Meghan Murphy wrote:

Hello Tom,

Is it your opinion that this year's cast seems distant from the group of last season? I have my favorites, and my not-so-favorites this year as I did last year, but as you continue to say, they all seem like they're 'skating' by. Is this just my feeling? Or has something changed?

Hungry for more,
Meghan M.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:19 PM

Ken F wrote:

Okay, I send a guy to buy equipment. He gets everything on the list and comes back with money leftover. You think I'm going to fire someone like that? What a lame way to make Michael the fall guy. If someone serves raw chicken in my restaurant, they don't have time to pack their knives and go. Marcel should be sent home and because Mike is not an arrogant "mise en place" ass, you let him go.

Lame, no Hollywood. Your judging skills are impaired by your popularity and being too sure of yourself.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Lori R wrote:

First, I love the show. I also enjoy reading all the blogs after to get the insight of you and the others as how the decisions were made.
I think Michael stuck to the list so much this time because last time he didn't, his team lost the "Holiday". Marcel is still a little irritating BUT Cliff has got to go.
Cliff was not a good "front" guy. He blamed everyone for crappy service and bad food. I don't think the food would have been bad if he wouldn't have made it/let it sit there so long.
Still, I'll keep watching to find out what happens next week.
Thanks

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:30 PM

Jill wrote:

It's too bad that Mikey has had such a bad track record because I would have LOVED to see Cliff get the boot. His arrogance and bossiness is getting on my last nerve. He treated Mia like she didn't exist, and now he's treating Elia like a child. He needs to learn some manners and a LOT of respect to be a true Top Chef.

Even though Sam didn't perform at his usual level tonight (WTF was he thinking with that dessert?!?), I was impressed to see him helping Mike. I realize that he did it partially out of self-preservation, but I think he also had a genuine kindness behind it.

I would really like to see Marcel, Elia, Sam and Ilan go to Hawaii. They are the best top four.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:30 PM

sm wrote:

Tom--

With every episode I grow more and more fond of you. Will you take me out on a date? or better yet, cook for me?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:32 PM

Noel wrote:

I agree with you Tom that the six did not take the lead with a precursor of their "future" restaurant idea.
I am confused though on the choice of Michael instead of Cliff to be sent home this week.
Is the ire of finding the olive pit without a plate to put it in that much of a negative in addition to Mike's not so strong performance far worse than Cliff's abysmal front of the house service?
I feel that the judges are putting too much weight on Cliff and Mike's past efforts to make this judgement this week.
And how come no one asked the lalalina team who decided not to serve wine?
This feels like a cumulative choice rather than one specific to this challenge.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:33 PM

Rob & Joyce wrote:

Tom,

We were ardent supporters for the first season and for the first half of this season. But our enthusiasm is waning with the increased emphasis on personality conflicts at the expense of what made the first season so special ... contestants who loved to cook.

Do the judges sense this difference between Seasons 1 and 2, and would this be attributable to the chefs, the editing, or something in the show's concept that needs to be tweaked?

Thank you.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:34 PM

ceejay wrote:

Hey, Chef Tom, I hope you aren't as discouraged nor dispirited as this viewer. Isn't part of being a Top Chef having PEOPLE SKILLS? I honestly cannot remember ever seeing a group of human beings sink to the lowest, basest traits of our race -- oh, wait, that's right! -- LORD OF THE FLIES!!!! Where is Harold and his plain honest decency when we need him?! The good COOKS I THOUGHT I was rooting for just based on talent, I now hope ALL GO HOME!

SO, my question for you is, HOW DOES A TRUE TOP CHEF BREAK a negative cycle like this? Do you try to find the root problem/person and perhaps FIRE SOMEONE? Do you bring in a therapist? Seriously, you and Gail and Padma might need to see therapists by the time this bunch of babies gets through with you! Hang in there!

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Jackson Covey wrote:

What in the world were you and the other judges thiking in eliminating Michael? Your only complaint of him seemed to be not getting dishes to put olive pits on. That's it. Why not eliminate the guy who made the "sickening" watermelon dish? Why not eliminate the guy responsible for the bad service? It just doesn't make sense.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:36 PM

Roberta wrote:

I loved this challange. It was very interesting to see what they came up with in the time frame allotted. I really like Marcel. He has a great attitude about this compitition. "Focus on the Food" He was able to work along side people who treated him terribly and never lost HIS composure. That is a fantastic quality. Michael really needed to go. His skills seem to require some tweeking (that or maybe a steady diet of Vicadin). I thought the choises of menu were seriously lacking creativity. What were they thinking? Both teams could have done much better.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Dawn from Faribault, MN wrote:

Love you Tom! First, I think M.E.C. should have been EMC-squared, with a little #2 above the C. Get it? Well I liked it!!! Anyway, I think the judges made the absolute right decision, and it was hard to pick just one loser, I'm sure. It was Mikey's time to go, as he has been in the background being a soux chef long enough. ( Is that how you spell soux?) Oh well. Good job, and I just want to go on record as saying that these people are too hard on Marcel. Yes, he's a little pretentious and self-righteous, and downright annoying, but every single one of the chefs, except for Elia, were WAYYYYYYY out of line, especially that "pirky" Betty, who made me want to scratch her bald-headed every week. Thank God she's gone!!! Can't wait until next week. What trick was played!!! It's driving me CRAZY!!!!!!!

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:41 PM

Charlene Marie wrote:

Do you think that if Marcel, Cliff and Elia stayed with a Mediterrainean theme they might have pulled it together?
Do you think if the Italian restaurant was Sam, Ilan and Cliff they might have won?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Lesley wrote:

I have a two part question concerning eliminations. First, now that Mikey has finally been eliminated, can you give us a reason for why he stuck around for so long? Don't get me wrong I enjoyed him, he's a very personable guy and I love rooting for the underdog, but seriously, why? Secondly, Cliff has really mucked in the last two episodes. He has proven to be an anti-social bully with zero people skills and an unflattering level of arrogance that is undeserved given his recent track record. How important do you feel a chef's personality is in the kitchen? That is, would YOU want to work with Cliff?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Rosalie wrote:

Ok Tom here goes,.....I am confused about tonights elimination. You always stress the point that the main item is the food. So Mikey got eliminated because he didn't get what wasn't on his list (a plate for the olive pits)...mistake?...yes....but what about the food???
Sam's dessert was a disaster!!! there's the food. If Mikey goes because of not getting proper items for the serving, shouldn't Cliff have gone?...He was terrible on front. You even said so. What did Cliff cook?...al he did was make the sauce for the chicken. Mikey was more of a line cook. Did Sam and Ilan carry him? Yes, but at least he cooked. I feel Cliff should of been the one to be eliminated...Or even Sam for his cheesey watermelon dessert. Going by what you have stated since season 1...the judging is all about the food. Mikey wasn't judged by his cooking. I still think your great tho!!!! and I love the show, but....lets get back on track..judge the cooking..not the personality. Thanks for doing a great job!!! If you can get the chance, I would appreciate a response as to why Mikey was eliminated, other than the fact that he didn't but proper eqipment for the dinner. Thanks again.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:43 PM

Amanda wrote:

Hi Tom, I read your blog as a ritual every Wednesday at 10-ish (central, yeah). You're very witty and very insightful. I appreciate your attempt to stay above the drama that is expected on a show of this style. My question is: How much time does it take out of your (and what the hell, the other judges') schedules to contribute to this? Do you have to put in more hours since you do the kitchen walkthroughs? Since you don't really comment to the contestants during your walkthroughs, is the experience more a thorn in your side or does it give you an extra edge in judging?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:44 PM

lkd711 wrote:

Tom et al should be concerned about the lack of passion shown by the contestants in this challenge. It's a sympton of how poorly this entire season has gone. This is as much the fault of the producers, Tom and the judges, as it is the contestants. The biggest contributing factor to this season's problems is Tom's dual role of judge and mentor, and his dominating presence at the judging table. In order for this series to avoid these problems next season, the producers and Tom will have to decide which role (judge or mentor) he will serve, and bring in other judges that are able to go toe to toe with Tom in each episode.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:44 PM

Bart Hawkins wrote:

Amazing, Mikey finally gets the axe.

He made no culinary mistakes. He did NOT serve raw chicken. He did NOT serve watermelon covered with snot. He did NOT treat his guests with blatant rudeness, lack of respect, and a sheer absence of ordinary dignity. He did NOT overspend the food budget ($500 for 24 people - serving some hamburgers on the one hand and pork loin on the other.....where do these people shop - Neiman-Marcus???) and thus neglect the wine.

Mikey DID fail to represent his effort orally, as usual. Mikey DID refuse to think for himself, AGAIN. But.....but.....but.... .he didn't serve raw chicken. He wasn't rude. Stellar? No. But...again, but.....the other mistakes were far more damning.

Chef Tom your snotty (yes, SNOTTY) attidue towards Mikey all along has been evident - even in praising him last week you did so backhandedly; this week you evince absolute unmitigated bias again and again. Not my idea of a judge, quite frankly, further evinced by your continued protection of Elia. What, exactly, is going on, Chef? Little taste on the side?

