake up-
britton-0468825 November 2018
Bizarre to me some of the -reviews. Not only is this filmed beautifully, but with so much pause and respect to the depth of culture. All these peoples lives, interpretation on cooking, the humbleness of the chefs at the end- please watch and make up your own mind- I hope the show stays.
Became addicted
ximesoto2 December 2018
Great show till finale
emir_wow14 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
At the beginning of the finale all nine judges agreed that the given time will not be enough to come up with a signature dish. Three of the four finalist came up with original ideas, great combinations and bold moves. However, an American chef, who cooked his restaurant's on the menu item, won in an American show aired on an American streaming service. Is he a good chef? Of course! But, and it's a huge but, if this is a fine dining competition including some Michelin star chefs, and you eliminated almost all of them (except Mr. Shane) the dish has to be authentic. What Mark and Darren did was fantastic. They though out of the box and put their knowledge and experience into a dish that many don't think it works. Shane tried to be as simple and delicate and yet came up with an original idea. But the fourth dish besides these three, in my opinion, didn't deserve the win.
Very entertaining
charlie-0471725 November 2018
I found it amazing how the chefs utilized their own countries with the country presented.The calibre of the chefs,the variety of talent.I enjoyed the variety of judges.
As the competition continued i could feel the tension build.Thoroughly enjoyed
Other reviews don't make sense.
mj-7748830 August 2022
A lot of complaints I see have several flaws. But first things I agree with.
1. The host could be somewhat condescending and negative.
2. The countries could have been less predictable.
3. The finale winner was a little questionable, based solely on the prompt being to create a signature dish that takes risks.
4. There should have been more female chefs.
What I don't agree with: 1. Claiming a country as a whole has bad cuisine is incredibly ignorant. Especially when it came to countries like America with an incredibly diverse roster of dishes that originated there. Every country has good food and talented chefs.
2. Criticizing use of celebrity judges while ignoring the fact they were always paired with a food critic is dense. They have taste buds too, and can make relevant cultural commentary. Only a final table chef actually made the decision to send anyone home anyways.
3. Anyone who knows anything about the chefs on the final table would tell you how laughable it is to think they were somehow involved in a plot to pick a predetermined winner.
I would love a season 2, with a whole new list of countries and contestants.
1. The host could be somewhat condescending and negative.
2. The countries could have been less predictable.
3. The finale winner was a little questionable, based solely on the prompt being to create a signature dish that takes risks.
4. There should have been more female chefs.
What I don't agree with: 1. Claiming a country as a whole has bad cuisine is incredibly ignorant. Especially when it came to countries like America with an incredibly diverse roster of dishes that originated there. Every country has good food and talented chefs.
2. Criticizing use of celebrity judges while ignoring the fact they were always paired with a food critic is dense. They have taste buds too, and can make relevant cultural commentary. Only a final table chef actually made the decision to send anyone home anyways.
3. Anyone who knows anything about the chefs on the final table would tell you how laughable it is to think they were somehow involved in a plot to pick a predetermined winner.
I would love a season 2, with a whole new list of countries and contestants.
Surprise surprise.
jeremyricketts-6116228 November 2018
Warning: Spoilers
An American show that has an American winner? Really. The series was great, however to have the American Chef, rate and comment on the winner? Really? A disappointed. Won't be watching this series again, as I know who the winner is already.
Ignore the Haters
paulbarboot10 December 2018
Good show but the finale was disappointing
sandeeplaxman-8972827 June 2020
Overall the entertainment of the show was good. But there are certain flaws:
1. How do food critics or film celebrities qualify as judges ? Does a Food critic is same as a chef ? They should have explained their food knowledge background to justify standing in that position.
2. Chefs partnered as a team split into individuals in the finale. How does this justify that assumption of both partners were equally good until that point and that the other person was in the finale not because of his team mate?
