paramitch

Oh, man, sleep-deprived Carlos is on my last nerve. He's even worse than Regular Carlos. He's just overreacting everything and it's all so fake. He "woos" after every pause by Michael Symon, and spends precious seconds of his cooking time pausing to shriek about how amazing his own food tastes and he absolutely -- cannot -- believe -- it! When he chills out and is a normal person, he's so much more bearable and here when they were all exhausted, he had a few little moments I found real and kind of likable. But then he would be back in insufferable mode, amped up to 11. Meanwhile, I thought the judging here did feel a little weird -- Mika's wings were not a "chicken dinner" to me, and they looked a little undercooked and rubbery to me. Yeah, I normally like Brooke -- she always seems very straightforward and laser-focused whether competing or judging, but here her mentioning Carlos's past food and comparing that with his current offerings just felt like she was giving him a bit of an advantage. I was sorry to see Martel and Chris go -- they're both so visibly talented, and really charming, smart, and funny on camera. I think we'll be seeing a lot of them going forward. I was happy Marcel continued forward. He really seems to have matured -- as a person, but also, as a chef. It was interesting to see him talk about how when he was young, he wanted everything to be complicated, and now he thrives on more simple dishes with depth of flavor. I do think it's funny to see everyone so sleep-deprived, and that the show is acknowledging how serious that can be, and does seem to be trying to keep the contestants safe (I can enjoy them all being goofy on lack of sleep as long as nobody hurts themselves!).

I didn't have a problem with what Danny did because it was out of desperation, and he (and the majority of the rest of them) openly did not understand the challenge. I felt like he went with the primary rule of Top Chef, which is, "when in doubt, make it taste good." He picked and adapted a dish on the fly that he felt seemed to meet the challenge directive and hoped for the best. Which, honestly, was what many of the contestants seemed to do. Given the overwhelmingly negative reaction of the chefs (and viewers) to this challenge, I don't have a problem with what Danny did.

I moved it -- thanks and apologies!

I don't know if y'all have seen this, but it's interesting. Chef Victoria Blamey, a former boss of Danny's from the restaurant Mena, is claiming he stole one of her recipes for his recent Elimination Challenge win: https://ny.eater.com/2024/5/3/24148009/top-chef-victoria-blamey-danny-garcia-stealing-a-dish My take on this is that she's really being pretty crappy, and so far Danny's case is much better than hers. Thus far, I don't really blame Danny: First off, the article itself quotes the chef herself from a previous article in which she admitted the variations on creating the recipe were created by Danny in collaboration with her (and the ideas that made it unique were his) -- see farther down for a partial quote here.. Secondly, it's not exactly unusual for chefs to come into "Top Chef" armed with a pocketful of their favorite recipes. At least Danny seems to have created the one in question (or worst case, collaborated on it): I really feel like Blamey (unfortunate name) is making a mountain out of a molehill. Danny by her own account spent a ton of time helping to create and refine that dish. I don't have a problem with his using that recipe (or a variation) on "Top Chef." Unlike Ilan Hall, whose S2 finale menu was evidently a carbon copy of dishes from Casa Mono, where he was a sous chef (including the Fideos & Clams dish that tipped the judges into giving him the win).

(Oops, moved to the media thread. Nothin' to see here, folks!)

He's showing thanks and humility. However -- just speaking generally, this is a good example of how Marcel can't seem to catch a break from many viewers. If he speaks from the heart, he's pandering. If he expresses enjoyment for the competition, he's arrogant. If he says he's playing for his mother's cochlear implant surgery, he's sucking up for the prize. If he shows appreciation or thanks, he doesn't seem genuine, etc. Boldfacing mine. This feels like it's rephrasing what happened to put more blame on Marcel. Sure, Marcel was an irritating kid. But saying "people didn't know how to handle him" goes too far for me. And it wasn't a license to bully, attack, and physically assault him. All they had to do was shrug, ignore him, move on, be grownups. I absolutely do not think Marcel was the one who "took things too far." He was a silly, arrogant kid on "Top Chef" who acted a little smug and who occasionally did incredibly embarrassing raps about his talent for the camera in his confessionals Marcel wasn't any worse than dozens of other TC cheftestants in seasons to follow in his self-confidence. And he never abused, mocked, or hurt another contestant. Unfortunately, this skinny kid's self-confidence and arrogance was like blood in the water to certain bullying types like Betty, Cliff, Ilan, Elia, etc., so we had people repeatedly screaming in his face, threatening him physically, and ultimately assaulting him (a group-planned assault that was ret-conned in full cooperation with "Top Chef" to appear like a less-harmful spontaneous "we all want to shave our heads!" lark, when in fact, if you analyze it, the rearranged footage shows that they assaulted Marcel first, and then everyone shaved their heads so their stories were straight. (To be fair, Tom was horrified and genuinely wanted to send them all home and give it to Marcel.) So anyway, sure, Marcel was absolutely a brat (in a minor way) 10-15 years ago, even if he didn't deserve the horrific bullying he received in response. But I do believe he's evolved, and I'm enjoying seeing that evidence here. I don't know why there is something about Marcel that brings out such extreme emotions in people. He was treated almost as badly in the follow-up "special" Top Chef dinner TV event a few seasons later, for instance, as he was in S2 -- in which Fabio interrogated him about S2 (Marcel didn't want to talk about it), mocked him, screamed at him, and asked the cameramen to turn off the camera because "Marcel was making [him] look bad" -- meanwhile, he had further gone out of his way to stoke drama by making Marcel team up with one of his bullies, Ilan Hall, to cook a dish -- which he did, very quietly and without complaint. Fabio tried the interrogation when that didn't elicit an emotional scene. I like that Marcel is doing well, and I'm totally rooting for him. But I like several of the players and there's no one I can't stand, honestly, so it's all good.

