30 January 2007


okay. okay. OKAY.

I would like to think that the judges are really judging the food. But there is little evidence of that considering the commentary as to why they picked one chef over another.

First let me say that because Sam did not cook his food is the worst reason for kicking someone off of the show I've ever heard.

Next, Elia did venture quite far away from the region of Hawaii--so did Ilan ( He did make his own chorizo).

I get they have to pick two. They should have said, "This dish was more_____(inventive, flavorful, tasty, etc)". Not "This dish was not_____ (cooked, Hawaiian)". I mean, these are clearly talented people. They could cook for me anytime (who wants to? come on...). Obviously they are all good cooks--so there really is no reason to kick someone off because they did something wrong (esp if they DIDN'T) it's just as plausable that they would keep two because they did something RIGHT.

Clearly this was about good TV. Good TV means the rivals get to make it to the end--Marcel and Ilan played the game well--both are talented and both make for good TV. The end. Well not quite...

Betting had begun. I'm in for Ilan--but that's because he's cuter than Marcel. That seems as good as a reason as any.




Post a Comment

<< Home