3. The finale was flawed. The audience was never clearly explained on what parameters the culinary legendary chefs are going to decide the winner. There was no rating system. I mean how do you expect 9 judges to have a consensus on the winner without a rating scale? Judgement was questionable in few episodes but the announcement of the winner caught me totally off guard. Now I doubt the show, was the winner already decided by the show makers ?
Literally what was that ending?!
ekka810 December 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The show itself, I felt as though they were trying to achieve a 'VIP, different cooking show that is actually professional and serious but also fun, entertaining and diverse' vibe. It was entertaining for sure! It reals you in and I couldn't stop watching it but after a few episodes it was just something I'd put on in the background and only pay attention when the dishes were cooked and being judged.
Also, although there was some cultural diversity amongst the contestants and the countries that were picked to be represented, I'm not sure if the selection of countries were in fact as diverse as they could have been. First, Mexico then Spain, UK, Brazil etc. Yes, these are different cultures and different countries with different foods and traditions but as a viewer I saw myself being a little disappointed and bored of the selection or at least the order of the selection; maybe that's just me.
In terms of filming, directing etc. I'm not a professional but I'll say that it's not that it was done badly, just not greatly either. I felt as though they were trying too hard to be something that they didn't get entirely right (just like some of the dishes in the competition!). p.s. is the presenter a littttle bit annoying or is that just me also, I think it's the voice?
Moving on to the finalists of the competition. The chef's are incredibly talented, both the finalists and the non-finalists. But clearly I'm not the only one who is surprised by the results of the competition. It was very clear from beginning that Mark Best was indeed THE BEST. Especially through his final dish, he showed the world how clever and talented he truly is. His dish conveyed uniqueness, finesse, creativity, incredible level of skill, emotion, insane talent, his personality...I could go on and on.
Let's note that the winner, Timothy Hollingsworth is also very talented but chose to cook a dish from his own restaurant menu. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. However, Hollingsworth's dish although incredible, has been cooked by him a million and one times and is possibly not entirely his own development (meaning most of the time head chef's do not come up with a menu-worthy dish entirely on their own but with the help of the other chefs in the kitchen). Again, is this a bad thing that should cost him his earned win? No, until you consider this: what if Mark Best and the other two finalists (Shane Osborn and Darren Maclean) also had cooked their dishes a million times before, and therefore none of the final dishes in the competition had any issues whatsoever? Would the winner still be Hollingsworth? Not so sure.
Truth is, all chef's were challenged to show the epitome of their true selves through their dishes. So, surely, the judges realised how much skill and talent and thought and creativity went into Mark Best's dish and how much that reflects him as a chef and as a person. To me (a food lover but not a chef) I would 100% choose to dine at a restaurant that showcased those skills in their food rather than in one where the chef was too scared to take a risk, too scared to showcase his skill and creative thinking, too scared to test himself in case he messed up. And if I were a world-class chef judging which other chef will join the 'league' of top 50 chefs, I would definitely look for Mark's qualities and prefer them over a chef who cannot make risks and cannot get creative with food in case he messes up (which means he doesn't possess as much culinary skill perhaps).
Mark Best knew that he was taking a huge risk, but he also knew that he would execute all elements of his dish excellently, and he did. Hollingsworth on the other hand, he seemed so afraid to risk anything at all, as if he didn't have any faith in his culinary skills, or in himself. To me that shows a hint of weakness, a hint of unclarity, almost as if he wanted to 'cheat' a little because he was too scared of the other contestants who maybe he thought were better chef's than he was, so he went with the safest option that he could and tried to sell the dish as it being the epitome of who he was.
Furthermore, in a real life scenario, if a chef came across a customer who asked for something off the menu, something different, something inspirational, would Hollingsworth be able to pull together a dish of such deep meaning and finesse like the one Best made in TWO HOURS? Not so sure, because that isn't what he portrayed to us in the finale, nor throughout the competition, where it seemed that in many cases his partner Darren Maclean had the more refined ideas for their creations. Plus, this was a CHALLENGE where the chef's had two hours to showcase every little detail of their skills and culinary expertise, the point of the challenge is to literally feel and be CHALLENGED and create something exceptional under the pressure. Are you really challenged and are you showing how well you can manage and tackle a challenge that is presented to you at any time (considering this could happen out of the competition) if you cook something that you've cooked before for years and years? I would say no. It's a no from me Mr Hollingsworth.