This show does love its creepy relationships and icky double standards. I was gagging at Ed and Svetlana and their "final kiss" -- gahhh. I could not care less about them. She's at least 25 years younger than he is, and it's just gross, a trope, and I'm so tired of seeing it. He's also an asshole, and for the entire history of the show has basically been a conceited self-involved jerk with only rare intermittent moments of spectacular heroism. Is it worth it? Not for me. I can't believe we lost his wife and still have to deal with his crotchety ass. And the double standard really bothers me. We certainly aren't going to see some hot young Russian engineer start gazing at 60something Margo, for instance. More's the pity. I still don't blame Margo for her situation -- a classic "guilt by degrees" situation in which she was truly trying to save lives, little bit by little bit ("for all mankind") and got pulled into an ugly situation by the Russians. Speaking only in fiction-watching terms, I'm kind of indignant on poor Margo's behalf. I mean, they destroy her life and then they don't even bother to be nice to her? Or use her proven intelligence or abilities? Or let her access a good dentist or immunologist? What's up with that?! What did crack me up in this episode was realizing that Margo's wardrobe didn't change all that much EVEN IN RUSSIA because she has never really been about trappings/presentation and is much more inward-focused. I know I am supposed to care about Miles but he's such a doofus it's difficult to. He is in an enclosed situation; a Martian mousetrap. I don't see how this isn't going to lead to terrible things for him. This season, the show just feels even more cartoonish than usual. Not in a bad way... but... it's just that the opening credits are all majestic and thoughtful, all dreamlike about space and dreams and humanity -- and then the result is -- this show that is so focused on the soap opera stuff, to an almost hilarious degree. I mean, judging by the credits, this could be "From the Earth to the Moon." But when you watch it, it's any standard drama transplanted to alterna-Moon and alterna-Mars. I like the show, but I'm embarrassed that I'm partly hatewatching at this point (I still can't forgive them for the terrible science of season 2).

I don't know. I'm back, but I just feel sad after watching this. I realized afresh this episode that I don't like this show's view of male-female relationships. Take Miles -- by the end of the scene, I realized it was supposed to be "good guy aims for last chance with the woman he loves." But for most of their scene, all I could focus on was that she had evidently asked him to leave and he didn't want to, had asked for a divorce and he had said he would sign then didn't, and that she had not wanted him to come in, but he blustered his way in looking for a shirt I didn't really believe existed. And then he was just kind of weird and over-intense and kind of stalkery ("won't take no for an answer") with her? I don't like it. And then we're back with Ed, who I always thought had a mean face, and now that he's old, it's meaner than ever. I hate him. He just looks like the meanest, grumpiest man in town in a bad Hallmark movie, and ugh. I knew I would feel terrible for Margo, and I do. She is probably the main reason I'm still watching. I'm not thrilled with this opening. The dialogue is still so blunt and bad to me -- everyone says what they need to to forward the plot. But I want to know what happens, so I guess I'm in.

I still like the show and enjoyed the latest episodes, even though I felt a little guilty, like I was watching, "They Shoot Sous Chefs, Don't They?" Everyone seems to be handling the challenges okay so far, I do hope there are good medical and support personnel to give people a break whenever they can grab one. I continue to root for Marcel -- after season 2 of "Top Chef" (and its vicious bullying and actual physical assault) he handled horrific abuse with so much class, I'm going to root for him where I can. I know many don't like him, but I never minded him. Sure, he was cocky in his younger days, but it wasn't outward-focused or mean-spirited, so it just came off like hot air. He never used his arrogance to hurt other people, he just believed in himself and for me it was sort of nerdy and amusing and endearingly young. He's definitely matured over the past decade or so, and it's been nice to see him achieve more calmness overall. I thought his food here looked gorgeous. I know, that's what I was feeling when I heard about it! I found it really sweet, honestly. He came across as sincere, and actually visibly choked up when talking about it. It's a better motivator to win than I see from most reality contestants, frankly. Yeah, that aspect is very visible here -- we can hear the producers egging them on, etc. I just think some people are able to be natural and conversational in this stuff, while others aren't. Carlos has "reality TV syndrome," and has adopted the mistaken idea that the more enthusiasm he uses to overact and over-shout his responses on camera, the more "exciting" he is to watch, when honestly it just makes him that much more irritating and unwatchable to me. He reminds me a lot of the twins on "Rock the Block" (if you know, you know), who seriously spent this season shrieking every answer in one-word exclamations on camera until I had to restrain myself from throwing things at my TV. It's basically Reality TV Overacting 101. The best contestants, for me, are those who can be real, calm, and answer conversationally, with humor, emotion, sadness, whatever they're feeling.

I love the show, although it's interesting to see this vision of John Blackthorn. In the original miniseries adaptation, Chamberlain's Blackthorn was a visibly intelligent, elegant man. Whereas for me, at least, Cosmo Jarvis is very likable, but I don't really find him very charismatic -- and he still comes across like a clumsy doofus. And he still looks so incredibly grimy that even after his "bath" I wouldn't have blamed anyone for not wanting to touch him. That's not a bad thing -- I think what's interesting here is that we are really getting an intense presentation of how Blackthorn appears to the Japanese, so it is very deliberately providing the "Japanese gaze" when it comes to John, for good or ill. I'm an Age of Sail nerd (sorry, Navy dad who was also a history teacher!), so I can answer some of these questions if it helps! Cannon (and the lighter, less precise carronades) were bored to house cannonballs according to weight. The heavier the ball the cannon can throw, the more lethal its outcome. Especially if the crew is experienced and has been diligent about practicing for accuracy and speed. Long-gun cannon were capable of incredible accuracy dependent on their crews. The carpenter of the ship, meanwhile, would keep "plugs" pre-made of the most common cannonball weights/sizes so that in battle, he could plug leaks made by cannonfire as quickly as possible. Around this age depicted here, they would have used slow-match to fire the cannons, while a century or two later, they would have done so with faster flintlocks (more like giant guns). They still had to be careful and train to manage/void recoil. However! Cannon don't just fire cannonballs -- they can basically fire anything you throw into them, including "grape," a common choice in this era -- the weighted chains you mention. They were incredibly deadly for cutting down rigging (or humans) like sheaves of wheat. Cannon were rarely used in single fashion, but rather to pummel enemies by sea in broadsides, or on by/from land in batteries. Broadsides could cross surprisingly large distances -- some were capable of firing up to TWO MILES (albeit with less accuracy the farther away). It's odd to me that pirates have become the trope for cannonfire, I guess since the POTC movies, because they are so dwarfed historically speaking by the warfare usage in the British, French, Spanish, Dutch, and American navies (et al). A ship of the line could certainly (and did) destroy land targets like batteries and castles, depending on their cannon weights, ship size, and crew training. Cannons, especially long-gun cannon, could be incredibly accurate, and since the distances we saw here were not very far at all, it's believable that they could in fact fire with that kind of accuracy. When you get to greater distances, the accuracy becomes less easy, but it's still not impossible. Aghghgh. I love the POTC movies, but the seamanship is just horrible, and the battles are embarrassingly bad. It's like nobody even bothered to read a book on sailing at all. I still have to bite my tongue when in movie 1 -- Elizabeth, a nobleman's daughter with zero sea-training, comes up with the idea of a standard maneuver -- clubhauling (using their anchor to cheat their way around a sharp turn) -- and the master and other sailors act like it's the most amazing thing they've ever heard in their lives (the master exclaims what a "daft" idea it is, but genius, etc.). It actually hurts me a little. It's just embarrassing. Yes, it was risky, but it was a common move and very well-known by any experienced sailor. But those movies are still tons of fun -- however, if you want veracity at sea, go with Peter Weir's gorgeous and historically accurate Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World. Despite their romantic appeal, pirates during this period were negligible, and most privateers were not run like pirate ships so much as like privatized extensions of the government funding them -- so, all the usual strictures and rules of life at sea, just a little more relaxed without the presence of actual soldiers on deck or in the gunroom. I definitely agree that privateers -- in most cases -- had top of the line weapons, and would have in fact had better powder and ammunition than many ships of the line (crowns tended to be stingy with powder, which was hugely expensive, so captains had to pay for powder above a base modicum out of their own pockets). Privateers were on the other hand funded by rich men or collectives, who were more willing to pay for powder -- which resulted in more practice and better aim. Ships could carry thousands of cannonballs (carefully organized for ballast to give the ships their best sailing foundations) -- up to 6,000. The crew would constantly maintain these by checking, oiling, and chipping them to make sure they stayed "round."

