|
Post by Rad on Feb 21, 2013 22:49:50 GMT
I couldn't find the old thread on this but anyway...
I don't mind the theme, but this programme overused the word 'witty' as it was and this series is just taking that too far. Also: there is NO NEED for the comedy panellists.
As for this week's chefs, Charlie's food looked all kinds of disgusting, I like Steph but she isn't a patch on Colin most of the time. Shame, as Colin's 'I'm too good for the brief except when it's pudding' thing annoys me.
I nervously await the next instalment in Marcus Wareing's TV breakdown later in the series. I just hope it's not him vs Johnny Mountain round 3. I felt Johnny Mountain then came out of that drama somewhat better by taking part in a documentary about mental health issues and talking about his experience, whilst Marcus Wareing appeared on Masterchef (I think?) screaming about how cookery had STOLEN HIS YOUTH.
|
|
|
Post by Muinimula on Apr 3, 2013 21:54:53 GMT
I'd kind of drifted in and out of this series, given the inconsistency of the brief (some chefs hardly seemed to try anything humorous, and there were only so many tongue/cheek or chicken/egg jokes I could cope with). I tuned in for the banquet, but wondered why they'd decided to have two desserts - also, did everyone get two desserts, or did the two chefs only do half as many?
Was disappointed that the chefs were often quite unpleasant towards the waiting staff, but I imagine that's quite common in pro kitchens. Tom Aikens saying, "Use your brain!" for example.
And if there were only 80 places at this prestigious banquet, why were places given to Arlene Phillips, Kirsty Allsop and Watson & Oliver, rather than people with a stronger association with Comic Relief, or representatives of some of the supported charities?
|
|