To close, I think it's fair to say that the chefs' decision for the seat at the final table was weird, disappointing and unexpected by many viewers. It's a joke how unfair and a little stupid that decision was. Again, this does not mean that Hollingsworth isn't a great chef and doesn't deserve it, but the other three chef's that he was up against, especially Mark Best, showed exceptional creativity in dishes that were so new and unique, something that i believe Hollingsworth did not. Perhaps the judges see something in the winner that we viewers cannot. Whatever their reasons were, there were a lot of moments in this show that were a little odd and unfair (like when chef's Chin Takagi and his partner Ronald Hsu were let go instead of Graham Campbell and Aaron Bludorn). Maybe this is also only my own personal opinion but as a viewer it makes me question the integrity that the show is trying to convey.
All in all, I would definitely want more seasons to air, just with better execution.
Also, although there was some cultural diversity amongst the contestants and the countries that were picked to be represented, I'm not sure if the selection of countries were in fact as diverse as they could have been. First, Mexico then Spain, UK, Brazil etc. Yes, these are different cultures and different countries with different foods and traditions but as a viewer I saw myself being a little disappointed and bored of the selection or at least the order of the selection; maybe that's just me.
In terms of filming, directing etc. I'm not a professional but I'll say that it's not that it was done badly, just not greatly either. I felt as though they were trying too hard to be something that they didn't get entirely right (just like some of the dishes in the competition!). p.s. is the presenter a littttle bit annoying or is that just me also, I think it's the voice?
Moving on to the finalists of the competition. The chef's are incredibly talented, both the finalists and the non-finalists. But clearly I'm not the only one who is surprised by the results of the competition. It was very clear from beginning that Mark Best was indeed THE BEST. Especially through his final dish, he showed the world how clever and talented he truly is. His dish conveyed uniqueness, finesse, creativity, incredible level of skill, emotion, insane talent, his personality...I could go on and on.
Let's note that the winner, Timothy Hollingsworth is also very talented but chose to cook a dish from his own restaurant menu. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. However, Hollingsworth's dish although incredible, has been cooked by him a million and one times and is possibly not entirely his own development (meaning most of the time head chef's do not come up with a menu-worthy dish entirely on their own but with the help of the other chefs in the kitchen). Again, is this a bad thing that should cost him his earned win? No, until you consider this: what if Mark Best and the other two finalists (Shane Osborn and Darren Maclean) also had cooked their dishes a million times before, and therefore none of the final dishes in the competition had any issues whatsoever? Would the winner still be Hollingsworth? Not so sure.
Truth is, all chef's were challenged to show the epitome of their true selves through their dishes. So, surely, the judges realised how much skill and talent and thought and creativity went into Mark Best's dish and how much that reflects him as a chef and as a person. To me (a food lover but not a chef) I would 100% choose to dine at a restaurant that showcased those skills in their food rather than in one where the chef was too scared to take a risk, too scared to showcase his skill and creative thinking, too scared to test himself in case he messed up. And if I were a world-class chef judging which other chef will join the 'league' of top 50 chefs, I would definitely look for Mark's qualities and prefer them over a chef who cannot make risks and cannot get creative with food in case he messes up (which means he doesn't possess as much culinary skill perhaps).
Mark Best knew that he was taking a huge risk, but he also knew that he would execute all elements of his dish excellently, and he did. Hollingsworth on the other hand, he seemed so afraid to risk anything at all, as if he didn't have any faith in his culinary skills, or in himself. To me that shows a hint of weakness, a hint of unclarity, almost as if he wanted to 'cheat' a little because he was too scared of the other contestants who maybe he thought were better chef's than he was, so he went with the safest option that he could and tried to sell the dish as it being the epitome of who he was.