By the way, who is this Gail person? Has all of the tact, taste and character of Lilly Munster - and less fashion sense. At least Padma has the good sense (sometimes) to look cute and keep her inane comments to herself. However, I will say the manner in which she is treated by Tom, Gail, and tonite's "guest judge," (who epitomizes silly and ridiculous arrogance - honestly, dude, that stupid hair is just that - stupid. You look like a 14-year old skateboarder trying to make it to the boardroom. Fashion police, take note) is just a shame.

Others deserved to go. Sadly enough, though, Marcel's raw chicken mistake was overlooked. Betty got canned for chunky soup. Marcel stays ..... for health code violations. Nice. Marcel is allowed to read that horrible poem (from a simple perspective of language it was awful) representation of severe narcisstic disorder with delusions of grandeur (Chef Tom, I suggest a quick gander through the DSM IV).

All of that said, I needn't agree - but the dramatic tensions the producers are trying deliberately to create (and the overzealous flogs Marcel's little groupies are producing here - doubtless motivated by Bravo) are getting old.

But....I'll be watching!

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:46 PM

Darren wrote:

Given the high rate of failure for new restaurants, what, in your experience, is the single most common mistake of novice restaurateurs?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:46 PM

kr wrote:

There should only be TWO going to Hawaii- Marcel and Elia. The rest act like a pack of rabid dogs, not chefs, let alone Top Chef. I hope these childish bullies will be ashamed of themselves, but no, they lack any class whatsoever to admit how foolish they are.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:47 PM

Caroline wrote:

Tom, I love this show - it's the one thing I TiVo and really anticipate each week! Your insightful comments and criticisms really make the show and of course make me want to come dine at your restaurants in NYC. One thing I wanted to note as a potential question you can answer. Yes, I think 24 hours was much too short of a time to devise the restaurant concept, 3 course menu, buy all the necessary serving items, work on restaurant design, etc. When you have an extensive, detailed challenge such as this, why not give them 2 full days vs 1 24 hr period. The stress of organizing everything you asked for, in my opinion contributed to the unimaginativeness of the menu and didn't allow enough time for the contestants to really think things through. I think allowing 2 days for this challenge would have allowed the contestants to think things through more and allow them not to stress as much as they did. Take the example of Project Runway. When the design contestants have to make a dress - they seem to give them 2 full days to buy, design and the 2nd day is finishing day. I loved this challenge. Please bring a similar type challenge back again for the next season, though why not give them a bit more time?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:48 PM

David W. wrote:

You mentioned that the Elia's burger tasted like meatloaf. How does one make a dressed-up burger without crossing the line? What is the key to the "world's best burger?"

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:49 PM

alafair wrote:

I can't believe that you didn't eliminate marcel. not because of anything personal but because undercooked poultry is such a health hazard. I rarely order chicken at restaurants because I fear undercooked poultry - it is one of the biggest salmonella risks in the restaurant world. I don't understand why it wasn't important enough to punish.

otherwise, I found your decisions sound.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Cindy wrote:

Okay, Chef, I've been wondering about something. We viewers only get to see you in "critical" mode regarding the chefs food. on TC, you are very good at telling the chefs what they did wrong, what they omitted, what they could have done to improve - so we never really hear you say that something was just simply great without at least a little reservation. You've been cooking for so many years and have had exposure to so many diverse dishes, are you ever really truly surprised by a new dish that you try? Do you ever say, "Oh, man, that was really good"? Is it difficult to not be critical?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Jodi Penney wrote:

I want to start by saying that I love this show! I dont love however how mean everyone is to Marcel. I only wish that you and the other judges would call them on their attitudes. Im sure without a friendly enviroment a kitchen cant function as it should. Through the whole season I have liked one person and then they go and do something mean to Marcel. For instance, Betty, I truely liked her until she unleashed her wrath on Marcel. From then on I just couldnt see her the same. I dont have to sleep in the same room or cook in the same kitchen...maybe the cameras havent shown us the true Marcel but from what I have seen, he hasnt been that bad. I feel they all decided to pick on him and thats that. Everyone but Elia that is. I would like to see Elia and Marcel kick everyone elses butts! Cliff Is such a tempermental jerk I was so crossing my fingers that he was the one to leave tonight. So back to what I was saying in the beginning..Doesnt it take a peaseful enviroment? So why was Cliff let off the hook for that nasty " Let one of those two go" comments? He should have left. He totally ignored the judges when you walked in. He went in the kitchen and didnt even tell his fellow chefs that you were there. He let the burgers sit there and get nasty and Im sorry, but it looked like he did it on purpose. The whole telling Marcel and Elia that he was doing the front and then letting the ball drop all look purposely played by Cliff. He is one nasty chef and I would not want HIM cooking my food. Same goes for Sam and Ilan. Ilan lost my respect last week and Sam,,,,ok Sam Isnt that bad yet....Im sure he is waiting his turn though.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Jamey O'Hanlon wrote:

I'm not at all a fan of "reality" shows, so this is the first time I've watched this show with my wife. We began viewing at 8pm, so I had a feel of the mission of the show. After viewing the 10pm broadcast, I felt obligated to comment. I feel the contestants in this show were set up to fail. They were given a task that could not possibly be achieved in the time allotted, particularly given that the two groups were not manned with what could even remotly be called "team players". The designers they were given to "assist" them were at best, poor, and the "servers" they were assigned were pathetic. In the end, though, I found the judges to be most at fault. I have dealt for many years with professional chefs, their attitudes, and their large egos, so I expected some degree of impatience on their part. The judges were instead, ruthless. Had I been one of the contestants, and been asked by the judges who should go home, I would have strongly suggested that the judges ALL be sent home.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:52 PM

Stephen Harrison wrote:

Chef, would you say that amazing vision OR flawless execution is the most important indicator of a future Top Chef? And I mean in the real world, not just this show. thanks.

by the way, Craft in New York is really great. I eat there almost every time I come to the City from Cleveland where I work for the art museum as a curator.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Beth D wrote:

I saw your disappointment at the offerings and service of both teams, but I think it was Cliff's time to go. He was poor at the job he volunteered to do, rude to his team, created a lousy atmosphere in the front of the house, and didn't hesitate for a second to throw his teammates under the bus at the judges' table. It seemed as if the judges decided that since Michael shouldn't win, here was their first good chance to cut him loose.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Buddy wrote:

Tom
I couldn't agree with you more. I have followed almost all of the top chef episodes from the beginning. Very disappointing that a true leader hsn't appeared. For leadership and creative genius is what truly inspires others to follow. BTW I wonder how many have actually bio'd your profile and been courageous enough to ask for your leadership! Great show.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:53 PM

Kai wrote:

What concept would you choose for a similar challenge (and why...)?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Lesley wrote:

Good Evening Chef,

I love Top Chef and I look forward to watching it every week. I have two questions: 1. The reason why Sam's team did not have wine was because there wasn't enough money left over from the food budget; however, there was money left over from the supplies budget. Could the team have used the remaining supply funds for the wines or are the funds restricted?; and 2. Last year, you admonished Miguel and Stephen several times by reminding them that this was "Top Chef", not "Top Sous Chef" or "Top Sommelier". Yet, Cliff was on the chopping block for poor service. This isn't "Top Wait Staff" or "Top Host". How did Cliff's poor service outweigh Marcel's undercooked chicken which is a clear health hazard? Thank you for a great show and I look forward to your insight!

Lesley

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:55 PM

Diane wrote:

I had 2 real surprises tonight--1. I was certain that Sam would pick Cliff first. In previous shows he talked about how well he and Cliff worked together--and even though Mike won last week, he continually proved himself to be unreliable and 2) what happened to Cliff? He seemed like a fish out of water--didn't he say that he wanted to be up front because that is what he did in his restaurant? If that is true, why did he look like he had never been in a restaurant before? I realize that editing plays a big role in what the viewer sees but I still surprised at Cliff's performance.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:56 PM

brian W Kaplan wrote:

ELAN is such a conniving twerp, I wanted him to go, but then I thought Cliff was arrogant and did nothing, but Mike is clueless, but then I thought about how Sam was bad mouthing his "buddy" Mike, oh the heck with it get rid of all of them.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Scott S. wrote:

I assume that being a chef is like any other job in which you work with a lot of people ie., you need to get along with others and play nicely. Why is the fact that the others constantly pick on Marcel not taken into consideration. In your decision making, you have considered the chefs personalties in serving food, their use of a budget, their use of ingredients, how well they work together and how well the "leader" of the group commands others but yet you still do not take the group, or individuals, treatment of Marcel into any consideration. Just curious -- thanks.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:57 PM

sheryll wrote:

Hi,

"So before you hit me with the angry emails, know that I am well aware that this was a unique and daunting task."

Daunting? Yes. Unique? No. It was EXACTLY the same challenge given last year when there were six contestants left. I cannot believe that none of the contestants appearred to have watched and memorized TC1.

At this point, I don't want anyone to win. I just want to see you send all of the remaining contestants home and start over.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Lily wrote:

Question(s): Why doesn't the behavior of the contestants affect the decision more? Would Ilan's disparaging comments about a dish on the menu get him fired in a real life situation?