I have incredibly fond memories of the original Shogun -- I was a little young for it, but my Dad, a history teacher and former US Navy officer, loved it, and he loved the way (revolutionary for the time) the Japanese POV was equally spotlighted, complete without subtitles so that we Western viewers were in the same situation as John. He also loved the miniseries' visible care for Japanese culture, and I remember how after he showed me the miniseries (it was after I graduated college, so maybe 15 years later), our whole family was really into it and we were all so tickled to feel like we were picking up the Japanese language while watching. It also held up really well -- I watched it on some streaming network within the past 5 years and still enjoyed it. So I was excited to see this, and it certainly started off strong! Yeah, Blackthorn is an uncouth English doofus, but I love that, especially juxtaposed against the elegance (and cruelty) of the Japanese he encounters. My favorite thing about the shows (both times) is that it spotlights English/Western arrogance. Blackthorn arrives with the standard "white man" assumptions that he is superior in every way -- and yet we see him in this new light -- as the true savage in the equation -- this dirty, unkempt, clumsy hothead in stark contrast to the elegant discipline, beauty, and centuries-old tradition of the world he has encountered. No, there is a bigger difference than that. When sanctioned by a governmental letter of marque, a privateer not only sails as an emissary of that government, it must also abide by those rules in terms of honor and warfare. They must abide by all the standard rules as if they themselves are a ship of that country -- they can use subterfuge at sea, but must raise their true flag before firing, they must fight fairly, and treat prisoners with mercy and honor. Pirates who fly the black flag give no quarter (mercy), kill without honor, and (justifiably) can be destroyed by any who encounter them. (Sorry, I'm an Age of Sail nerd/Navy brat.) True, although it is overwhelmingly a government that is either their own government or one that is allied with that government. There is a vast distance between a privateer with a letter of marque and a pirate. In fact, it was a huge issue for privateers to be seen as such and they were often quite touchy about it and the best attempted to conduct themselves with as much propriety as king's/queen's ships. In the best privateers, the differences were negligible -- no military presence onboard (so no small contingent of marksmen for the sea battles), no uniforms/marks of officer rank. This, exactly. Blackthorn's ship is a formally hired extension of the English arm of law. He is a doofus but he is right when he considers himself a speaker for the crown. Oh, I remember this too -- it was awful in the original, and I had no idea it would be worse here -- but there are a good 5 seconds of footage I would happily remove from my brain right now here. Oh, my God, that was brutal. Just to be fair, all of those elements were included in the original Shogun, although, granted, they were not seen quite so openly. But I have to say, I feel like overall the show is elegant and restrained. Yes, we've seen some terrible things, but they were part of the novel and original miniseries too, seen more openly now. I'm not a huge fan of graphic violence so I hope they don't go too far beyond the boiling scene because, yes, that was awful. But I still think it is a fantastic show so far. Beautifully produced. For me, it's like you are comparing TV's "Wiseguy" (1980s) to "The Sopranos." Modern prestige TV simply allows for a larger palette. It depends on whether the show can make that an asset or not. For me, it is doing so, so far. Exactly this. I'm loving the show so far even if it intimidates me. All of this was present in the book and miniseries, just not as openly, due to the difference in what is allowed.

Yeah, I'm not sure I like the premise. It's fun so far, but I was hoping it would be in 6-hour or even 12-hour heats, or something. Keeping everyone awake and stressed for 24 hours feels downright sadistic to me, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that, knowing they are all exhausted and working with KNIVES AND HEAT. Aghghgh. Plus knowing how these productions usually go, it was probably incredibly hot and uncomfortable for them all during filming. And they're CHEFS, so at least some of them don't have great cholesterol or heart health--? So... it just feels stupid to me. I'm watching, and so far enjoying it, but cheftestants are already saying they're exhausted just 6 hours in. Add another 18 hours and I'm worried we're going to see people fainting, keeling over, etc. I just hope everyone is okay after this.