Furthermore, in a real life scenario, if a chef came across a customer who asked for something off the menu, something different, something inspirational, would Hollingsworth be able to pull together a dish of such deep meaning and finesse like the one Best made in TWO HOURS? Not so sure, because that isn't what he portrayed to us in the finale, nor throughout the competition, where it seemed that in many cases his partner Darren Maclean had the more refined ideas for their creations. Plus, this was a CHALLENGE where the chef's had two hours to showcase every little detail of their skills and culinary expertise, the point of the challenge is to literally feel and be CHALLENGED and create something exceptional under the pressure. Are you really challenged and are you showing how well you can manage and tackle a challenge that is presented to you at any time (considering this could happen out of the competition) if you cook something that you've cooked before for years and years? I would say no. It's a no from me Mr Hollingsworth.
To close, I think it's fair to say that the chefs' decision for the seat at the final table was weird, disappointing and unexpected by many viewers. It's a joke how unfair and a little stupid that decision was. Again, this does not mean that Hollingsworth isn't a great chef and doesn't deserve it, but the other three chef's that he was up against, especially Mark Best, showed exceptional creativity in dishes that were so new and unique, something that i believe Hollingsworth did not. Perhaps the judges see something in the winner that we viewers cannot. Whatever their reasons were, there were a lot of moments in this show that were a little odd and unfair (like when chef's Chin Takagi and his partner Ronald Hsu were let go instead of Graham Campbell and Aaron Bludorn). Maybe this is also only my own personal opinion but as a viewer it makes me question the integrity that the show is trying to convey.
All in all, I would definitely want more seasons to air, just with better execution.
Actually liked it
rawena_bll9 December 2018
I liked it. It's a clean show. Everybody is very ambitious and respectful. I learned quite a few things from it too. And it's very exciting to watch. I've been looking for something with this level of enthusiasm and excitement.
A few things though; the host has a different energy than the show. I don't want to say irritating or annoying but he's definitely not the person I would prefer. He shouts a lot, maybe that's why.
I would also prefer to have a Russia or China episode instead of USA. They don't really have a very deep culinary culture so it was kind of a hit and a miss.
There were A LOT of judges at the end. Made me think how many of them actually participated in the final decision. We saw them get up and form an awkward circle and from what I saw two or three people actually said something.
And one final thing. I really think that someone on the top of their career should not participate in this. There were people who had 2 Michelin stars. They were already pretty acknowledged and in my opinion didn't need the attention and the boost in their career. And they were chefs for looong years. That creates a gap in the skill and the mindset. Younger chefs took bigger risks, they wanted to step away from the traditional more, and because of that they put up a more interesting fight. I liked seeing them interpret traditional dishes and tell beautiful stories. But in the end the ones that played it completely safe made it to the final and in my opinion that was not fair.
A few things though; the host has a different energy than the show. I don't want to say irritating or annoying but he's definitely not the person I would prefer. He shouts a lot, maybe that's why.
I would also prefer to have a Russia or China episode instead of USA. They don't really have a very deep culinary culture so it was kind of a hit and a miss.
There were A LOT of judges at the end. Made me think how many of them actually participated in the final decision. We saw them get up and form an awkward circle and from what I saw two or three people actually said something.
And one final thing. I really think that someone on the top of their career should not participate in this. There were people who had 2 Michelin stars. They were already pretty acknowledged and in my opinion didn't need the attention and the boost in their career. And they were chefs for looong years. That creates a gap in the skill and the mindset. Younger chefs took bigger risks, they wanted to step away from the traditional more, and because of that they put up a more interesting fight. I liked seeing them interpret traditional dishes and tell beautiful stories. But in the end the ones that played it completely safe made it to the final and in my opinion that was not fair.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