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:58 PM

kathleen fisher wrote:

I am so glad Marcel is still om the show .I can't believe Cliff had the nerve to diss Marcel.He is such anASSHOLE.And Ilan,he is so envious of Marcel,it's almost funny....Almost. Ithink this treatment of Marcel is terrible,where are the producers,why doesn't somebody do something to stop this .I don't want my daughter to watch this show because it reminds her of the grief she felt when she was bullied in school. What is wrong with these people? I am so glad Betty is gone ,what a witch!I enjoyed the show tonight because she wasn't on it.Marcel,I hope you win ,not only because I think you deserve it,but also because I like to see the rest of them ASSHOLES eat shit. Ecept for the pretty french girl[I forget her nameright now] she makes me feel proud for her.she is a true leader and I wish she was my friend.

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:58 PM

Liza wrote:

It was time for Mike to go. All cheffs need a psychiatrist - this obsession with Marcel is out of control! I was unpleasantly surprised tohear Mike's comments before the challenge: "Marcel has to go!" Is that what you should think about before the competition? Well, he was punished for his attitude to Marcel and for the lack of attitude in his work - actually, no attitude at all, as he didn't cook anything!
Marcel looks better and better after each show. His comments are smart and he's NOT angry. All other cheffs are. Which makes the show a little uncomfortable to watch.
Tom, you're wonderful!

posted on January 10, 2007 at 11:59 PM

ann wrote:

I wonder if the architectural food gets cold and what cooks in other parts of the country do to deliver a warm to hot dish.
I am sorry, but I started calling the dishes architectural because some of the dishes look close to collapse with piled on ingredients.
Where I live, we have seasons and restaurants that are 60-70F. A trip from the kitchen would cool off to the point of inedibility most of the dishes I've seen on Top Chef.

That rant over, let me thank you for the enjoyable Wednesday nights. Thank you for your comment about the Mike's apparent being carried by the others. That's how it seemed from the edit. I do wish the edit would show us more about Cliff. Heck, I'd like to see what they fix for themselves for breakfast.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Lori wrote:

Reflecting back to last year on the quickfire finale Dave was eliminated for missing a dish. Even though two of his dishes were favorites at the finale. Yet this episode, Marcel serves rare chicken wings, which could possibly give customers food poisoning and is not eliminated. I thought one serious mistake was enough to eliminate a contestant. Food poisoning is more serious to me(having received it from a restaurant) than missing a side plate. Please explain to me the logic in your decision.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Gary wrote:

I think in a challenge like this, when, two teams did not make the cut they should have sent a person home from both teams. Mike is a line cook not a TC. I am suprised he made it this far. Cliffs attutide is really lacking. He has an ego the size a bus. It was his time to go in this round.

The Marcel bashing is most disruptive. Under the pressure of his peers Marcel keeps his cool and preforms. That is a TC quality. I am suprised he has not cracked as of yet !

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM

Daryl wrote:

From a strategy perspective, I didn't understand Sam's decision to make Ilan his first pick. Marcel and Ilan despise each other, so Sam was going to get Ilan. He had collaborated with Cliff on a successful dish before and if he had selected him I think they would have had a trio of the three strongest chefs. You put Ilan out front and Cliff and Sam can crank the food out in the back of the house. Totally baffling to me.

I guess the thing that surprises me is that they no team challenges are coming yet no one in this version of Top Chef plans. They go in disparate directions and hope that it all comes together. The results are more often than not predictably dismal.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:00 AM

sydneyk wrote:

I think the show was mean. The judges ended up harping on small things - olive pit, coarse onions. In my opinion, to compensate for a lackluster showing on behalf of the contestants. What ended up happening was hearing judges lower teir own bar to be on par with the food/service they received.
Why not spend more time on the cooking? On the shopping? On the other diners? Hey, why bring up what it really takes to open a real restaurant, chef Tom, because in the end, I am sure this show is hard and stressful for these cats.
I don't agree with the decision (I like Cliff, I think his past dishes have seemed really good, but he showed an ugly side this time), I think Mikey got the shaft, and I think the judges were miffed by the lack of intensity of the show and got snooty on us. Made for an ugly show all-around. As my husband would say, "Boo, Top Chef"

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Leah wrote:

Dear Chef Tom,
I'm confused why you didn't ask the italian team about the wine decision, as it seemed like that was such a huge disaster for their restaurant. There was a long segment where all of the judges complained they didn't have any alcohol, and I thought that not having wine in an italian restaurant was a huge cancer to their whole idea.

I also think that Cliff could have gone home, but I'm okay with the Mikey decision. Even though he had a great week last week, his performance this time seemed lacking, and you can't judge one person on their performance last week, if this week they just sat around and barely helped.

Ilan and Sam are getting really annoying though...they need to back off of Marcel. Was Marcel really as annoying as they're portraying him to be? He doesn't seem that bad at ALL on t.v.

Anyway I love the show, keep it up!!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Tara wrote:

Tom,

You'll have to forgive me for my ignorance, but before Top Chef, I had never heard of you. Subsequently, I have no clue where your restaurants and sandwhich shops are located. Mind letting me know so I might see if your food lives up to your own critical tastes?

Oh, and for an off topic thought for next season: How about a challenge involving cooking some of your not-so-average meats? Since living in WV, I've been introduced to all kinds of wild game. It would be really interesting to see if all these oh so talented Top Chef hopefuls could pull off cooking deer to tasty perfection!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:01 AM

susan wrote:

Anyone who thinks that Sam helped Mikey throughout the competition as an "act of kindness and generosity" is insane!

That was strategy and nothing more! He did it to weed out the stronger competition so slothful Mikey might wind up in Hawaii.

Go home Mikey and have some more Cheetos!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:02 AM

Allie wrote:

Alright, I know the competition is about the food. But in the last 2 episodes you seem to be going deeper, trying to envoke the chefs feelings into their dishes. Ultimately, what will be the basis for winning Top Chef? I think it should be about more than just the cooking... it's got to be about the passion. You have to have that to be really great and succeed at what you do (I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir).

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:03 AM

Alice Blake wrote:

Have we lost our way? To be a top chef you must be able to get your fellow chefs to follow your lead and feel free to offer a suggestion now and again. Neither Cliff nor Marcel shows that this is something they can handle.
Last year this seemed to be quite importand but it seems to have gotten lost this season. Please get back to the basics.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:05 AM

Jon wrote:

you serve raw chicken in most places there are padlocks on the doors and lines at the ER. Anyone remember Taco Bell

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:06 AM

Alexis wrote:

I respect your insights and judgements Chef, but I cannot believe you chose Michael to go home instead of Marcel. He served raw chicken, which is potentially more harmful than not having a bowl to place an olive pit in, as well as more unappetizing. I understand that Michael lacked initiative and it seems that he was not as good as some of the other chefs, but raw chicken? That is a big problem.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Jennifer wrote:

Hi Tom.
I was sad to see Michael go tonight---he brought a little something extra to the show....but as it is a competition, it was probably the right decision to make. Sam and Cliff were so arrogant and pompous....I was hoping you'd pick one of them just to see their reaction.
Both teams efforts were seriously lacking tonight. The restaurant challenge last season was much more creative. And....these people should've paid attention because Dave won that challenge BECAUSE of his front of the house attitude. The olive pit on the table was terrible....almost as bad as finding a hair in your food. Anyway...seems you have a tough job on your hands this time around, Tom. I can't wait until next week.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Jenay wrote:

First off I want to say, you are TOTALLY RIGHT that the chefs tonight were lacking vision and soul. No one seemed passionate about what they were doing! Isn't passion the number one ingredient in any chefs career? I could see that Sam was trying to do something different, but I'm glad I didn't have to eat that watermelon and cheese dish -- it looked every bit as bad as it apparently tasted. Ilan has now completed his one-way trip from promising to irksome, and these days Cliff is showing about as much charm and finesse as a Hilton.

I'm glad you're not trying to make excuses for the chefs in your comments. You seem to be a straight shooter who tells it like it is and it makes your blog is the most entertaining thing to read on the Bravo website. Even when the contestants are dull, you more than make up for it! (And you're also easy on the eyes.) My daughter and I agree that you're the best thing about the show.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:07 AM

Yernar Y wrote:

Given two chefs, one is a fantastic cook but sullen and seemingly uninterested in the front of the house, and the other is an average cook but very customer service oriented, which do you let go? Which is more valued in your competition?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Steven wrote:

Chef Tom, something about this weeks episode really contradicts what happened last year. In the episode where Stephen was eliminated, it was because he was accused of trying to be top sommelier. That episode made it apperent to me that front of the house knowledge and execution really don't matter in the competition. So why was the service of Ilan and Cliff under such scrutiny tonight. I'm Confused, but still addicted to the show, so i guess its working. Also, from last year, Stephen being back in the kitchen instead helping the servers, wouldn't have made the crappy food the contestants prepared any better or worse, i thought this show was about the food, Chefs Cook food, i know u know this, lets see some consistancy. I'd love a response from u in the ten u choose to do so.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Alice wrote:

Tom,
Elia, Sam and Ilan hopefully will get to HI. Marcel not cooking the chicken was huge, like in health hazard! So he's a jerk. If he's the best chef who cares in the long run as long as you don't have to work with him.