I thought this episode was okay, but it did feel like a sequel of sorts, because viewers really did need to have watched LCK for full enjoyment. Thanks to that, I absolutely adore Soo already and am rooting for him as an immediate addition to my favorites. He's smart and creative and articulate in ways that so far this cast is really lacking, although I do still really like Michelle, Dan, and a few others. I didn't think Matty acquitted himself terribly well as the guest judge, and granted, he does come off as a slobby guy, which is never my favorite look on a chef. But he did produce "The Bear," as well as contributing to the gorgeous reality of its setting and playing a supporting role (although I find his character "Fak" to be pretty cartoonish and badly written, honestly). And just in case it helps others give it a first or second chance, for me, "The Bear" is one of the most amazing (and real-feeling) food service stories I have ever seen, period. There's a reason it won 10 Emmys (and counting) -- it is gorgeously presented, written, and produced, the cast all trained diligently for their roles (there are no hand doubles on the food prep, chopping, etc.), it openly addresses the long history of abuse and toxicity in the culture (and has "survivor" characters trying to change that), it is just as much an exploration of "service" as it is of "food" (in the loveliest way) -- and best of all, the food looks amazing, and the stories are full of heart and beauty and genuine love of food. The show can be chaotic and stressful and feel intensely real. But it also has wonderful quiet and humor, especially in season 2. The Season 2 episodes "Honeydew" and especially "Forks" are some of the most beautiful and quietly poignant episodes of television I have personally ever seen. I have watched both many times. Basically, my point is -- I think Matty deserved to be a judge here, he has made an incredible impact with the show, even if the challenge was frustratingly and badly presented. I was sorry to see Rasika leave, but I also felt she deserved it. That plate looked absolutely foul, and I knew she was going home when it evidently tasted like it looked -- like a dead slug on a plate. Ugh. I don't blame the challenge for her going home -- it's Top Chef, and she was still responsible for cooking something that tasted good, which almost everyone else was able to do. When in doubt, just make it taste good, darn it. I felt like she got cocky and complacent here. Yeah, and the thing was, you could actually see the diners recoil from it when they looked at it, and make faces after they tasted it. I mean, it failed on every single level -- it looked vile, it evidently had vile texture, and it had no taste (at least it did not taste as awful as it looked, so thank the lord for small favors). Yeesh. I really don't think she's that bad. If you watched LCK, she was very likeable on that -- businesslike and driven, but I also found her to be kind and at least somewhat self-aware. She embraced others who won and seemed genuinely supportive of them. I just think she was overplaying the "bitch is back" thing for the cameras here. I honestly have a way bigger issue with Laura, who really does seem to have social issues. She frequently has a mean, sour expression on her face, I disliked her selfish behavior in last week's challenge, when her stubborn insistence on two needless and disparate (and expensive!) dishes nearly sank two other competitors because they couldn't afford fricking vegetables, and I disliked her again here. I don't think she was too focused to answer Dan, I just felt she didn't care to respond: "Let him find the chocolate if he wants it," etc. I really don't like her. She may be a lovely person in daily life but her visible behavior on this show is of someone needlessly ruthless at levels that are not fun to watch. How does the production team hate her if she openly does things that are selfish or mean-spirited and they include it in the footage? I mean, aren't they just doing their jobs? I feel like this season's cast is the perfect example of the tired, wan result you get when you have people who aren't cooking to win, they're cooking not to lose. Well said. I get people not being certain of the "chaotic" aspect of the challenge, but hey, just make sure it tastes good in the end, darn it. And then, I don't know, throw some chaotic crumbles or sprinkles on it! Tom licked his fingers too. Although either way, I have zero doubt that Tom was delighted to meet the guy who just won ten Emmys for the best restaurant fiction story ever on TV (and that, FWIW, also has a 99% rating on Rotten Tomatoes). I know, right?! I mean, it's just so amazing, and so, so much about the food! Sigh. The challenges are really terribly conceived and presented this season. They really are. Aw, I don't agree. The show is fantastic, and the cast is really superb. I have no idea what they are like in their personal lives, but they have all seemed very articulate, committed, and grateful for the opportunity offered by the show. And the leads are all talented actors (the only weak link for me is Matty, not surprisingly, as a chef-turned-actor) who worked visibly hard in food prep, service, and even staging before filming each season. I wondered what happened to him! He may be a nicer person in real life, but he definitely seemed like someone who realized very very quickly he was simply not a good fit for "Top Chef." As far as the "Power Bottom" thing, I agree that it gets tiresome, but as a queer person, I truly get the feeling that it's more the silliness of reality TV, where the show is just overdoing in a very clumsy way something they think viewers will find funny, while not realizing that doing so quickly stops being cute and starts feeling insulting and childish ("ha ha, they don't get what that phrase means!" etc.). I loved A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius and loved those moments in the book -- thank you for reminding me of them. I do think that when in doubt, as here, the chefs simply need to cook their asses off to make something that tastes good, then come up with a fabulous story that supports that choice, and they're safe. Especially on something as nebulous as "cook chaotically!" It's definitely not everyone's cup of tea -- the show can be incredibly tense to watch, especially in season one -- but it is absolutely superb. I also disagree that anyone needed to watch "The Bear" to understand the challenge. All they needed to understand was the word "chaos." Although I would not have wanted to have to cook anything related to that myself! Yay, a fellow "Bear" defender! I love it so much. Everyone here should watch it (even if you start with season 2, which is gentler and less stressful) just to watch Sydney make Sugar's gorgeous Boursin omelette topped with fresh chives and crumbled potato chips. Seriously, I dream about that sucker. I agree -- and thanks, it needed to be said.

Thank you! Everyone was trying to one-up everyone else this year with those ridiculous closets, and it just got embarrassingly bad for me. Even rich people -- I am convinced -- do not need fireplaces and wine fridges in their fricking CLOSETS! They want the storage space! People want simple things from their closets: To organize their clothes, shoes, and accessories so they are easy to access To be able to see and arrange outfits, seasons, textures, clothing/shoe types, etc. And, ideally, to be able to try on those outfits and see yourself, experiment with looks, etc. And I will still never, ever understand the stupid closet fireplace. In FLORIDA. In a closet. Right near all those delicate temperature-affected and FLAMMABLE items! It's just so, so dumb.

