Adam Goldstein wrote:

It was actually Dale who made the smurf village comment. It was very funny yes. I took a daytrip to New York on August 18th and I was going to go to Perilla but unfortunately time and budget constraints did not allow it however, I'm going to absolutely drop by next time I'm in New York. I think I am going to order the Spicy Duck meatballs and Organic Chicken. Your Menu looks really creative and it's going to be so exciting to go to your resteraunt.

Peace,

Adam Goldstein

posted on September 5, 2007 at 11:56 PM

gary e. wrote:

Harold I don,t know how you do it findind the time to do all that you you do. i must say you are up there with the big guns you know A-B and T- A.. now about Howie i for one am not sorry to see him go bye bye s-h a fan of season one.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 12:36 AM

Ann wrote:

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who gets CJ and Brian mixed up. :)

posted on September 6, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Mike wrote:

You couldn't be more right Harold. I can sense your empathy with the cheftestants as they are being asked to produce inventive, brilliant cuisine with only 10 bucks, 40 minutes and within a "team concept". NOTHING great is ever invented by teams or committees. And to see Tom sit there and so harshly criticize them on national TV is a complete joke! Hey Tommy, why don't you give it a try?! If they want excellence, then give them a little more money and individual challenges with clear incentives to produce something unique and daring.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 1:43 AM

sjs wrote:

Thanks for sharing your perspective as a former competitor. The judges have great comments as the people who eat the food, but they have never sat in the hot seat trying to think of a great way to win a challenge with cereal that I wouldn't feed my kid for breakfast, let alone a gourmet meal.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 2:01 AM

Candy wrote:

I agree with just about everything Harold just said about this week's show. In fact Harold, I could say you took the words right out of my mouth.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 2:39 AM

sami wrote:

Seriously Harold, don’t you think this particular elimination challenge was a bit over the top? I mean really, what are they going to do next, set the kitchen on fire and see if they can make ice cream? It seemed that when you guys were on the show at least the challenges were designed to challenge, rather than crush you. You mention in your post that you would have expected more than 7 canapés, and yet….Chef Tom blasted them for offering too much variety. $350 for 60 guests? And don’t even get me started about the whole 30 minutes to shop limitation. Things seem to be drifting farther and farther away from the food and closer and closer to physical challenges and I think it’s silly.

If you’d been in their shoes, what dish do you think you might have put forward? I always loved your style (quiet, sophisticated, classic yet fresh) and I’d love to hear how you’d have taken on this particular bit of nonsense. =o)

Best wishes,

sami

posted on September 6, 2007 at 2:46 AM

Art wrote:

Lame quickfire. Lame elimination challenge. Lame production values. Guest judge and guest party-thrower nobody's ever heard of. I know who's responsible for this disaster of an episode.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Raphael wrote:

I thought Howie should have been allowed to walk out on his own dignity. Perhaps he knew he was going down anyway. And if the judges knew they'd be sending him home, then accept his offer to step down. That is an example in which I find the judges unnecessarily mean-spirited.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Donna wrote:

Yes, I agree... if they just had put out 7 canapés the judges would have jumped up and down about THAT. How often have the contestants been told, "If you aren't proud of the dish, don't serve it." That was just what Howie did... and he gets blasted for it. YIKES!! Now I am not a Howie fan, and I agree it was way past time for him to leave... but give me a break.

Those inconsistencies in judges really get to me, especially after Sam was kicked off last year. Tre put out bad food… that was why he was let go.

Off subject: Lee Anne worked her butt off on the first Restaurant Wars and so did Sam, they were the reason those restaurants didn’t completely fail. Tre was the reason why his completely failed.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 11:30 AM

Sue wrote:

Harold, thanks as always for your great comments from the perspective of someone who's been there. I just wanted to say that my husband and I ate at Perilla a couple of weeks ago and had a wonderful meal. The risotto was amazing! Congratulations on having your restaurant up and running, and thanks for such a great dining experience.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM

d wrote:

Is it me or does the Top Chef season 3 crop of talent seen the weaker than prior seasons?

Top Chef 1: Harold, Tiff, Dave LeeAnne was very strong.
Top Chef 2: Sam, Illan, Marcel, Elia AND Cliff was debatably an even deeper pool.
Top Chef 3: early potential eposed later by wild inconsistancy and lack of imagination.