Great show. I can't cook worth a damn, but at 62, I'm thinking of cooking school for the fun of it!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Sal wrote:

The concept wasn't as hard as they made it out to be, it was a simple catered meal, which they made it a mess. They could have just kept it short and simple "KISS" but they got too creative.
When you judged them didn't you see Michal just didn't want to stab anyone in the back, they were a team he was saying. Now Sam & Cliff where the worst for there teams, Sam takes criticism like a 3 year old and Cliff is just as bad, when you asked him if he should leave, he says no it should be one of them? He failed his team the most by not being able to work with others.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Jenny8675309 wrote:

Chef Tom Great show just wish Mike made at least one more show, out of what i saw tonight Cliffanatter is all but out .Who cut the wine of the list

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:10 AM

Nancy wrote:

Please send Cliff home; he is a snake in the grass. He never takes responsibility for his very poor actions. He was very rude to Elia and Marcel tonight; insisted on being the front man and was given the honor to avoid troubles on the team. I have seen him (and I hate this saying) "throw too many people under the bus"!!! Please again, send him home.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:10 AM

done wrote:

The shows last season inspired me to cook. After each show I would find myself in my kitchen at 11pm trying to replicate something I saw on the show or some small piece of it. It was about the food and it was exciting and interesting and opened up my culinary horizons.

This season, pfffffft. As previous posters have pointed out, the personality conflicts aren't interesting. I feel like I'm at work having to deal with the problem children. I've been inspired to cook twice. I miss the food. The production staff, not just the contestants, are turning this into Jerry Springer for the foie gras set.

I don't like any of these contestants. I hope they all loose.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Todd wrote:

Seriously, what's with the crappy personal drama this season? I greatly enjoyed last season's mix of food and competition, and this season's turned into a "who can be the biggest tool?" competition, with the food barely taking second place. Did you just end up with a duff batch of contestants? I've seen a few interesting dishes (the roulade, some of Elia's stuff), but according to the judges, none of those are well-executed.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:11 AM

Stephen Lima wrote:

Up until now I have agreed with all of the eliminations. Mike should not have been sent home. My choice is Cliff. Although I believe that he is a talented cook, he has people skill issues and was a terrible front of the house choice. The fact that there was no place to put olive pits should not have been Micheal's down fall. The decision not to do a wine was a bigger problem. The poor execution of the food for both teams was a problem (who does watermelon with cheese?). The lack of service , by both teams was a problem.
Every cook dreams of someday owning their own restaurant. Countless hours go in to dreaming about it and although pulling off that dream in 24 hours is difficult, there were ways of getting it done for this challenge.
Another thing that bothers me is everyone's hatred for Marcel. Now granted he may be a bit high on himself, but he is harmless. What has he done? I don't get it. People just need to shut up and cook because so far I'm not impressed!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Tomasina Wilber wrote:

I would have to agree with you on quite a few of your comments. However I have been in and out of the restaurant field for 18 years and have also had a career as a contractor.....so in saying that they are the two hardest fields I have worked in. I think that this challenge tonight was more about the chefs being out of their element and also affraid to take chance. They are so fixated on staying that they are not trying to win.......or at least it seems. They are definitely outside their comfort zones, but should really just embrace that they are. I would love to see some more passion behind what they are doing, because you can see it but it is not being translated to their dishes. They didn't even look appetizing on TV. What a shame. It goes without saying I really enjoy the show. Thank you for your time......Tomasina Wilber

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Barbara wrote:

Tom:
I, too, was disappointed in tonight's performance. But the whole season has been disapponinting. I'm not refering so much to the cooking as to the overall behavior of all the chefs.
I can't get overall how immature all the chefs have been this season. Just when you think they could'nt get anymore childish, their behavior reaches an all time low. What a bunch of babies and whiners. I teach fifth-graders who behave better.

Someone should tell these guys to growup and do what they were chosen to do-cook some good food.
Question for Tom: Why was Michael chosen over Cliff to pack up his knives? I know Michael can be a major slacker,but I think Cliff only chose to do the front of the house because he didn't want to work with Elia and Marcel.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Michael Amich wrote:

Chef Tom, I was disappointed that Michael left over Marcel this evening. While Michael was out shopping for plates and glasses, the others were shopping for food. So my question is this. How was Michael to forsee needing plates for olive pits when a list was already made on what he should get (and later called to say they don't need wine glasses)? Raw chicken can cause some serious problems and that should have been enough to send Marcel packing. Do I think Michael is better then Marcel? Probably not, but not having a plate for olive pits will not make you sick.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:13 AM

Christina wrote:

Honestly, other than the fish envy plate, Michael has been a slacker that was completely disrespectful of the show and the talent around him. Michael should have been gone the moment he put a cheese puff on a ball of crushed snickers. I was horrified at his audition video (looked more like a jackass audition) and that really says a lot about your producers and the show concept. Do they really need to dig that far in the barrel to find cooks that will be combative? Too many cooks... how can you get more dramatic than that?



I worked in the food industry for 10 years (from Friendly's to several five star restaurants) and Cliff is pretty a-typical for a top chef. They are decision makers and do not like to have to explain themselves to anyone. You can see this coming out everytime he is forced to work with other top chefs. He gets annoyed with side conversations after a decision has been made and everyone else is used to calling the shots as well so there is some natural drama built up there. Clif is just more used to working with line cooks that look to him for complete direction.



Poor Marcel. He really has not done anything other than exude confidence in his foams. I suppose that is a reason to joke about him but the cruelty from Illian and Sam is rediculous and almost seems like they are jealous of him. Illian is now loosing focus on his own work because he is trying to keep Marcel as the focus and that could backfire. If he can't keep his Marcel complex to a minimum he will make a fatal mistake and that is sad because I think he is very talented. All of his dishes have looked incredibly delicious.



Sam seems a little like a drama queen and that watermelon with gargonzola makes me wonder what kinds of things he eats that would make him think that combination is edible or even intriguing. And at least the token girl has quite a few delicious and tasty dishes to show for herself.

My question for the show:
I noticed some episodes have prizes for the winners and others do not. Is that because you don't have a prize sponsor for every episode? I work for CUTCO Cutlery and we would love to provide a prize or two for next season. It would be awesome to see an episode for presentation and knife skills and the prize will be a CUTCO set.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:14 AM

mes wrote:

Comparing this Season's Top Chef to last season's one thing I continue to notice in each episode is the lack of maturity on the part of the 'so-called chefs'. Granted last season's chef's did have their differences but when it came down to it majority of the time they were focused on cooking. This season lacks that too much emphasis on putting people down and not enough focus on cooking - which is WHY I thought these individuals wanted to be on the show. Just curious is this ever discussed with the chefs 'behind scenes' to "grow up" act like mature adults and focus on WHY they are on the show to begin with - - to be selected as a TOP CHEF?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Elizabeth wrote:

Honestly, I was suprised that Marcel didn't get booted for the undercooked chicken. If I ever got something like that in a restaurant, I'd leave. And now, I have questions. (You don't have to answer all of them, or any of them, if you prefer)

What's the behind-the-scenes atmosphere like? I certainly hope that it's not as tense as what's on camera.

Second, you're in good shape, especially for being a chef and judge of a cooking show. How do you that?

Third, how many weeks (or months) did it take to film the show? I know it started in the summer.

Fourth, are you planning on judging for season 3? (I hope so)

Thanks for reading. :)

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Kelly P. wrote:

Chef,

What I want answered and wish one of LaLaLina's Chefs would have asked was could they have spent the leftover money from the supplies on Wine since Wine was so crucial to the concept???? I realize Mikey made a huge oversight by not getting some cute little bowl or dish for the olive pits and then something for the bread but it is the little things that can make or break you. I do have a second question for you and that's regarding Mia, would the staff of Top Chef consider having her come back for another season? My 14 yr old Sous Chef daughter wants to see a season of the Top Chef winners with some of the chefs who didn't make it very far such as Mia. The only problem she could immediately identify was not knowing how many seasons of Top Chef there might be - hence the reason she added the "discarded" chefs concept. You judges always talk about sending food back so why didn't you send the undercooked chicken back? Cheers!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Stephanie wrote:

First of all I am completely in love with you Tom. I haven't had a crush this terrible since David Cassidy. You are at your most adorable when you are cranky! My friends and I all argue who is in love with you the most...

OK. My question. Having spent 20 years in the restaurant industry myself (from dishwasher to waittress to sous chef etc...) I don't understand the lack of fore-thought and/or planning that seems to be the "undoing" of the contestants at times. While cooking is important - ingredients, balance, flavor etc... I always found that timing and planning were the keys to excellence. Not sending the food out too early or too late; making sure food was always perfectly cooked meant knowing 5 minutes ahead of time when to put the mignon on the grill and so forth (thinking about where to put olive pits!!) - you get the idea.

These chefs can cook - no question. However, I am dumbfounded when I see their little scraps of paper with hurried , scribbled notes to plan for a restaurant or catering function (that paper that Mikey took to the restaurant supply house looked like a ransom note or a doctor's prescription!). When I cook thanksgiving dinner for my family I have long lists and timelines and so forth to ensure the food is all done properly and at the same time. This seems to be lacking here in more than one episode.

My question: Do you find that although the cooking skills are excellent, the chefs seem to lack that "thinking ahead to all possible/probably outcomes" gene that (I think) is critical for success in the restuarant business?

Keep up the good work with the show. You are terrific!

Love,

Your biggest crush!!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

David wrote:

As we all know, Cliff is talented as a chef but a front host? Cliff should have been right behind Mickey on the way out. When asked, "Who should go?” he could care less as long as it wasn't him. I am still rooting for Marcel or as Sam refers to him as "Rat Boy" to go to Hawaii.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Diane wrote:

I really enjoy the show, and especially your insights into the challenges.

