User reviews

As much as I like Hell's Kitchen and I LOVE Gordo, MCGL is only a 30 minute show that actually shows cooking and feedback...ALL OF THE TIME. There's a lot to be learned if you are novice cooks from the US like myself. The vegetables used in Europe are far different than here as well as the recipes.

My husband would laugh because each episode was so serious and when cooking for Michelin Star chefs who critique their every move even down to fingerprints on the plate. I knew European chefs were extremely serious and my husband just didn't get it, but I did and I recommend the show highly.

One other thing...It was admitted by a producer of a top cooking show in Europe that the TV chefs are marginal cooks with an abundance of personality. This show distinguishes that nicely. You can like Rachel Ray and Jamie Oliver but at the end of the day, wouldn't you like the best plate of food possible. See Gordon Ramsey's restaurants. he is 2006 chef of the year or some title like it. Knocking off Jaime Oliver.

Now I'm hungry....

It's 18 years since Masterchef went large (and they haven't in fact used that tag for about 10). There are now 3 series a year - ordinary Joe, celeb and professional - as well as Christmas specials. It's no wonder that people are starting to get a bit tired of it. Since they never tell you the ratings these days I infer this fact, besides my own feelings, from the format tweaks this year and the fact it has been moved back down from 9pm to 8pm. Inexplicably, BBC producers seem to have got the idea that the way to revive their ageing cookery contests is to have irritating, unqualified people sticking their oar in. In Great British Menu it's the excruciating Andi Oliver, now in Masterchef you have one lot of contestants looking on and cheering another lot. Yay!

There's nothing much wrong with the show, and certainly not the presenters: they're the ones who have made it a massive success with spin-offs in Australia and the US. They're personable, and have the unusual but crucial skill of being able to describe a dish in a few words, in such a way that the viewer can imagine what it's like to eat. Much as I love Gordon Ramsay he, for example, cannot do that.

It's simply that too much has been asked of the show. In the BBC's dearth of new prime-time ideas, it has been promoted above its level. What is needed is not little faffy tweaks, but for us all to have a bit of a break from it. Failing that: at least go back to shorter episodes.

This show was able to hook me in ways that Gordon Ramsay's efforts cannot. It wasn't so much the chief judges. It was, I think, the very interesting contestants. The war between the final three, Caroline, Tommy, and Mark, was especially revealing. And it left the viewers, I'd bet, highly partisan.

Going exactly to the point, the wrong person most surely won. Tommy made a mess of things almost to the very end. But she won on the strength of the TV Food show guest chef appearance. And that was almost entirely due to the fact that she was probably reminding people of Julia Child (otherwise, where did that "skinny girl early in life, large woman later on" come from?) Still, I suppose I should be relieved that Mark didn't win it. The judges seemed to think that Mark could do no wrong. The visiting gourmet judges pronounced his food inedible, but it didn't matter. "Oh, Mark, he's come so far!" He almost cut his own right hand off. "But he came back gamely." He proved completely incompetent at managing a kitchen. (Yet it was "a strength that he knew his limitations.") The judges were always there to make an excuse, especially the fat one. Or, if you wish, the fatter one, Gregg Wallace.

Caroline, on the other hand, did everything well and expertly. Managed the kitchen like a field marshal, cooked to exact standards, earned the praises of the visiting gourmets, but was nitpicked to death, especially by Torode. She clearly deserved to win. It was upsetting that she didn't.

And THAT explains why this show was such a success. By the end, I really cared that Caroline should win. I had invested in the series. And I learned quite a bit more about cooking, by the way, than I've ever done on any of Masterchef's competitors. All in all, a job well done. When does the next season begin?

The one statement that famously sums up Gregg Wallaces contribution to this programme was when he criticised a contestant for their Rendang not being crispy enough........ fork me, he's obviously never eaten real Rendang!

John Torode is clearly way more professional but unfortunately he also sometimes has a prissy, smug irritating presence about him, especially when he puts a spoonful of food into his mouth.... sorry, but it's true, it's just teeth grindingly annoying at times for some unknown reason!

Don't / can't watch it anymore...... bring back Gordon Ramsey, or any of the former hosts!

This progams so dull the australian version much better. They don't make any dishes just plodges and swirls. They need to introduce new challenges like french classics. The presenters are so bad, all greg says is i like sweet i like sweet.

It cant get any more stiff. Or isher than this.

I wonder what it is with the companies over there, that make movie or episodes , what actually make these productions feels so dead ?!

Compare this with Masterchef US or Austrailia , And then have to remind my self that it is Masterchef showing.

But its a No No!

So stiff, So boooring. No good atmospehere, no nothing.

Its a shame that the uk are allowed to use the name Masterchef in these productions.

I can go on, its the same with the movies. Stiff!

3th time is the conclusion.