Hung = talented but arrogant and full of big judgement errors.
Tre = same
Brian = only seafood
Howie = only pork
CJ, Kasey, Dale = solid but unspectacular

Oddly enough, Sara may be the most interesting of the bunch if she gets it together. If you look at past challenges she's usually done rather well and adds some personal indentity to her food. Kinda like Elia..

posted on September 6, 2007 at 12:29 PM

Holly Wilson wrote:

Harold, You are usually pretty opinionated regarding the guest judges, especially when their conduct is a little less than becoming, so I need to ask, Did this guest judge seem like a total jackhole, or was that just the impression I got from him? My thoughts are, he doesnt know any of these chefs, and just because he has "made it" doesn't neccessarily mean he has the right to be rude or disrespectful to any of them.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 12:33 PM

Laura wrote:

Harold -- so, when are you going to be a guest judge??? As a Top Chef yourself, you've been there, done that. I (and the rest of the viewing audience) would value your opinion and thoughts over a lot of the judging that we are currently seeing.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM

David wrote:

After last night's episode I'm going to say good-bye to Bravo!. I thought the judges were completely "Tasteless". The quickfire challenge showed no fairness or equality. The elimination challenge was just as bad. $350.00 to show a kick-ass gourmet filled room of canapes? Are you kidding me? At this point I would like to see what the chefs can really do with their experience and quit making it such a game. Time limits, limited budget and rude judges are really getting tiresome! I really don't care who wins, who goes home and what the judges think anymore. Oh one more thing who was that guest judge? Sorry never heard of him. Does he have his own restaurant in Vegas? or show on the Food Network?

posted on September 6, 2007 at 2:24 PM

Jeff wrote:

"Mike"...you're absolutely right. If the producers of Top Chef continue to design these awful Team Challenges (and hey, I thought this was "Top Chef" not "Top Kitchen") instead of INDIVIDUAL Competitions designed to encourage risk-taking, mediocrity will prevail :( . Witness Tre last week.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Zach wrote:

Top Chef is turning into a complete joke. How does Tom and all of these arrogant, cocky guest-judges expect excellence and daring with so many constraints? All of the challenges recently seem to encourage mediocrity and fear of elimination rather than risk-taking. It's becoming way too brutal, over-the-top, and completely unfair.

Bye Bravo :(

posted on September 6, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Max B wrote:

Harold Man I totally agree with you about the canape's. In Season 2 the people were criticized for doing to few canape's even though all 4 that they did do were upscale and excellent. I can't figure out what these judges want and it seemed to me that there was no good way to go about this challenge. And to add to the comment that this season is the weakest is totally wrong. Season 1 was by far the strongest and Season 2 the weakest. It's tough to compare seasons simply because the judges never compared them, but when asked what there favorite food was the judges who had been there the whole time both said season 1. Enough Said. Oh and I agree with you the guest judge was a mindless tool who took himself way too seriously

posted on September 6, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Gillian H. wrote:

Harold,

I totally agree with everything you said. I do not agree with all the viewers who think that they should have let Howie walk out with dignity by quitting. Why should he be allowed to??? Nobody else was allowed to when they were just about to get eliminated. Why shouldn't he have to be a man (like Joey told him from the beginning) and accept defeat? He shouldn't have talked all that junk about the other cheftestants when he couldn't bring his own A game. Who said that Sara M. was the baby of the house? Who said that he would never allow Sara M to even wash dishes in his restaurant? Howie was far from being an angel and he deserved everything he got.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 6:32 PM

Juan wrote:

I agree with all the posters here complaining about how ridiculous these challenges have become. Here's my guess as to what the next challenge will be...

Padma: "We want you to create an elegant, upscale 8 course dining experience for an upscale charity ball that will be held at the Waldorf-Astoria in NYC".

Cheftestants: "Wow, awesome, This is a DREAM come true!! I can't wait to show my MAD skills on national TV to all my friends and family who'lll be watching, YAYYY!!"

Padma (very cheerful and smiling): "But here's the catch, you have only 1 hour to shop AND prepare your food. In addition, we're not going to give you any money...however, you may go up to your rooms and pawn anything of value to buy your supplies and groceries...yourtime starts NOW!!".