As a poverty-stricken freelancer, I'm a sucker for dream homes. And as a former Floridian, those homes and water views this season were so amazing it was definitely fun to just enjoy the home decor silliness, no matter how bad some of it was. But this season was SO frustrating. First and foremost, I'm sure that Leslie and Lyndsay are perfectly nice, decent people in their everyday real lives. But oh my GOD, for me they are the most irksome, annoying, fake, over the top people I've ever seen. Their worst sin is that they are just the worst actresses ever when it comes to participating in anything "reality." Both twins speak in these exaggerated pushes so that every! single! word! sounds! like! it's! being! screamed! by! a! cheerleader! who! smokes! a! pack! a! day! And they both do it. It's incredibly fake and mannered, and I find it unwatchable. It doesn't help that they have incredibly cheap taste. Like, they do have some good ideas -- like the really lovely loft home office -- and then they destroy it with kitschy stuff like that horrible faux-animal-print wallpaper. And they're in love with cheap knickknacks and wicker/rattan stuff. It's like they succeed at the macro but then fail on the micro. And soooo much clutter. I'm still salty they won the outdoor challenge when theirs was by far the worst in terms of thought and design. The ugly, cluttery furniture placements! The terrible pool setup! Nothing faced the actual water! Aagghhgh. And they keep making these mistakes in logic -- the dog cleaning station upstairs was the perfect example. I did love the solar panels, but the installation on the roof looked incredibly temporary, unprotected, and -- as depicted -- would not have survived one major thunderstorm. I loved a lot of the guys' house -- their living room was absolutely gorgeous, and those ceilings were to die for! -- but I frequently disliked some of the art. The Zen room was lovely, but the "Buddha" painting I thought was just terrible, and cheapened the whole room. It looked like a talented high schooler's art project. And that closet was embarrassing. In Florida, what the heck is a fireplace in a closet beyond a waste of space and a fire hazard?! I liked several of the Baumlers' rooms, and loved the elevator (absolutely money well-spent in a THREE-STORY home where you'd have to climb stairs with those groceries. But I disliked their kitchen and (badly) connected dining table. Just not my cup of tea. The curved walls and organic shapes were soft and pleasant even if they aren't my thing (and there was too much white on white for me). But their pool area, patio, and balcony were all really lovely. I really dislike Paige and Mitch's taste and their utterly bonkers space planning. I did love the grocery/dumbwaiter but I hated so much of the rest about their home -- the outdoor shower on the balcony (why not put one by the pool instead?) -- the spice rack cupboard behind the stove (so that you would have to reach over hot burners and boiling items to reach spices!), I hated the twice-elevated master bed (stairs and then the extra step up into the bed -- talk about a tripping hazard), hated the cheap-looking "couch swing" in the patio, and just thought the home office with the elevated motorized bed looked oppressive and claustrophobic. This was the weirdest part this year (and always seems to be year after year) -- all this emphasis on overstuffing crap into non-living spaces! Nobody needs three washers and dryers, fireplaces in closets, or wine walls (which is just not a great way to store wine). They seem nice enough, but oh, man, they are just awful for me in terms of watchability. It's like watching bad actors overacting real life every step of the way. They just come across as fake to me -- in the way of people who have forgotten how to be genuine. I've always figured the show was fake (or mostly fake), but wow, looks like they won't be coming back for the next one.

I thought the last episode was incredible. I was so invested in all the outcomes. I love Jet and Antonia both, and it broke my heart that one of them had to lose. I hated watching Jet lose. And hated watching Antonia lose in the finale (I may even have gotten a little teary at how devastated she was). I did think Maneet slightly edged her out -- Maneet is so amazing when it comes to creativity, and to maximizing the randomizer. It's just staggering to watch. I hated watching Antonia lose -- I have adored her forever on TC and a variety of FN shows -- I loved her on GGG for years and especially on "Cutthroat Kitchen," and she and Alton were practically Roz Russell and Cary Grant, they had this zingy funny dialogue that was just wonderful. I was rooting hard for Antonia to win, she cooked incredibly, and you could just feel how much she wanted it. She was also, as always, so witty and smart and fun with her commentary (I have a weakness for funny chefs, which is why I also adore Alex, Jet, and Tiffany). Thank you for sharing this! I loved the interview, and found Maneet to come across as very humble, appreciative, and genuine. And honestly, TOC has really impacted my perception of Maneet. I always enjoyed her on "Chopped" and when she'd show up on GGG, but my perception was of a superb but limited chef. Then on TOC, I've honestly been blown away by her creativity and breadth of ability. Yes, she loves Eastern Asian flavors, but she also intermixes or elevates them in gorgeous and surprising ways, and she has also frequently cooked French, Southern, and Asian techniques with complete ease and relaxation. I've absolutely been blown away by Maneet's ability. I wanted Antonia to win, but I'm not unhappy that Maneet did, and I salute her talent -- she really did earn it. And I liked that we could see that she was elated to win but genuinely sad at Antonia's devastation. For me, this was a hell of a year. But -- I absolutely agree that the show needs to depart from the regional heat approach and just mix them all up next year. It's frustrating and repetitive otherwise.

I'm so happy this show is back, and think Kristin is doing a great job overall. She's warm and comfortable, and her work on other shows has really paid off, I think, in giving her that comfort before the camera. I did get a little tired of her getting "goosebumps," which I think occurred at least twice, but she's new and enthusiastic, so it's all good. I also think her status as a Top Chef winner really gives her an added panache as host -- she is confident in discussing what she tastes, likes, doesn't like -- and what she expects. I will personally still miss Padma -- I thought she was a smart and elegant presence on the show, and increasingly warm and likable as the years went on. It's early times, but I really like Michelle, Dan, Rasika, Manny, Kevin, and Valentine. I did not like David -- beyond the fact that he just appeared sort of greasy and unkempt (including his workspaces), I really disliked his passive-aggressive nastiness, and he did made quiet little digs at people and situations 3-4 times this episode. It's always good to see everyone back -- so good to see Tom and Gail again, too.

I thought Tiffani was a very gracious loser (as she was last time). She hugged Amanda and was nothing but kind, complimentary, and wished her luck to take the championship. From their comments on both sides, it seemed like she and AF are friends away from "Chopped," and I can't imagine that would change now -- anymore than when Tiffani beat Amanda. I do think Tiffani was frustrated with herself (I think she tends to judge herself harshly), and that she may not be back for TOC again.

