Hell's Kitchen: Cocina en el infierno

Two teams compete for an ultimate prize, but this isn't "Survivor" or "The Apprentice".

The prize is a restaurant for the winner to operate. And Chef Ramsay isn't a mere host like Jeff Probst, nor a hands-off boss like Donald Trump. He's with the contestants all evening, as they attempt to operate their restaurant, "Hell's Kitchen". He serves as the order co-coordinator, with final say on whether dishes are presentable. And if one dish in an order isn't acceptable, back the whole order goes. He grating and foul-mouthed, and almost brings the contestants to tears. He's more drill instructor than chef at times, berating those who aren't performing well. Customers aren't immune to Ramsay's temper; he'll yell and curse at patrons who dare to "speak to the chef".

You feel so bad for those getting the brunt of Ramsay's wrath; you want to look away, but you can't. It's an interesting twist to the elimination-style "reality" show.

We've been watching this show for years and find the contestants get worse and worse and worse. Where do they find them and how in the world do they think they could possibly run a quality restaurant. The women are actually worse than the men when it comes to fighting, yelling, swearing and basically being as TRASHY as is humanly possible. We are almost to the point of not watching ANY Gordon Ramsey show. Gloria

I hadn't seen the show since the beginning. For me, they've always had professional chefs & cooks competing. Watching season 1, I see that it didn't start out that way. They had a mix of home cooks & very few pros. Then he throws them into a restaurant kitchen to disastrous results.

This probably gave Chef Ramsey the idea to start Master Chef, a competition for home cooks, and made Hell's Kitchen a competition for pros.

This is not a creative cooking contest. It's not supposed to be. If you want a show where the chefs get to display their culinary ingenuity, hit up Top Chef or Iron Chef, etc. That being said, this is a great show if you take it as is: it's about people getting yelled at by Chef Ramsay for not working and cooking his way. The chefs are not there show that they have their own style of doing things, but to prove they can survive the stress of working in one of Ramsay's kitchens.

I'm a fan of both Top Chef and Hell's Kitchen. When I want to see innovative new dishes and salivate over the deliciousness on the TV screen, I watch Top Chef. When I want to watch people get yelled at (and live vicariously through Chef Ramsay because who wouldn't want to get paid to yell at people for doing dumb things? C'mon, admit it, there are people you work with who you'd love to yell at...), I watch Hell's Kitchen.

Enjoy it for what it is. Don't bash it for not being something else.

Network: Fox; Genre: Reality, Game; Content Rating: TV-14 (strong language, mostly edited); Perspective: Contemporary (star range: 1 - 4);

Seasons Reviewed: Season 3

Had this been written about season one of "Hell's Kitchen" it would have been a completely different review. Still reeling from the reality series hostile takeover, I was un-amused by British tornado Chef Gordon Ramsey's blood-vessel bursting tantrums over food and sadistic treatment of his would-be chefs. A treatment that was a perfect metaphor for the way Fox was abusing it's own viewers.

But flash-forward to season 3 and Chef Gordon Ramsey and his team of inept contestants have grown on me. "Hell's Kitchen" is every bit a reality show and all that that implies. You've seen it before, but this time in a kitchen. Teams of chefs – divided by gender "Apprentice"-style – live in suites by night and compete in cooking tasks by day. Tasks like designing their own menu, cooking for an elementary school, turning traditional dishes into cuisine or blind taste tests of their palette. Each time a team looses, people are picked to eliminate and Ramsey picks one to be kicked off. And yes, like any reality/competition the most talented contestants are kicked off for something insignificant so that the most interesting personalities can be standing in the final rounds. No doubt, Ramsey is just as shrew about audience interest as Simon Cowell.

But there is a fiendishly entertaining bent to "Kitchen" that only Gordon Ramsey can deliver. A sadism to the high school reminiscent eliminations that is only bubbling cynically under the surface of other reality shows. When Ramsey eliminates people he tells them to "f*** off" then smacks their chef's jacket on a meat hook with a Leatherface-like zeal. It's hard to deny how entertaining it is watching Ramsey scream obscenities at the more inept contestants, shoving food in their face and putting together a string of expletives involving Risotto and Wellington so creative it demands an uncensored DVD release. The show does say a few things about the love and creativity of cooking, but that get pretty buried under it's hyper-sensory reality series excesses. Ramsey has taken this one-note act and spun it into quite a career.

This is not TV for the drive-by viewer looking for something to make them feel good after a day at work. It will be too stressful, too sweat-inducing, too claustrophobic and manipulative. Like any reality show it trusts the audience is stupid and is crammed with unnecessary narration and flashbacks of events we just saw 30 seconds ago. The cooking and elimination action is put together with the ridiculousness of an overblown Michael Bay film, and yet the "world-is-at-stake" action movie music and quick cuts to horrified faces doesn't fail to send up a giddy tickle of guilty pleasure entertainment in my belly.

I wouldn't be surprised to see "Hell's Kitchen" on a list of the worst shows of the year by the HBO-loving, "American Idol" cow-towing media. But I'll take Ramsey's hysterical wrath on inept contestants over reality shows that reach further to mean something any day. This is solid mindless entertainment of the first order.

* * * /4