Cheftestants(clearly shocked, crestfallen, tears too): "Huh? Are you serious Padma?? WTF!!??"

posted on September 6, 2007 at 7:26 PM

Laura wrote:

Wow, I just looked over your dinner menu, and may I say, DAMN. I am now regretting the fact I live half way across the country and can't go tonight. I am drooling on my keyboard.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 7:42 PM

kate wrote:

hi harold,

how is it i had to go looking for your blog while rocco and tony's
were right up front.

personally i like tony's show and i even liked rocco's too.
but i like reading your input first as you went through the process and don't side step when it comes to the guest judges.

so to all the zillion producers of this show.....don't fix it if it ain't broke!!!!!

posted on September 6, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Renee wrote:

Top Chef executives are you reading and listening to the viewers, you guys are losing it this season.

posted on September 6, 2007 at 8:32 PM

TC wrote:

Harold, I must say that of all the opinions on the challenges yours seems to shoot straight from the hip. It seems more and more that Bravo is going for the "reality show" experience which focuses on the constraints of the challenge and in this case not the food. This latest episode reminded me of the physical challenge on the old show Double Dare....time constraints and crappy products. I really liked Top Chef when it first came out because it was so unlike the other reality shows out there. It is rapidly approaching the point of no return, which is sad. At leas I'll have an extra hour of free time.

Can't wait to try your restaurant!

posted on September 6, 2007 at 9:30 PM

April wrote:

Okay... respect your opinion and would like to ask for your thoughts on this: within the $350 constraints, but given more time to plan/shop/prep, is it possible to have a sufficient number of items for a crowd of 60? and still impress them the way the judges wanted to be impressed? Having hired some stuff for business events, I know what it costs the customer to impress the guests, but can this be done with the $350 raw materials cost for the provider? I'm sure it could be, I'm just curious what that might actually include (item type/count) ? Your thoughts?

Best regards,

April

posted on September 6, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Theresa Ashwood wrote:

Season 1 was wonderful. Yes, the top chef really was named Top Chef. Certainly there was drama given the different personalities of the chefs, but what was fascinating about the show was watching the chefs cook. We don't see that anymore -- or at least not on a regular basis. Personally, I would prefer to see more of how the chefs create their dishes. Season 2 was disappointing in that respect. Season 3 is just boring. Harold said it best in Season 1 when he said, "I'm just a cook." Well I'd like to see more cooks like Harold!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 1:02 AM

Theresa O'Heron wrote:

Hi!
I keep reading comments about how each season's chefs could do better. Frankly, I think they do amazingly well under horrible restrictions. I don't always agree with the judge's decisions, but, ultimately understand. Thank you, I am a complete TC fan!!!

posted on September 7, 2007 at 2:57 AM

Matt in Miami wrote:

About the guest judge - Yes, he came off as arrogant and self important. Maybe it was editing, maybe not. But he had some good points and every right to be disappointed.

Sara and Howie are actually from Miami, but all of the contestants have been living on South Beach and traveling around the city for a while now and it's obvious that none of them have gotten a feel for it. No one except Sara did anything suprising or went against the grain in any way. Howie tanked it from the start. Nothing except the bread pudding was something you wouldn't see in Des Moines or Peoria. And this is what they chose to serve to style-over-substance people in one of the most appearance oriented cities in the world.

Team challenge? They made it a team challenge, because that was the safe way out. Everybody could have taken their $50 and tried to blow the other guys away. Brian certainly wasn't going to stop them. Instead, they worked together (to spread the blame) and mostly tried not to lose (again). Boring.

Ask yourself, what would Harold have done? Marcel? Sam? Any of the previous finalists? Any of the final 8 from the previous seasons would have won this challenge hands down.

Chef Tom looks bored and disappointed. Yes, he has said that you shouldn't serve something you aren't proud of, but not when that's the only thing you have to serve. The theme that keeps getting repeated here is that the chefs are either not bringing their best or that their best just isn't very good. Even Hung has started playing down to the level of his competition. The only thing that makes this season worth trudging through is the hope that he will get to the final 4 and return to being the exciting, risk taking chef he started out as. More likely he will continue to do just a little more than the worst opponent and back into the title.

Next year (if there is a next year) we will probably see a new head judge because none of the food in the past few weeks has been worth taking time out of an already busy schedule. They should change the name to Not The Bottom Chef.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 5:18 AM

FanFare wrote:

Hi Harold,
Thanks for your thoughts on this challenge. You make some good points throughout your blog. It occurred to me, that perhaps the blandness of the canapes were a result of serving food on a boat for 60 people. Isn't it possible that very innovative (spicy) foods could make the guests lose their lunch?