I absolutely loved this. Loved it. I can be a little hit or miss with Alexander Payne but this was just wonderful. Sometimes I feel like Payne's "observational" writing crosses over from accuracy into cruelty, if that makes sense -- he did this with Election and Citizen Ruth a bit (although I loved them), and especially with About Schmidt (which I did not love). For me, Sideways is kind of his perfect film -- it's still got that Payne cruelty, but it's softer and sweeter around the edges, too. Not to mention all the actors hitting it out of the park, and Virginia Madsen giving the performance of her career. But this is up there with Sideways for me now in terms of my favorite Payne films. I just really loved this, and the best part was that I really didn't know how to feel about Hunham for easily the first third of the film -- he was petty, cruel, visibly checked-out from caring about his students, but his kindness and real concern for Mary made me curious, and by the midway point, I loved all the characters left in the weird sweet little holiday group. The core group was just perfectly cast -- Giamatti has always been so underrated, and I was honestly rooting for him to win the Oscar here (although I was fine with Murphy getting it too), and Da'Vine was just wonderful as Mary (she totally did win -- and deserved it!), as was newcomer Dominic Sessa, who absolutely knocked me out as Angus. I'm a sucker for "found family" stories anyway, and by the time they were all allowing themselves to enjoy being marooned together, I had absolutely fallen flat for the movie. The thing that moved me the most was watching this very accurate portrait of Hunham -- someone most movies would never look twice at. A slightly chubby, late-middle-aged loner with a walleye, fishy body odor, damp hands, and a bitter, time-hardened heart. Every time someone was kind to him, you could see him struggle with his hidden loneliness, and struggle not to show himself softening up. When his school associate Lydia was kind to him, and then Angus kidded him that she liked him, Giamatti was so masterful at showing that he was allowing himself to feel a tiny bit of hope that she might actually feel romantically for him -- hopes that we can see leave his eyes when her boyfriend arrives at the party. But still, I just loved that he ended that break by saving one young boy's soul and future, by being a friend to the grieving Mary, and a real caring teacher/parental figure, by being brave, and by rediscovering his own sense of hope. I'm old enough now in middle age to be moved by even the small victories, and I thought this was just a really lovely movie that saw people in all their weakness and imperfection and wonderfulness and still loved them. It really did. I got goosebumps at the crackles in the soundtrack, the audio pops, and the splotches on the "film!" And the soundtrack was fantastic. Thank you for sharing this -- it was really fascinating, and they did an amazing job of creating digitally the lived-in feel of a 1970s-era movie shot on film. Honestly, I thought it was miles better than Dead Poets Society. I get why people love it (especially for the late, great Williams), but let's face it, Robin Williams never appears to actually teach the kids much of any actual poetry or English, and instead seems to want to be a kind of radical-rebel life coach who is then shocked (shocked!) that teachers and parents aren't thrilled at the result. It has some wonderful scenes, but I just don't think it's a very well-written movie overall. I know I'm in the minority on this, though. But in terms of an elite private school, and who I would buy was an actual real teacher? This movie wins over Dead Poets hands-down. I hated Angus's mother so much! Hated her. Her reactions were so over the top, and her desperation to please her new husband really gave me the creeps. She was willing to send her son to military school (basically, school prison) because he wanted to visit his Dad at Christmas. I mean, sheesh. I was uncomfortable with Danny's attentions to Mary. She was visibly grieving and visibly did not want to be wooed, and he just kept trying (and touching her). I kept wishing she had spoken up because it made me really uncomfortable. That was such a beautiful moment, and it moved me a lot. I also loved that Mary is clearly struggling with alcohol as a way to get through her grief, but the movie doesn't get preachy about it, it's just part of what she's going through. The scene in the kitchen at the party broke my heart. I so wanted Paul to win! I wasn't mad that Cillian won, but I was rooting for a Giamatti-sance. And I so agree. I loathed poor Angus's terrible mother, and loved that Hunham was brave enough to save him from her at the end.

I thought this was good, but honestly I felt like it was also one of those bloated, stolid ponderous 4-star movies that plods but never dances. Which is increasingly what Nolan just seems to prefer. As a biopic, I thought it was very well done, although I was slightly bored by how much time was taken up by the trial in terms of the story -- I was disappointed that there wasn't more focus on the science and scientists, especially on the interlude at Los Alamos. Honestly, for me, Matthew Broderick's adaptation of Feynman's memoirs into the film Infinity (1996) did a better job of conveying the atmosphere at Los Alamos -- the combination of curiosity, fear, excitement, discovery, and madcap humor that took place there among the team. The trial was well-acted and presented, I guess, but once it became obvious that it was a put-up railroad job, it just felt like it went on forever to me. Downey was good, but also felt very one-note to me. I also felt like Nolan was too in love with his own shots -- so many of them lasted so much longer than they needed to. So many endless seconds of billowing flames (most of which didn't look remotely atomic). So many endless closeups of stoic faces center-screen. And once again, increasingly lately, I just don't like the way Nolan writes women. Nolan has a bad habit of writing two simplistic/oppositional female characters in most of his (very male-heavy) films -- see also Inception (evil wife/sweet Ariadne), Dark Knight Rises (Selena/Miranda) and Interstellar (love-addled astronaut/pissy daughter). Here, we have a cast of thousands, literally a dozen male name-actors alone, and then there's Emily Blunt and Florence Pugh -- both just playing lazy female tropes in a forest of men. Blunt gave a great performance in the second half, when she was finally allowed to have some complexity, but for most of the first half, her character was just a thankless alcoholic shrew to further demonstrate Oppenheimer's 'problematic women.' Speaking of which, poor Florence Pugh -- oh, my God, that poor girl. I felt like her performance as Jean was badly written, overacted, and awkwardly filmed, and that her nude scenes were utterly unnecessary, prurient, and bordering on silly. Having him speak his "I am become death" quote while they're having sex? Seriously? I mean, come on. It utterly weakens the moment he actually said (and meant) the words later on. Why keep adding "gravitas" on gravitas? It wasn't necessary. I did think Cillian was great, and I was so happy to see him get his much-deserved star moment here. He's always been so gifted, and this was a terrific showcase for his talent and beauty and capacity for visible sadness just beneath the surface. And I absolutely loved Tom Conti as Einstein -- absolutely perfect casting, and a perfect performance. Anyway. I thought it was a good movie overall, I just don't think it's the greatest thing I've ever seen. It never evoked a moment of real awe for me. I know I'm in the vast minority on this, but as far as "Best Pictures" go, I honestly thought Barbie was smarter, took more creative chances, and the movie I'll remember for much, much longer. Thousands died in this story but it didn't make me feel much of anything. Whereas I was given a few glimpses of the poignance of simple everyday life, and I was a sobbing mess in Barbie.

