Steineded How sad is this?

Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

chrisdillon33 I have watched every season of this show, it is good the way the judges encourage the contestants to push themselves to be more creative.i like the judges on master chef Australia better than master chef US or UK, They seem more enthusiastic compared to the other versions of master chef.the only thing i do not like about the show is when they bring back contestants that have been eliminated it is not fair especially considering when contestants get eliminated it is cause they where not good enough to continue in the competition. that is why i rated the show 5 out of 10 it is a big let down for the existing contestants of the show too. I do hope in future seasons of the show this does not continue.1 point i give other versions of master chef are watchable because when contestants loose and are eliminated they are gone which is what the shows main aim is to eliminate contestants till they get their last 2 contestants, plus their is always a bit of drama, personalities clash, tempers flair.i find the series somewhat rehearsed and scripted especially when it comes to winners of certain seasons, if its aimed as a food show some of the better cooks or contestants don't seem to last i noticed from the first half of the season who were the better cooks which has me wondering if the show is more the usual so called reality tv than an actual competition.I will continue to watch this show with hope they improve the format and how fake most of the show is, contestants do not seem surprised when they loose challenges and are eliminated. even the winners of each season seem to look like they know they have won before the judges have declared who has won.big improvement needed to lose the rehearsed look reality tv yep cooking show not a hope.

Aurora Moras I have just been introduced to MC Australia, after watching several seasons of MC US. Wow, what a difference... It's so refreshing to watch MC where contestants are supportive of each other. I was sick and tired of every 'team challenge" in the US version because you simply knew that no matter how strong the team was something was going to go wrong because of someone's stupid and obviously staged mistake. I am not saying that the OZ version is 100% genuine, but it certainly has that feel to it. I love the level of encouragement that comes from the judges and how inspired I am to turn on the stove after every episode. Contestants themselves are amazing and diverse and so are their dishes. it's so easy to root for everyone. Such an enjoyable show to watch! Well done!

tedg The basic idea here is that the fundamental story in life is as a contest. Everything is a competition, and every competition has a single winner. The intrigue in observing such a story is the level of character brought to the context. We are supposed to glorify the effort if we judge it worthy, comforting 'good losers' as they affirm the honor of having competed.With this notion, you can bring the idea of competition to the basics of life. So it was no surprise to me on a visit to Australian TeeVee to discover a contest brought to one of the most basic gifts in life: the ability to enhance the human encounter by preparing food. Yes, I know there is a distance when the process is industrialized, where the chef is a paid craftsman producing for anonymous eaters in another room. But even then, the values are to serve the experience of the people consciously gathering to share one of the three most intimate encounters we have.What we have is a setup that shoehorns cooking into a competition. I understand these shows are popular worldwide, so that fundamental story of life a contest trumps all. We have exotic locations and challenges. We have a self-important 'food critic,' carrying an obnoxious, superior attitude as if we could really trust him. His authority is shored up by real celebrated Australian chefs who are fine with the additional celebration and the role as winners in a higher level contest. The one I saw is someone whose food I have eaten.This comment is on season three, episodes 11 and 12. In the first of these, contestants are flown to New York's Harlem to compete in cooking 'soul food.' For international readers who don't know, the role this food plays is identical to food in any other ethnic community; it binds tribes with the only metric being how 'genuine' it is. It has to be prepared by black Americans using cheap, usually unhealthy, ingredients. Intuition and tradition are supposed to guide the cook, removing this food from any notion in a fine chef's world. In the same way that it is 'genuinely black' to rely on folk wisdom instead of a college eduction, cooking soul food is something like teaching an elite physicist to dance. A soul food restaurant is supposed to simply be a wise old woman's kitchen.So that show was weird, especially our bumpfy judge sitting amongst the now dead wise old woman's family, judging the food.But that was tame stuff compared to the show that followed. The competitors were to present meals to the Dalai Lama for his judgment!The disconnect here is amazing, and I spent a whole day wondering what this meant for the fabric of the universe. The tulku had recently ceded his political role to the thugs in Beijing, signalling the end of the only spiritual government left. He also had made some — to me — disturbing pronouncements on torture, human rights and his own anticipated future incarnation. Perhaps he had lost his mantra. Perhaps those of us who are not serious practitioners but who understand his world would not even have what he represents any more. Was he really committed to ending the dreams of a striving soul based on the relative lack of pleasure that soul could deliver on demand?As it turns out, his presence so completely overwhelmed the trivial concept of the show that this was never an issue. He peacefully said that he was a simple monk, and all such monks were to be thankful for what was placed before him. He blessed the contestants and left. Apparently he was in Melbourne for some meeting of religious leaders, so some of them were his 'guests' at the table, with no compunction about being judges. Their role in society is as sanctimonious judges and there was no problem satisfying the complex ordering: two best (one superior), two 'safe' and three 'at risk' one of whom would subsequently be ruled unworthy. However, one of those had a property inherited (I think) from Dungeons and Dragons: elective one-time immunity in battle. Will she use it?The whole thing is disturbing. But I can see the appeal. The producers are happy for the main judge to be a man we despise, and they spend inordinate time presenting the innate goodness of the contestants, who we are reminded are 'just like us.' Without much experience in sorting out which is the least damaging waste of time on TeeVee, I can report (as sanctimonious judge myself) that this was interesting if seen as a contest for finding the right form of contest. I am lucky to have seen how a great soul walked through this. Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

sashank_kini-1 MasterChef Australia is cool as ice. The judges aren't a sorry bunch of tyrannical, boorish, acerbic and foul-mouthed yahoos but a suave, openhearted and almost selfless as they unreservedly share their own experiences, imparting their veteran knowledge to the amateur contestants and most importantly, ready to give show much of their precious time to these cooks. 76 episodes may have been an ordeal if the show were the slightly supercilious Top Chef or the vulgar Hell's Kitchen. To watch MasterChef Australia is to relieve oneself from tension, stress or flaring temper. The show manages to inject a sense of satiation amongst its participants, irrespective of their fate on the show. Gary, George and Matt are probably some of the kindest and most endearing personalities in all the reality shows I have seen. There is not hint of chicanery in them like in other shows where judges often dramatize or feign certain reactions in order to generate appeal.The contestants are a kracker-jack of genuine people who treat their co-contestants as friends and not like competitors or animals (Watch Hell's Kitchen). Here we see adults, who may be zany but also are hold a level of maturity and discretion that is scarcely seen anywhere nowadays.The format is quite simple but there the dozens of second-chances given and the scintillating cookery skills of the judges showcased during the show really winnowed the contestants and made them better cooks. MasterChef US, on the other hand, is turgid, cynical and chiched. The dishes are diverse, impactive and authentic. The magnificent amalgam of cultures is very respectfully blended. Indian, French, Spanish, etc dishes are all given their share of respect on the show. MasterChef Australia is simply a lip-smackingly entertaining program that follows the motto: "Don't Worry, Be Happy"