I find that Hung is joyful when he cooks. His face radiates happiness while he is chopping, preparing, serving his dishes. He is fun to watch sometimes. His QF was as silly as his forced ingredients. Yet the guest judge was just a humorless, rude AH.

I'm glad that the H-Bomb is finally defused. Howie took up too much airtime (and he aint that pretty or talented). He was the "King of Excuses". Does want people to believe that in his own restaurant, if his food doesn't come out right, he turns off the lights, kicks everyone out and locks the doors? Really?
I thought that professional chefs can make something out of nothing and make it tasty...

posted on September 7, 2007 at 7:46 AM

proxl wrote:

Harold, I agree with just about everything you say in your blog. But don't you think you're being a little, um, how to say, um, COMPLIMENTARY to someone who's one of the premier food writers in the country and could make or break your restaurant with a good review.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 11:53 AM

Gin wrote:

I'm becoming increasingly upset at the 'challenges' the chefs have to deal with. The total unfairness of the 'aisle' challenge was amazing. I would have rather they picked an aisle, maybe even the cereal aisle. They would need to shop separately but at least they'd have equal ingredients, equal budget, equal time, then we'd see who was truely creative, not who just got lucky and pulled the knife with all the good stuff in the aisle.

I like to hear Harold's point of view on the challenges. It's nice to hear opinions from people who have been there, done that.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Andy B. wrote:

Hey Harold, good blog once again. It's time for these cheftestants to step it up. Looking forward to individual challenges where the cheftestants compete against each other. Up to now their meals are jjust adequate. The judges need to be wowed to pick the Top Chef of season 3.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 12:29 PM

susan wrote:

TRE SHOULD STILL BE THERE CASEY SARA AND HUNG LET ALONE BRIAN (WORST OF ALL) SHOULD HAVE BEEN GONE LONG B-4 TOM YOU MAY BE A CHEF BUT IF YOU CHEF LIKE YOU JUDGE PEEEU

posted on September 7, 2007 at 4:41 PM

Deborah R wrote:

I know you've been intrigued by Hung from the get-go. Obviously it takes a good chef to know one. His attitude has been grating--especially on those occasions when he clearly didn't back it up (the hideous chocolate pie and the arroz con pollo). But I loved him this week. He took a nothing selection of ingredient choices and in 10 minutes created edible art. No wonder his fellow chefs applauded. And he was right--the guest judge was close-minded (and may I add vulgar and unimaginative). Hung proved why this was a perfectly legitimate quick-fire challenge (as were the convenience store and vending machine challenges of the previous seasons). The chefs with the ability to think outside the box embraced the challenges and did well. The others stuck a Cheeto in a wadded-up Snickers Bar or defiantly turned up their empty glass and presented nothing. TC isn't a job interview or a tryout for culinary school. It's entertainment--and part of the fun is seeing how creative people can be under pressure.

Everyone keeps going on and on about how much more serious the talent was in previous seasons. I disagree. You, Tiffani, Stephen, Lee Ann, Dave--you bet. You guys were the cream of the crop. Miguel was fun and I admired Andrea's commitment to healthy food, but most of the rest of the chefs in your season were forgettable. There were even fewer standouts in season 2 and the after-hours grade-school behavior was ridiculous. There are good chefs in this group, and it's been an entertaining run. Frankly, I wish all those dimwits who keep stomping their feet and threatening to leave would just turn off the TV, stop blogging, and go so the rest of us can enjoy the program in peace.

posted on September 7, 2007 at 8:02 PM

Joelle wrote:

I have to say, Sami's post was exactly what I was thinking! Granted Casey made a great dish within her budget, but if the judges were expecting "wow" give the Chefs more money! When I have my kids birthday parties I spend close to $200.00 for 20 people! I am addicted to Top Chef, but this season is disappointing!
Harold, your comments and insight are very refreshing. Compared to the Chefs in all three seasons so far, you truly are a professional and have always been calm, kind, and a gentleman. I will be in New York mid-October and I am looking forward to dining at Perilla!

posted on September 8, 2007 at 8:18 AM

Jennifer wrote:

Harold, I agree. The chefs got slammed for trying to do too many different canapes on the Yacht challenge. Last season, however, on the holiday party challenge, the team of Mikey, Mia, Cliff, and Elia got slammed for the opposite - not enough variety. So which is it? The same goes for deciding not to serve the dessert that did not turn out when they are constantly chastised for serving sub-par food. I applaud them for making the bold decision to chuck the dessert. I think the judges need to make clearer their expectations and stop wavering on this.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 12:50 PM