However, I thought tonight's episode was a bit awkward, and the choice of who went home baffling. I think Mikey isn't really at the level of others, so ultimately that choice was probably right. But in context of tonight's episode it seemed to make no sense. I got the feeling that the judges were just so grumpy and disheartened by the bad dining experience they picked on the easy target - Mikey the goofball. But really - what did he do that was so wrong? He went off the list - He talked to his teammates about what he needed to buy and he did so.

Given the alternative between raw chicken or no olive pit dish, I'd put my olives on the tablecloth any day of the week. Eating underdone chicken scares the $%#!@ out of me. I would then spend the rest of the night worrying if I would get salmonella. Not exactly a relaxing dining experience. To me that trumps all other flaws, even that scary-looking desert (and I love savory things on watermelon- chaat masala...mmmmmm...). For that - and not his annoying demeanor - Marcel deserved to go home.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

John wrote:

I don't really understand the mob mentality against Marcel. Last season, I completley understood and joined in on the anti-Steven and anti-Tiffany crowd. Is Marcel annoying, yes. Is he the truly evil person the group tries to make him out to be, I don't think so.

As for tonight, I really thought you were going to send Cliff home for such a miserable job out front which made the food that much worse. But Michael is way out of his league making it this far, at least he has his double win last week to remember.

John
Denton, TX

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Karin wrote:

Tom,

I too grow more fond of you every episode and would LOVE for you to cook me dinner. I think that my husband and 9 month old daughter would put a huge damper on our night!!! But really... just between you and me....Gail gets on your nerves? She is a wild know-it-all and overly dramatic. Please, lets not invite her back next season. Thank you.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:16 AM

Patsy wrote:

I love Top Chef and the judges. I really think this episode showed different attitudes, management skills, and line preparation for all contestants. I would like to know if you are thinking of bringing back one of the former contestants to spice things up? Especiallly since the guys are out numbering the girls, it seems like a come back is in order for Mia or Josie. Which episode can a a wild card strong competitor come back to get the contestants back in order? Thanks
Valdosta GA

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Hal R wrote:

I have to disagree with the choice of Michael if purely based on this show. It appears that the judges used this elimination for past faults earlier in the competition. The table presentation was clearly a front of the house issue (bus boy) not a procurement issue. The team made the choices of dishes. He did what he was issued as the team agreed. I have to disagree with your choice and feel that the judges are clearly drawn to more of the images of themselves than actual food. Clearly, an uncooked chicken was not more dangerous than a pit on the table. Even more clearly, a poorly conceived, bad tasting dish (Watermelon/cheese dessert) is more forgiveable than a refuse dish. Since the creators of the game made this into a elimination game, then one of the strategies is "not to lose." If you are out there, then you get eliminated.
Why don't you do more challenges involving situation where you have to design an around an item like roast beef... or must have an ice cream... or must do a BBQ... or Red Meat... Instead of these team challenges where it is hard to discern who is the stand outs?

Just my two cents.

Hal

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:17 AM

Anna Rumsey wrote:

Tom,
Having been in the position of opening my own small cafe' and learning the hard way about some issues within the business--you're right on about what you did NOT ask the chefs to do in this challenge. If they think this piddly little challenge was tough, what are they going to do in the REAL world challenge if they are on their own. I wish I was twenty years younger and had the wherewithal to be able to compete in this challenge--I would be on cloud nine--just get out there and cook, because, if there was a winning team, it would have only taken a mastery and execution of the menu--the other stuff would have fallen by the wayside. I just didn't get the food tonight at all! Part of my absolute joy and grief in even opening the restaurant was that it was your baby--in concept, development, follow-through, all the way to having to lock the doors. I just love your show--it's the stuff dreams are made of.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Corinne wrote:

Michael is by far not the best chef...but he totally didn't deserve to go home tonight. I love him for hanging in there, and for this challenge he neglected to buy wine glasses. Hey, send the idiot who decided wine was not necessary in an Italian restaraunt home. I love Mike's gusto, his love for food and his wife's panties...he may not have made it to the end, but as far as I'm concerned it was an injustice to send him home tonight. I believe Cliff (who I admire) is still hanging in because his track record was better than Mike's. Is this a competition for individual challenges or for overall perfomance? Love the show more than any other, but let's get real and show the "why" behind each elimination. Last season I was so excited that Dave (my other underdog honey) was in it till the end, but I knew why. Justify Mike's elimination for me, even though it is Sam or Elia who are going all the way. Some mediocre contestents may have been kept on for there ratings value, and other great contestants have been let go for lack of viewer appeal. All is fair in love and food, no? I'll never stop loving the show, but come on, selective camera work ain't enough!!! I want to hear the judges discussions.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Katie wrote:

Hi Chef Tom,

Do you have any input on which Top Chef candidates are actually chosen to compete? I watched Michael's home video and was, frankly, disgusted by his words and actions. I can't imagine anyone viewing that train wreck of a video then deciding he was Top Chef material; yet, that's apparently what happened. It would be nice if next season was less drama and more food!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:22 AM

Maria GB wrote:

This challenge seems just as difficult this time as it was in season 1. I think the producers deserve some blame ; they should have tweaked it for success. I disagree with the decision to send Michael home. With record success in the last episode he shined; as a team member he gets along. Cliff is the one who has got to go! He is a bully. Michael was punished for sticking to the list which I don't understand. But in the last group he did the surf and turf on his own gumption and got NO credit for that. Cliff runs roughshod over the other chefs and listens to no ones ideas. He has NO people skills. Ilia is very sweet, but she is wrong on her restaurant concepts time and time again. The pressure on Marcel to change the concept was wrong. Kudos to Marcel for taking it so well. I like Marcel; he has some maturing to do as a professional chef, but he has the right attitude, skills and insight. Sam has anger issues and Ilan is just plain immature.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:23 AM

Bill Anderson, III wrote:

I agree with you, Tom. I thought this was a great challenge for them to step up and give us a glimpse of their dream. Isn't this the main reason to compete for the seed money and equipment to open their own business as the main prize?

I was sorry to see Michael go even though I don't think he could be the Top Chef. As for Marcel, I agree with your previous post. Nothing he's done or said should have generated the severity of the reaction he's been getting. Yes, he's abrasive but more so in reaction to others actions towards him. Cliff is much more of an ass in my opinion. Then again, trying to see any of these competitors as competent, sucessful businesspeople is a stretch.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:25 AM

Dawn A wrote:

Hello Chef Tom,

It was very interesting to see how this season's "restaurant challeng" campared with last season. What a trainwreck! I couldn't believe how badly both teams did when basically all they had to do was come up with the concept and then cook it! Last year the teams had to do everything themselves including the decorating setup and all the service. And they both did a damn fine job. This season, what a difference, I'm sorry but Ifind no excuse for poor/unfriendly service in the dining room. A smile with greetings to your guests(customers are our guests!) and a thank you for your patronage is not asking much. Also, who opens an italian restuarant without at least a house red?? They had money left over in the budget they should have spent. my question is that if both teams lost tonight why didn't you send home one from each team i feeel that would have been more fair. Both Michael and Cliff should have packed they're knives and gone! Keep up the great work, love the show, and can't wait to see what happens next.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Maggie wrote:

Mike was the best guy of all of them- he was the only one who ws not a pompous assh**le.... now it will be a choice of one snotbag or another....... just like some of the pompous assh*le chefs I have worked under....

Good luck Mike.... you do have some talent there

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:27 AM

AG wrote:

I have a question about the restaurant "theme" situation and how that might have worked, or works out in the real world. You mentioned that neither team really stepped up to deliver something that gave a sense of their vision or sensibilities. Seems like an interesting problem on any group project! How would three chefs work that out in the real world, and what might have the contestant groups have done to address the problem as they planned the menus and so forth? Or would those kinds of personality conflicts just eliminate collaboration as an option in the real world?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:27 AM

D B wrote:

As a computer programmer of ten years, I am surprised by the number of similarities I'm discovering between the food and information technology industries. Obviously, the particulars are completely dissimilar. But the skills used in planning, appraising your resources, and executing the design are identical.

