In the vein of Masterchef, this show offers a similar premise--home cooks compete in rounds for a cash prize--but in an episodic format, rather than as a serial. So you get the viewer payoff of a weekly winner, but what you lose is any sense of involvement with the contestants, since they change every week. Likewise, there are three rounds per episode, and it all feels rushed. Two would be better. Perhaps the result of Canadian politeness, sometimes the judges (the "wall of chefs") sugar-coat their comments at the expense of specific critique. Even Hugh Acheson laid on the syrup, and he is known for his ascerbic wit, mostly absent here. Viewers looking to learn technique will be disappointed by the pace as well. We see very little actual cooking. Mildly entertaining, this show is in the end less interesting than watching reruns of Masterchef Australia from back in the days when it was had the boys instead of the current crew, who are likeable, but exhibit some of the same tendencies as the judges here.
I feel compelled to address the review that accuses the show of "underwhelming representation." I've only watched one episode, but assuming it is typical I can't imagine why anyone would make such a claim. I won't address it beyond observing that the person who won e01 was judged on creativity and execution, and the decision had neither literally nor figuratively anything at all to do with "seasoning, style of cooking, presentation", etc. The four contestants could not have been more diverse, so much so that in retrospect I wonder whether this was intentional. The chef judges are all quite famous, and the panel is thus what it is. (They are not, as the reviewer claims, mostly "All-American," whatever that means.) But the one advantage having so many judges is that a small panel of judges are assigned to each round, and some attempt is made to coordinate the speciality of the judges with the contestant dishes being presented. Decide for yourself. The show is worth a look, if you don't have anything much better to do.
I feel compelled to address the review that accuses the show of "underwhelming representation." I've only watched one episode, but assuming it is typical I can't imagine why anyone would make such a claim. I won't address it beyond observing that the person who won e01 was judged on creativity and execution, and the decision had neither literally nor figuratively anything at all to do with "seasoning, style of cooking, presentation", etc. The four contestants could not have been more diverse, so much so that in retrospect I wonder whether this was intentional. The chef judges are all quite famous, and the panel is thus what it is. (They are not, as the reviewer claims, mostly "All-American," whatever that means.) But the one advantage having so many judges is that a small panel of judges are assigned to each round, and some attempt is made to coordinate the speciality of the judges with the contestant dishes being presented. Decide for yourself. The show is worth a look, if you don't have anything much better to do.