I was frustrated and a little confused by the writing choices in this. It's a handsomely produced movie as always and the performances were great. The stunts were of course fantastic. But oh, man, they really let the characters down! One of the things I've enjoyed about the progression of the series -- especially through the last 3 films -- was its increased and consistent focus on the characters and team. We had Ethan actually get a close genuine romance with Julia in MI:3 (who was awesome), and the movie showed how much he still cared for her in Ghost Protocol and Fallout too (knowing the relationship was over) while he also grew closer to Ilsa, who was seriously his female counterpart in so many ways. The end of Fallout was a nice way to show that Julia had finally moved on permanently -- and really heavily implied that Ethan/Ilsa would finally take the leap on a relationship together, and I was all for it. But the story structure here was just so weird. The first third (after the super-weird "La Femme Nikita" retcon), we get the traditional team stuff, we get poor sweet Benji admitting he loves his friends more than anything else while melting down over the bomb/cypher, and Ethan as always does his best to save Ilsa at the last minute while also navigating Grace being an increasingly tiresome triple-crosser. I thought Benji's cypher/questionnaire was going to be the theme/subtext of the entire thing -- that it was a wonderful potential way to get to the hearts of these tough agents and reveal their hearts. And it kind of did that until the midpoint. In the middle section, the movie doubles down on Ilsa/Ethan, we get the hints of romance and the absolutely lovely sequence in Venice -- then suddenly the Gabriel standoff where Ethan looks all tortured at the idea of choosing between Grace and Ilsa (and later they are put on weirdly equal footing again when Ethan flashes to glimpses of each of them plus the girl from the prologue). Anyway, then it all goes off the rails. Poor Ilsa gets fridged (and I agree with everyone who found it weird and awkward and not believable) and literally dies for her replacement female (Grace, who GOT HER KILLED). And Ethan and the team barely blink over Ilsa's loss and are instantly indoctrinating Grace into the team for her big mission. And then there's this instant weird overly intense pseudo-romance energy between Ethan and Grace for the rest of the movie, and I honestly just resented it. It felt forced and disrespectful. I mean, Jesus, Ilsa's body isn't even cold. For me, the odd thing is, aside from the first movie (ugh), I would say that romance has been very well handled across the series. I always believed Ethan's connections with his romance -- with Thandwe Newton in 2, with Julia in 3, the slight "almost-romance" (both of them grieving) with Paula Patton, and then his connection with Ilsa in Rogue Nation and Fallout (and again, without abandoning his bittersweet feelings for Julia, which I thought was such a nice touch). I've always felt like while the romantic aspect was usually not front and center in the series, it has been nicely handled overall, and there have been some nice moments as Ethan and his friends and flirtations managed the nihilism, shifting loyalties, and tensions of their work. I think the bummer is, this movie sort of started off pretty heavily implying that Ethan and Ilsa's three-movie slow burn would sort of be a focus or culmination here. We sort of got that -- it was implied that they were an actual item here, and the lovely little moment of intimacy in Venice implied that further. But Ethan's reaction to her death and afterward was such a misfire from Cruise -- I just didn't feel much from Ethan about the moment. And while I love Hayley Atwell, and she did a great job here overall, especially with a physically demanding role -- I just really did not like Grace. Her entire storyline just consisted of her being kind of an asshole, double-/triple-crossing Ethan over and over again (even when it became increasingly clear that she was hindering him in a "Save the World" situation). And then of course pretty directly resulting in Ilsa's death. So by the time we got the big train situation -- her reversal was too unbelievable to me. Suddenly she's remorseful and begging for support? Why should they trust her for a single moment? Despite the incredibly cool stunts and action sequences with the train at the end, I didn't feel any tension because I didn't care if Grace died or not (sorry, I know that's cold) -- and I knew that Ethan wouldn't. This was a big letdown for me. I thought Cruise brought his usual dynamism and energy, the stunts were amazing, and I loved the team at the beginning, but by the halfway point I was kind of over it all. Bingo. It was so insulting to Ilsa. Especially given that Grace had put HERSELF in this situation over and over again and double-crossed him every single time and actively put his life in danger because nobody mattered to her but herself. Why should Ethan care so much for her? Ugh. This is perfectly said, and exactly, exactly how I felt. I thought Morales was okay, I just thought his character was a smirky, shallow trope. And I was so disappointed that after that wonderfully tense, suspenseful early sequence with the whole team working together, and those moments of real fear and emotion from Benji -- and then they were gone for most of the movie! This exactly! The instant hiring of Grace -- who is woefully unqualified in every single way -- and who also showed that she is utterly untrustworthy, not a team player, and cannot be depended on -- was laughable to me. And insulting to Ilsa, whether they meant it to read that way or not. It could have been so much better written and finessed, in which Grace proved herself over time (and over the two movies) instead of immediately being brought into the fold here. I so agree with you on Julia! And I would add that Julia's appearance in Ghost Protocol as well, also strengthened that sense of continuity and her meaning to Ethan (his "mourning" her for most of the early part of that also contributed to a sense of her importance) and tying MI3 and Fallout nicely. And I agree -- it absolutely should have been Julia Gabriel killed, not some woman Ethan was involved with that we don't know. It's a cheap device and means nothing. This was so silly and sloppy to me! Just ridiculous. These are some of the most skilled and preternaturally trained agents on the planet, not wayward crime children assembling under Fagin. And the way Grace was instantly inserted into the team just felt so unbelievable and disrespectful. Much less her 'hiring moment' at the end. To each their own, but as a woman, I actually like the MI movies AND the James Bond movies to be great big fun candybar movies that diversify the cast beyond the "white male hero" and that ALSO treat the female characters like actual smart, complex people and not cardboard cutouts who need protecting. Bonus points if the women are badasses. Especially when both series have already demonstrated that they can do this (i.e., Casino Royale and Skyfall; MI3, Ghost Protocol, Rogue Nation, Fallout, etc.) THIS! It drove me bonkers! I kept wondering if scenes had been cut out to explain this because Grace was such a repeatedly self-centered jerk who was also completely willing to kill/endanger Ethan over and over again (even when he had repeatedly saved her), I couldn't figure out why he was so weirdly intense about saving her.