I've noticed that you are commenting on these skills as well as taste and presentation. How do you arrive at your conclusions when evaluating performance on these levels? I get the sense that it goes beyond "well, the food sucked and it looked bad, so the execution of the concept was therefore poor." Or am I reading too much into this?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:27 AM

Jill wrote:

Biggest mistake of the challenge was without a doubt no wine! In an Italian restaurant? This was Sam's idea - not Michaels, who by the way did everything he was supposed to do - shop for what they needed. I'm beginning to get a feeling that Sam is the Jeffrey Sebelia from Project Runway - he makes mistakes but they're never acknowledged & he'll end up winning. And someone please tell Ilan to grow up! The "at least I'm not a virgin comment" to Marcel - very mature. I feel l like I'm watching American Pie. I hope Marcel & ELia outlast all of the other jerks!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Jill wrote:

Hey, Tom...I've got a question for you: What do you think would have happened if these groups had been given 48 hours instead of 24 to execute ths challenge? Since you, yourself, outlined the huge list of things that go into opening a great restaurant and most of them were administrative or ticky-tack, red-tape details, you must think that another day would provide the kind of brainstorming and attention to detail (hence, a container for olive pits) that they lacked. Could the lalas have gone back to the store with the leftover money from the supplies store and used it to buy wine? Thanks for a great show and here's hoping we get to see some great food cooked in the islands!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Sandra wrote:

I love the show, but I am really tired of the bad behavior of some of the contestants. Why focus on that? You can edit the tapes or caution the chefs. It is not why most of us watch. I hated to see Mike go home when it was clear Cliff should have been eliminated. Cliff and Ilan should be the next to go. Eventually, Marcel who is the most talented should win. His talent is the reason for the abuse thAT the "merely competent" led by the least-talented and cheating Betty have heaped upon him.They're scared of his talent. Elia seems nice but not as talented as Marcel. I enjoy the show (and would like to see more of you) but would like to see the focus move from the interplay of the contestants to the preparation of food. I want to watch chefs at work- -professional chefs. I watch to learn. If I wanted a soap opera, I wouldn't have to look far. I want something different from Top Chef.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:28 AM

James wrote:

This is the first episode I have ever been angry enough to write something to someone about. Despite your caveat above, this was a terrible idea from the start. How you can possibly be as scathing in the judgement part of the show with little or know acknowledgement of the absurdity of the scenario is beyond me. Why don't you have the chefs do some cooking one of these days instead of putting together home decore kits from target? If you want to show case a chef's abilities, make them worry about the food. It is what they are here for, and what we watch for.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:28 AM

Sammie Boggs wrote:

I just have to say that I feel Marcel is getting the short end of the stick. Sure, there are times he is annoying but no more than the other chefs on the show. With everyone ganging up on him every day, he has show a lot of fortitude to take the abuse and still asks if he can help others.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:28 AM

John wrote:

Tonight's challenge brought into focus for me the difference between this season and last. Since the end of last season, I have been following Harold's myspace page, eagerly awaiting the opening of his restaurant. I would go out of my way to visit a restaurant opened by Dave, Leann, Miquel, Stephen and even Tiffany. I can't say the same about any of this season's final six.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:31 AM

Kristlkrost(Kristy) wrote:

Tom ,
Here is my question:

You say you are not a mentor..yet you do go by and give suggestions of sorts...IE

Do you think it's a good idea to only do 4 appetizers at the Holiday party????

Questions like that sometimes make me think
you are sort of mentoring in a way as Tim Gunn did.

At that point they couldn't change their menu..Why would you ask them that?

Also...You always say and Gail...Sell your food...And when they do try to like Sam did with the watermelon fiasco....You think he's wrong
for trying to sell it.
These are just two examples.

I LOVE you and the show and carry on
Ol Blue Eyes....lol

We want Ted Allen!

Add a 4th please~

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Susan wrote:

Cliff should have been botted outtathere tonight! He insisted on being the front person and he let food sit out and go out overcooked. I want to scratch his face off! I love Marcel and Elia and had felt the same about Mikey until he said "Marcel has to go." I wonder if this was his opinion or if he was just jumping on the bandwagon so they wouldn't dislike him too. However, he was blamed for not getting appetizer plates while film showed him snapping a photo of what he was getting for his team's approval. He shouldn't have gone this time. Cliff should have. Love the show, and GO MARCEL!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Gloria Lopez wrote:

Cliff should have been sent home because he did no cooking and when he saw that the food was not coming out he should have gone in the kitchen and actually worked as hard as Marcel and Elia. What really tweaked my interest is next week. What JOKE goes horribly wrong? Please do not let it be at Marcel's expense. Oh and why was nothing said when Eian made that try at ridiculing Marcel with that foam? HAHA....NOT!!!!!!!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:32 AM

KS wrote:

I would disagree that Michael got sent home because of the list -- rather, he didn't seem to even take responsibility for having been part of the team that created the list. Besides, isn't the bigger issue that it wasn't even clear what exactly he had done for the team aside from follow the list?

Everyone is making a thing about Cliff's poor front of house service. But didn't Ilan have the same problems? Sure, Cliff was arrogant on top of it all, but Ilan has been acting like a child in the last couple of episodes... how do you single out one and not the other?

My question is why no judge has taken the chefs to task about their childish behavior toward Marcel... then again, the teaser for next week suggested this will happen. If that's the case, I'm wondering why let it fester. Ratings?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Lynn wrote:

Hi Chef Tom,
I enjoyed the challenge tonight and thought it provided the chance to really make a creative statement. I was disappointed in Lalalina, a totally non-innovative Italian restaurant (snore). Where was the personal stamp of any one of those guys? Even going with Ilan's Spanish restaurant experience would have been more fun. It was a short time to work in but if the creative juices are flowing, the ideas come and the food follows. Or start with a great menu idea and build the restaurant concept around that. Something has to kick off the inspiration and nothing here did. Elia's idea of the world's best burger was a bit more daring, only in that you'd better have one f-ing heck of a burger if you're going to pull people in. Also, the cutting edge diner has been done and done, very 1980's now, certainly in New York, what's new here? And, God, how can you undercook a chicken wing? Elia's burger sounded like an old Eddie Murphy bit where he describes his preference when he was a kid for McDonald's burgers as opposed to the ones his mom made with green peppers in them. I'm with him on that one. If they really want to do diner food, MAKE meatloaf, mac and cheese, and some really good pie (lemon oreos???? what?) Hamburgers are not particularly diner specialties, really good burger joints aren't really diners, and the whole concept just fizzled. Not to beat a dead horse but when's the last time you ate tempura vegetables in a diner? Elia's one of my favorites, an obviously good chef and put herself out there with an idea all of which is good but I think she should stick with what she knows and build on that.
I disagree with a lot of the other writers over the past weeks who feel that the judging shouldn't be cumulative and I know you said that it was a challenge-by-challenge decision. I think to pick a top chef you have to have a sense of the body of a chef's work or a cook who stays safely under the radar can go all the way. I think this is what probably happened to Mike tonight. If his past performance had been as strong as Cliff's he would probably have stayed but it seems to me that judging from past comments, none of the panel felt he was really winning material. That being said, I haven't tasted Cliff's food like you all have so maybe it's great but boy what a pompous pain in the ass. He was just despicable in the holiday challenge to Mia and I think if you'd seen any of that like we got to, you'd have revoked his immunity and given him the boot. Mike is more of a team player, has some flashes of talent and is way more easy to work with, it appears, than Cliff. Remember when someone said Otto was a cancer to the team? (Meanwhile, that's harsh.) Well, Cliff has now ruined the timing, plans, smooth execution, and camaraderie of two teams, was responsible for Mia's sacrifice to keep Elia in (who should never have been elected over Cliff to be sent home, immunity or not), and been belligerent (surfers' breakfast chopping block: "I'm not going home, no way") and nasty tonight ("pick one of them"). Seriously, he really needs to leave. A fine chef needs to stand up and be responsible for his food and decisions and not be so defensive and ready to blame everyone else. Enough already, go home.
Love the show, love the challenges, especially the quickfires, and still want to see more of the cooking itself than the infighting. It's all great fun though and I can't wait for next week.
Lynn

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Alice wrote:

What a downer this collection of chefs are. Many of them are so arrogant but their product is really lacking. (I recognize that this was said of Marcel, but he reminds me of a child, there's something vulnerable in his eyes and his commitment to hard work and quality is endearing. And the preview of next week's episode made me queasy in what new way they would torture him.)
As a germaphobe, I gasped when the spittle coated olive pit was discovered, and then it was picked up with bare hands, and then the guest chef plunked his bread down on the tablecloth! (Maybe not in the same area but who knows what else lingers there from the previous diners.) Serve antibiotics for dessert and a refresher of hand sanitizer not caramelized cheesy watermelon, ack.
Since there has been such a focus on bullying, cheating, and all kinds of manipulation for the viewers to gaze at, were you as judges aware of that and did you ever feel that you should intervene by immediately asking people to leave? If this were a real workplace there would have been some immediate terminations pretty early on. It's painful to watch low-minded people execute products poorly in what is supposed to be their life's passion. The ongoing humiliation of Marcel makes me wonder how his mother and father feel watching that. How painful it must be for them! I would have picked up my son from such a horrible summer camp after the first episode and brought cookies for his buddy Elia. How are you planning if you are, in addressing the march of mediocrity that this current batch seem to be set on? Also, last season I attempted quite a number of the recipes and with some tweaking enjoyed them. This season there hasn't been many appealing dishes to choose from. In Season 3 if there is one, are there going to be changes in the criteria of chef selection? Such as emotional maturity, work ethic, etiquette, and ambition?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Wayne wrote:

In my opinion, Cliff should have went home tonight. Although he has shown some talent and creativity in terms of his dishes, he needs to learn what being a leader really is and how to be a team player. That's what makes a Top Chef! I also think that Marcel has shown professionalism by refusing to participate in the hype. Elia's attitude is beautiful! Lastly, if I owned a restaurant-or ANY business, for that matter, I would NEVER get rid of a guy who saved some money. Mike was definitely the underdog and I'm sorry to see him go.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:33 AM

Rana wrote:

Hi there Tom. I'm glad to see someone finally open the forum up to questions because I definitely have a few. To be honest, after these past two episodes (and an ominous preview of the next episode), I feel like personality and attitude should carry more weight in the competition. At the end of the day, the food should be good, but after seeing how these people handle themselves both amongst each other AND among their clientele, I have concluded that I would NEVER eat at any of their restaurants no matter how great the food was. This is a field where people skills are important, right? I don't want to eat at a restaurant where the food comes up short because the staff is too busy bickering to pay attention to what they're cooking.