Jennifer wrote:

I agree with others who have said that the field of Season 1 was definitely the strongest. Season 3 has been inconsistent at best, and Season 2 - well, it was a joke. T he fact that Ilan - a one note who did pretty much nothing but Spanish food, beat out more well rounded chefs Sam and Ellia is rediculous. I really think the producers got a little too wrapped up in the Marcel/Ilan drama and felt that the best way to capitalize on it was to have them in the finals with the "good guy" (Ilan) coming out on top. I think that Sam Ellia were cheated out of their rightful spots in the final for the sake of "good tv." Sad. :-(

posted on September 8, 2007 at 1:00 PM

PeachPie wrote:

Damned if you do, damed if you don't was exactly what I have been thinking.

I could go on a rant about this, but you've hit on most of what I would have said.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 1:28 PM

john saunders wrote:

I agree with your assessment of the competition. casey has presented some nice dishes, but unlike sara she has not shown an ability to be a leader. in the diner competition, casey had that blank look on her face when she was questioned about what was going on around her with her groups presentations. sara has a take charge attitude and sent dishes back that weren't up to her standards. it's hard to say who will be eliminated next with the wacky competions designed. what i want to see is the judges put their money where their mouths are and have them compete in these settings and see what happens.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 7:40 PM

LindaR wrote:

"I thought Howie should have been allowed to walk out on his own dignity."

Why? Every other contestant has had to take it on the chin when they fall short. Why should Howie be different? Otto was admitting to an error and Mia wasn't even on the chopping block. Their situations are not comparable.

posted on September 8, 2007 at 10:40 PM

Cory wrote:

I loved your comments Harold! I was never a Hung fan until this quickfire and now I'm sold. His attitude betrayed a side of his personality we haven't seen before. Actually one of my all time favorites was your season's episode where your season cooked from the convenience store and then the microwave elimination challenge. While excruciatingly tough for you guys (I'm sure) it always brings out a lot of depth in all of the chefs.

posted on September 10, 2007 at 1:23 AM

AS wrote:

I ate at Perilla this weekend -- fantastic! We had the duck meatballs to start, then the lamb, the special halibut, and the duck entree, along two unbelievable side dishes: the corn and the faro risotto. Great job, Harold. Food, service, decor -- all wonderful!

posted on September 10, 2007 at 4:42 PM

Edwin wrote:

Juan's idea for an elimination challenge is too generous; the obvious extrapolation of the feeding of the hoity-toity on a boat is to require the contestants to cater a wedding with what they can find in the dumpster behind Stop&Shop, pick up as road-kill, and find growing wild beside I-95.

While the basic challenge --hors d'oeuvres or canapes for a medium-sized function -- was certainly reasonable, tacking on the rather ludicrously low budget made it a a lot like Sisyphus' punishment in Hades.

I'm going to join many others in disliking Michael Schwartz: the man seemed to be a foul-mouthed jerk. I fully intend to completely avoid any of his restaurants; he should at least try to show some class in public.

posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:43 AM

Tony wrote:

Hey Harold, that's A-List posting. I am stoked to be writing to you because you were my guy in Season 1 from Week 1. I also agree about Tre and Hung. Told my girlfriend in introduction week that they were the two to watch. I'm a Chef myself in Atlanta, and all my coworkers watch the show. The day after Hung broke those chickens down I came in and all I had to say was the words "Did anybody see Hung..." and everyone was alughing about those "damn birds". LOL
I don't think I agree about Dale with you. On the other hand there really isn't a superstar, there really isn;'t anyone who has cansistently been better. Sarah is coming on strong. Howie was SO OLD SCHOOL! Hung needs to get it together; he needs to start bringing his A game. It's time. It will rpobably be Brian and Sarah left with Hung. dale is a little too colrless; like CJ.

posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:11 PM

nancy wrote:

What I don't understand is why Casey, who admits to some knowledge of pastries didn't just make ganache and whip it - foolproof mousse every time. Not a true mousse but it would have been better than a packaged mix.

posted on September 12, 2007 at 12:28 PM

Marilyn wrote:

Love the show....where is the recipe for the spam?

posted on September 12, 2007 at 3:00 PM