Aw, it tried, but it just didn't work for me. I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it, either. It was just kind of sweet and okay and innocuous, with lots of repetitive patter-songs. When the two best songs are from the movie 50 years earlier? Yikes. The main issue for me: Wonka (both book-version AND Wilder-version) is a devilish charmer, always the smartest guy in the room. I get that this is a prequel to a younger Wonka, but I felt like here, Paul King (a real visionary for the Paddington movies, previously) here just tried way too hard with the innocent whimsy and what we ended up with was not Willy Wonka, but Paddington Wonka. A sweet innocent wandering the world. And -- I just -- nope. Adding to this, as mentioned, I just felt the songs were very weak. They all ran together, they were limited in range, similar in melody, and all patter-songs (mostly pallidly talk-sung by Chalamet's Wonka). They made zero impression on me. So it's weird that this is a musical. Why aren't more people singing? Why is Chalamet doing all the singing when he can barely sing? I figured most of the songs were solos because nobody would be able to hear him otherwise. I mean, Wilder was not an operatic divo, but he convincingly sang, held notes, there were actual songs happening. The only time I liked Chalamet's singing or felt like he made a real effort was in the final reprise of "Pure Imagination" when Noodles found her mother. Suddenly, he was actually singing! He had vibrato! It was an actual performance! I liked it. I just felt like it was a bummer it was so late in the film. And it was still very wan and pallid. No projection, no diaphragm. Ultimately, I just never bought that Chalamet was actually Wonka. He's twinkly and likable and not as dead-eyed as Depp's horrible interpretation (thank you, God), but he still lacks the spark of the book-Wonka that Wilder inhabited. And I just do not believe that Willy Wonka traveled the world but was somehow unable to read. I do not buy that Wonka was so gullible as to be taken in by the innkeepers. I do not believe Wonka could be so taken in by simplistic plots by fellow chocolate-makers (or that they would INSTANTLY attack him). But my main issue is that the entire movie didn't tell us of the genius and whimsy of Wonka's inventions and beginnings -- instead we have to wade through a silly manufactured two hours of sidetracked "he needs a home" silliness in which I was never worried for a single minute about anything but a happy ending. I wanted a movie about Wonka's factory and his decision to close it. I wanted a movie about his genius and whimsy and loneliness. This movie just took the easy way out. Which, okay. Just not my cup of tea. Bite your tongue! Oh, man, I hate that movie so much. I know the Dahl estate gave it a tongue bath, but Depp's horrible creepy Wonka has NOTHING to do with the book character (Wilder's version is chapter and verse much more faithful to the character -- and has far more lines that are right out of the book.) Then add in the stupid "Dentist father" subplot and the whole fallacy that Depp's version is more "faithful" to the book is just laughable. I mean, okay, Mr. Bucket is still alive. We get squirrels instead of geese for Veruca (the geese were understandably easier to film, and I still honestly prefer them -- they didn't change the plot, either). But -- ugh. I truly love and respect the book but Dahl was a goofball for his rage against the Wilder adaptation. The only real sin of Wilder's is the title change (branding) and the "Fizzy Lifting Drinks" scene -- which I can forgive, since it wasn't expressly forbidden (unlike every other child-transgression) and was just a way for Willy to show that it wasn't about children being naughty, but about picking the truly ethical child, which Charlie was. (Meanwhile, don't get me started on Grandpa Joe. Grr. Getting out of bed after watching your family starve for decades -- and only when a lifetime of rich food is guaranteed -- is not a good look for anyone.) You know, I loved Great Glass Elevator as a kid, but I reread it again recently as an adult and was shocked that I kind of hated it. The entire thing is just Grandma Georgina being an ass and messing things up for Wonka and everyone else repeatedly (same formula as "Chocolate Factory," but just one person messing things up over and over again). She's screechy and really tiresome. I loved the Vermicious Knids as villains (and they are really scary and creepy) but it just feels like a giant missed opportunity. The book ended for me just when it got interesting. On the plus side, it does have several lines by Wonka that were included in the "Willy Wonka" movie with Wilder, so I love that someone definitely pulled all the good witticisms of Wonka's for the movie. Anyway. I thought this was sweet and innocuous. But the movie version of soda. Completely sugary and forgettable.

I usually love Kathryn tremendously, but I did not like her here. I just felt like it was a badly directed, overacted (oh my God, so much), self-indulgent "Look at me" performance. Every time she was onscreen, I cringed. It was all dialed up to 11, all the time. Merritt was one of the only performances and characters I liked her. And ugh, I just full-body-shuddered at the idea of this getting a second season. Please, God, no more of these awful people.

Welp, I finished it feeling very ambivalent as always with this show. It's well-produced and beautifully rendered, I just dislike the writing, plot, and worldbuilding. They all feel lightweight and shallow. And the final conversation between Percy and Hades I just felt was cringeworthy while they traded back and forth about which magical/mythical items they were actually concerned with, and who was double-crossing who, and at a certain point I just rolled my eyes and checked out. Why should I care about any of those items? The only one I did care about was the marble representing Percy's mother's exit from the Underworld. The whole "Forget the rod and the shield and the whatever and just give Hades the hat" thing was ridiculous, and took up huge minutes of time. None of it mattered. I realize I'm probably being too tough on the show, I was just shocked at how bad it was. I love plenty of kids' shows and fantasy kids' shows (I would include Doctor Who in that mix), but this I just could not connect with at all. It was so superficial and bloated. And nobody actually evolved in any deep way, including Percy. Everyone was the person they started out as being. It's just not for me. I won't be back.

I wish I liked this as much as everyone else seems to. For me, it's just incredibly childish, and not in the good way. Some of my favorite books and movies are about children, but the writing for these is barely competent to me. It's bright and shiny with very little substance underneath at all for me. And on a shallow note, while the kid playing Percy is okay, his voice is incredibly unpleasant and whiny, and I keep wishing someone else was playing him when he speaks. For me, the Greek mythology knowledge feels like the author did a quick Google, and that was it. I've been so disappointed. Nobody is surprising or reimagined in any way. Even Medusa, with her horrible origin story that cried out for her NOT to be just "a monster" was betrayed by the show to be... yep, a monster. I was so angry and disappointed. Meanwhile, onward. It was nice to see Omundson back again, and he was a lovely and quiet Hephaestus. But meanwhile, there is very little subtext -- everyone just says whatever they need to say to move the plot along. And the arcs all move at lightning speed -- "I hate you!" "We're best friends!" etc. The casting is okay, the acting is okay, I appreciate the diversity, I just wish the show was better. I feel like they spent all their money on effects and far too little on caring about the writing or worldbuilding. But since the author did the adaptation, I'm guessing the books are just this bad? Maybe it's just not for me.