Secondly, just out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite things to eat when you're NOT eating gourmet food?

Finally, will there ever be a vegan or vegetarian challenge? I would think that part of being a top chef is being able to accommodate the gamut of diet restrictions your customers might have. Given how popular these two diets are becoming, I think it functions as good practice as well as being a challenge for chefs who largely seem to rely on meat-based dishes for their main course.

Thanks for reading, even if you can't reply!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Rigaou wrote:

Watching the unrelenting abuse of Marcel is sad. I think his composure through all this speaks volumes about his character. I just don't get why he is so disliked. He is not nearly as arrogant and annoying as Sam and Ilan. Cliff...well, he could benefit from an appointment with Dr. Phil. I think Marcel and Elia have the most talent and the best attitudes and comportment. I hope they continue to show the qualities that make a true top chef.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:38 AM

kenn M. wrote:

Your first season sold me on the show, and this season has been so totally different, it is hardly the same show. However i still love the show and think it's a great concept , "survivor kitchen" hehe. Having run a restaurant , served French service, cooked in a couple upscale places, i recognize that this challenge was tough. however, that being said, maybe the wrong person was sent packing tonight.
I see signs of immaturaty in most of the "chefs" left. Ilan dissing Marcels dish, Micky with his i don't give a **** attitude, Marcel against the world (oh please), and Cliff with his arrogance and overbearing-ness,
Who's fault was it that micky came back with no wine glasses, not his, the decision was made by others, so he would have had money left over! who decided to drop the wine, even a Franzia red and white dinner wine would have been prefferable over none at all.
I think that both concepts were ok, but the exicution was lacking. as for the front of the house, i think that Cliff shouldn't be let out of the kitchen, or maybe he should pick up a bus pan...
and Ilan i think was the best choice for his team to put out front, and i didn't hear any real complaints about him fronting for his team.
OK, i believe that Micky needs to learn more about cooking and food pairings etc, he does work fairly well with others, Cliff on the other hand has messed up two teams now and brought them down, with his "my way" attitude, and his lack of people skills, you just cannot bully people into enjoying your food, or for that matter working happily for you...my choice would have been "cliff pack your knives"

I'd like to know how you all come up with the challenges, and how much you think about the pressure your putting on these people???

respectfully submitted
kenn

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Jane wrote:

Shame on you and the other judges. Ilan and Cliff should have been sent home for less than poor service. Sam did a poor job of supervising his group, he made that disgusting blue cheese/watermelon stew, and he made the decision to cut the all important wine. But it was Michael who was sent home, not because he did a poor job, but because he followed the boss' orders. Had I been in the same position, I would have not bought the wine and the glasses, thinking that Sam might have be planning to allocate his budget for something else or was getting the wine another way. You sent the wrong guy home, all because you wanted to save Sam, Cliff, and Ilan for the finale. Shame on all of you!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:39 AM

Julia wrote:

Great show tonight, terrible food and no creativity. Much preferred last season's restuarant episode where it seemed much clearer concepts were being presented. Yes, bring back Harold and civility -- and leave poor Marcel alone. What is the other chefs problem! Looking forward to next week -- afraid I'm totally hooked!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Brenda wrote:

Hi Tom!

Love the show...

Honestly..I would have sent Cliff home since I thought he was awful in the front of the house. No personality at all
But..my question is..What happened to the rest of Mikes money? Did he get more beer? DId you at least have one with him?

HAHA!
Again...I love the show and I really enjoy reading the blogs!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:40 AM

Lee wrote:

Elan's comments at the beginning of the show were totally juvenile and not in any way indicative of a true chef. To even suggest that anyone purposely sabatoge the food and then blame Marcel show just how afraid of Marcel he is. He obviously has no faith in his own abilities that he feels the need to sabotage him.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:41 AM

Sulyn wrote:

Chef Tom-
First, I LOVE the show, but there is some things I am DYING to know....
On guest judges, they are top chefs themselves but the question is that does their vote carry more weight than the other's votes because they are the guest judge?
Also, have you and the other judges really had to hash out a decision due to different pallates? On quickfire challenges, it seems sometimes the chefs are screwed because judges make mention that they dont like certain ingredients normally. Also has there been any dishes that won that you yourself didnt care for due to your pallate, but it was due to great presentation and execution that they won? I appreciate your time and insight. As a former server for 20 years, I love to see the other side! Thanks again! Love WichCraft!

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Erin wrote:

Thanks for the invitation, Tom. I have a couple of questions for you.

First: Tim Gunn is on record as saying (paraphrased, obviously) that he's surprised, given the time constraints, how well the editing conveys the real essence of the competition and relations on Project Runway. Would you say the same about Top Chef? Do you feel the finished episodes give a reasonably fair picture of what happens? Are there elements you see that you wish could be conveyed to viewers, or do you think we get a fair sketch?

Second: How well do you think success in this competition maps onto potential for success in the restaurant world? Have you seen people who are really good chefs, perhaps even potentially great executive chefs, but terrible reality show contestants? On the other end of the spectrum, can you envision someone impressing the judges' table time after time but failing to produce in the real world?

Thanks again. It's a shame you can't be more of a mentor to these folks; one gets the impression that you're a good guy to work for, and would be as effective a teacher as a judge.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Chelsea wrote:

Thank you, Chef, for your comments tonight. I was disappointed with the contestants tonight, as well. There were a lot of glaring errors and issues, and I understand why there was no clear winner, however, I am a bit confused with the loser. Don't get me wrong, I think Mike probably would not have made it all the way to the finale, but I think there were larger issues at hand. Lack of service, odd food choices and no wine aside, I think it is ABSOLUTELY UNACCEPTABLE to serve under cooked chicken. The other items were inconvenient and annoying, but under cooked poultry could harm someone! I just don't understand how that could have been brushed over so easily. I'll take having to put an olive pit on the table over going to the emergency room any day...

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Chele wrote:

There is no excuse for serving undercooked chicken. The hazardous health implications should be obvious; at the very least salmonella should be served on the side. Ahem. As for the lack of plates, I too would be annoyed, but there was no indication of whether or not the olives were decided on before MIchael was sent to get the dishes, or if they were, how the olives would be served (side of the plates, in the courses, or served alone.) My question: have you ever boiled spaghetti with water from the Elizabeth River?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:42 AM

Stella wrote:

Love the show and your blog, Tom.

I compared tonight's show to last year's restaurant
theme, with their difficulties. Cliff and Mike were
both poor choices for service. Cliff had a 'tude,
and Mike is awkward as front person. Last year,
it was Dave's personality which carried the front,
and even Stephen was tons better than both of
this year's contestants.

It seems like the Animal House antics are seriously
affecting this year's season. It's been so interesting
but also disheartening to watch one brave chef
taking so much abuse, week after week.

This hopefully will be addressed, because it seems
unacceptable that Bravo would put a 26 year old
young chef's wellbeing in danger. He is a real
human being, although he's treated like a piece
of crap.

Woops. I guess that wasn't a question, but,
I will compliment you all on an incredible season.
And thank you all for sending Betty back to her
comfort kitchen to practice refining soups.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Steve wrote:

Hello again Chef Tom,
I've written a few times about how my wife and I really like the show, and watch it religiously every Wednesday evening. We're in agreement, though, that this evening's episode was really lacking. I can't quite put my finger on it: was it that we're tired of the focus on personality conflict (especially the continued Marcel-bashing); that some of our favorites and seemingly strong competitors really dropped the ball tonight (e.g., Cliff, Sam, Ilan); or maybe that none of the remaining contestants really did anything that inspired (after watching previous episodes, we are often inspired to try something we've seen prepared by one of the chefs; tonight, everything looked rather unappealing)? Regardless, tonight's episode just seemed bland.
While I do appreciate Michael's laid-back, Type B persona (and for that reason, I found myself rooting for him), I don't have a problem with the decision to let him go following this episode; frankly, his skills seemed to be light-years behind those of the remaining chefs and even those of some of the chefs asked to leave before him - he's been playing out of his league for quite a while. However, I am intrigued about what we don't see in the aired episodes that goes into the decision-making process for those of you on the Judges' Table. For example, in past episodes the precedent seemed to be the leader of the losing team goes home; while there was no clear winner or loser tonight, Elia was retained - in fact, invited to leave the kitchen as she was deemed to be "safe" - despite the obvious shortcomings of her "vision" for the restaurant (also, her "greatest burger ever" was apparently anything but). Ditto Marcel, whose chicken was unanimously "hated" by the judges and guests alike. Curiously, Ilan was also deemed safe for apparently "taking a risk" by assuming front-of-the-house responsibilities while not having such experience previously; didn't Cliff do the same thing? Anyway, I'm curious to know what other criteria (objective or subjective) might go into your decisions, as it seemed - during tonight's episode especially - that the judges are more in tune with the on-goings behind the scenes than is alluded by the footage on the aired episodes. If that is the case, how has Ilan been able to get away with wasting his efforts on taking pot-shots at Marcel instead of worrying about his own food for so long? (Recall during the previous episode: 1. the bash of Marcel's cherries to the guests during the tasting; 2. the incessant banter about Marcel's sexual experience, or lack thereof, deeming him unfit to make a dish inspired by lust; and, during tonight's episode 3. the wasted effort in trying to foam the Italian dressing). If one is going to waste time telling another to grow up, one should at least act grown up themself.
One final comment about the perceived Cliff-Elia dynamic. In reading some of the bloggers' comments about Cliff being rude or unprofessional (coupled with Elia's on-air comments) because he raises his voice, many seem to be pitting him as a bad guy. There is an obvious difference in Cliff and Elia's personalities. While I am not the biggest fan of the speak-louder-so-everyone-can-hear-me approach, I do think that leaders make themselves heard and make their points clear, succinct and decisive. Cliff seems to have that quality; Elia and Mia do not. Cliff is not short-tempered, he's just very blunt ("we've already decided this, let's move on"). Elia and Mia (except when she was on the chopping block) just backed down to stronger personalities. Cliff and Sam have emerged as the strong personalities that, though not the most popular, will be effective in leading and achieving goals. Elia, Mia, and Michael may all end up being very good at what they do, but will rely on someone else's leadership to get things done.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:47 AM

sheralyn wrote:

I am sorry, but I was shocked that chef Tom and the judges allowed marcel to stay after tonight. I understand that his vegie dish was the best you tasted, however if 90% of the people in the resaurant get food poisoning from eating raw chicken before that, what difference does it make? I cannot believe that either chef would allow someone in their own kitchen to serve something like that and not have serious repercussions put on them. In his series, Hell's Kitchen, Gordon Ramsey had a similiar situation with raw chicken being served and the would be chef was canned straight away. Food handling and safety should be a cooks #1 priority.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Mark wrote:

Tom,

My question is simple. Does your disappointment in what these young chefs offer when given so much room to create show the lack of real experience and craft that simply takes years to learn? In other words, do we have an example of how young people feel they can leap-frog learning their craft from the ground up only to find they haven't learned their craft, but only learned to look like they have? It happens in other areas as well in academic institutions all over these days, but I wonder if this is a factor here, they all seem so young.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:48 AM

Barry wrote:

Please--Time Zones!
I live on the west coast, checked the comments 5 minutes before the show starts, and learned who was eliminated...Oh NO!
I didn't expect a spoiler!
Could we wait 3 hours, more for Hawaii, before posting spoilers?

Sad to see Mikey go....

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:48 AM

M. Christopher Toth wrote:

Chef C, How much do you look to the soul of the chef to make a final decision, particularly, given this last challenge? Food doesn't lie and if you walk into one of your restaurants, your personality comes through the food on your menu. Done right, your soul shines through and satiates the customer's palate. This group of chefs seems devoid of soul and more focused on posturing and criticizing their fellow chefs, rather than celebrating their own vision and articulating their soul through their food to the viewer. From a distance, Sam appears to be the most creative and talented chef, however, it seems he's checked his soul at the door each episode and whether it is his needless criticisms of Marcel or tonight's barb of having to carry the load for Michael. It is disappointing to see a group of chefs - who have the opportunity of a lifetime to interact and learn from some of the top chefs in this country - be so focused on trashing fellow contestants, rather than using that same time to hone their craft and push the envelope of infusing their soul into their food. I have to believe you see through this and it must be very disappointing to you to see chefs squandering opportunities to impress you and the guest judges because they believe it more expedient to stab their fellow chefs in the back. This group appears to have lost sight that at the end of the day it is supposed to be about great soulful food, not their opponent’s personality (however prickly!).

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:51 AM

FlyInDaSoup wrote:

Sadly, my original faves have turned out to be the chefs I like the least, specifically Ilan and Sam. Now I'm for Marcel and Elia all the way. Regardless of their culinary skills, I think Sam is a two-faced instigator and Ilan is emerging as a petty little prick. And Cliff? Well, he's just become tiresome. Last year, I picked a winner out of the gate with Harold, and this year his female counterpart seems to be Elia. But at the end of the day, it's funky-monkey Marcel who keeps me coming back for more.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Kate wrote:

After reading your blog I agree that none of the chefs succeeded in showing their dream for a restaurant of their own. All of the dishes presented were typical of the offerings at many existing restaurants of similar themes. I was, however, disappointed with the decision to send Michael home. I can see that he did not live up to his potential in this challenge but I feel that other people were better suited to "pack their knives and go." Cliff's attitude when asked who should have been eliminated really turned me off. The idea of this challenge was to work as a team and his saying to "send one of these guys home" showed anything but team spirit. I also felt that Marcel's undercooked chicken was a huge issue. Last week one of the factors that got Betty sent home was her amateur mistake in not straining her soup well enough. Not cooking chicken thoroughly is certainly an amateur mistake and yet Marcel is still in the competition. I think Marcel or Cliff would have been a more appropriate elimination choice. Any thoughts?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Chazardeth wrote:

Hey, Chef
First of all, today's show sucked ass.... Poor Mike but,his a dumb ass. Chef Tom Thanks so much for not choosing Sam to go home that's the reason I watch the show and because I see he has great cooking skills and has what it takes, also he dosen't let pressure get to him...ohh and hes also so cuite....
MARCEL......my God the nerve of that FOAM making RAT...kick him out, for what reason,just because. I have nothing against the others just MARCEL.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:52 AM

Phyllis Gustafson wrote:

Hello, Just have to say that I enjoyed the first season so much more. This year there is too much emphasis being put on the personal relationships rather than the purpose of the show, to find the TOP CHEF. Editing this year is so slanted toward in-fighting. A little is OK, but enough already. My question is this: Do YOU pick from the group of finalists on their merit of cooking or do the producers pick on the premise of conflicting personalities(trying to keep the show lively)? Please, I do love this show...keep it "cuisinely" with just a dash of hot pepper sprinkled in.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Maura wrote:

Where do the dinner guests come from?

Craigslist? Studio tour? Friends of the family?

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:53 AM

Al P. wrote:

Hey Chef Tom,
First of all, let me say I love the show, and been watching since episode 7 of season 1.
As far as this episode is concerned, you judges picked the right person to go home in Michael. Although Cliff was a surprising close 2nd.
It is obvious Michael is not in the class of the others, and its quite amazing he made it this far. Last week he threw us a once in a lifetime curve.
How inept the way he spent the money. You cannot have money left over.
You need to have wine to go with a Italian rest.concept. Red&white.
That like Peanut Butter without Jelly, or Romeo without Juliet. Etc, etc, etc. No wine, end of concept.
Therefore Michael cooked himself.

As for Cliff, he said to Elia, the front of the store is what he does.
That does not bode well for his career.
He had the charm of a wet mop. His service was painlessly slow. what ever happen to service with a smile. IN CLOSING: Too much ganging up on Marcel. Cliff is mean spirited. No one is Harold.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:54 AM

anna wrote:

I have to agree that each and every one of them failed tonight in their own way. Perhaps there is an underlining lack of trust for each other at this point. I'm sorry to see Mike go because he proved himself well during last weeks challenge. I think Mike performs better when the weight is all on his own shoulders and seems to step back during team challenges. Sadly, if I was one of the judges, I would pick Mike as well because he did fail the most. As for the rest of them, you can sense the pressure that they are under. Cliff is a good chef but I think all this has gone to his head. Sam is a good chef but his insecurities will get the best of him. Ilan is a good chef but his focus is starting to misfire. Elia is a good chef and if she keeps her state of mind controlled she may even win in the title. Marcel? I like Marcel. He's focused, professional, daring, considerate and above all he's got a style that seperates him from the rest. I would love to see Marcel and Elia make it to the final.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:54 AM

Barbara wrote:

This year's cheftestants have me shaking my head. I know that last year there was some drama but this year is on the par of a soap opera.

I have noticed at the judging table your attitude is different from last year. It seems to me you are either angry with or totally amazed at all the personal nastiness, antics, etc. that has been going on. Am I wrong or correct in my assumption.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Maggie wrote:

I agree that the lack of wine was a major problem for the "Italian" restaurant, and offering whatever ... orange-and-grapefruit soda? -- really didn't make up for it. And I'm puzzled: Mike had nearly $100 left over. They only need enough wine for 24 people. It's a "rustic" restaurant, so serving the wine in tumblers would be just fine. These people never heard of Two-Buck Chuck? A hundred bucks should have been plenty to buy chunky glasses and something approaching drinkable wine for 24.

posted on January 11, 2007 at 12:59 AM

James wrote:

I am in agreement with many of the comments of others viewers, concerning the differences of season one and two. I enjoy season one for the amazing food that the talented chefs brought to the show as well as their passion for cooking. In season two I see the exacte opposite lack of well prepared food and lack of passion. The continuous harrassment and anmoisty of the other chefs (with the exception of Elia) toward Marcel is not drama, but rather a testament toward the characters of these chefs. It is my greatest hope that when you choose a Top Chef this season that he/she shows a passion for food and decency of character. I enjoyed season one very much and season two was going good until this Marcel drama. Please don't allow a chef that has shown animosty in such a bullying, lack of decency, a need to belittle other to win this competition. I hope you all come back for a season three. Thank you Tom, Gale and Padma for a great season.