Chopped (2007– ) User Reviews

Get rid of the new judge

[egwicht-03810 · 7/10 · 28 June 2018]

I have always enjoyed the show. Some judges are more to my taste than others, however Martha Stewart is a dreadful addition. Her comments are vague, banal, and unworthy when compared to the comments of the other judges. There does not appear to be any real understanding of the nuances of cooking

As Bad as the Music Was in Past Seasons.....

[tingaother · 6/10 · 21 October 2020]

It's excruciating this season. It has no connection to the video. It crashes to a climax at stupid times, changes style without reason and sorta sounds like my little brother's 8th grade band. When did a cooking contest become so ridiculously dramatic?! I wish I could eliminate the music track completely.

Martha Stewart has to go.

[wkennen · 6/10 · 29 January 2021]

Great show until Martha Stewart showed up. She is unwatchable.

Great Concept, But Suffers From Poor Judging and Editing

[peacefrog-62091 · 27 May 2020]

I think the whole premise of this show is fantastic with the 4 crazy ingredients having to be whipped into a dish in a limited amount of time and the winner must survive 3 rounds where 1 person is "Chopped" after each course

But, the judging appears to be disingenuous and biased. They seem to favor personalities, stories and potential over the actual dishes served. They let their favorites through even when given uncooked dishes or those missing a basket ingredient. This is the only show of this type of the ones I watch (the others are Guy's Grocery Games and Forged in Fire) where I can't consistently guess the winner based on the judges' comments. Is this because the judges let through who they like best without regards to the established criteria/parameters or is it just a case of poor editing? Anyway, if you ignore that aspect, it is very entertaining to watch just to see what the chefs come up with in each round.

Great Reality TV

[wight425 · 9/10 · 11 August 2013]

In a world of fake reality television shows the simple idea of pairing 4 people up against each other competing for $10,000 while cooking offers more than most.

Being a bit of a foodie myself I really enjoy the mystery basket approach of secret ingredients. I find this show much more "real" than say Iron Chef America. The strict time limit and need to produce all 4 plates single handedly makes for more intense buzzer beater endings to each round.

The quick personal stories of each competitor in the beginning of the program set up each episode to give the viewer a sense of their expertise (or lack there of) as well as occupation. There have been teen chefs, stay at home moms, and military personnel.

The recent episode of accepting suggestions from social media sites was also a fantastic idea that I enjoyed as well.

My only suggestions to improve the show might be to add fan of the show to guest judge along side the professional judges from time to time. I would also like to see less "sob story" during the cooking portion of the show and focus more on the techniques and commentary from the judges. Also for those strange mystery basket ingredients I would like to hear more from the judges about what they know about it and how they might integrate the ingredient if they were competing.

Overall one of my top shows to watch each and every week.

Still love Chopped

[rebeccaholt-72387 · 8/10 · 3 May 2019]

I have watched Chopped for a long time, and I still really enjoyed the show. Sometimes it's obvious that the wrong person wins, but again I didn't have a chance to taste the food. Sometimes it does seem as if the person with the worst sob story is the winner, maybe out of pity.

Unlike some, I do think that leaving out a basket ingredient should be a reason to be automatically Chopped. Although they do you eliminate those who have blood the food because they can't eat the dish, sometimes they give the contestant rave reviews about the appearance of the food when really the person shouldn't even be up there for judging.

Overall it's a fun show and feel most of the judging is fair.

Guilty Pleasure

[allanah-64973 · 7/10 · 14 September 2019]

A classic cooking show. They come up with some pretty creative basket ingredients, and I love theme days. If you like cooking competitions, this is a must watch!

A Favorite

[sablejosephinebalmesofficial · 9/10 · 14 March 2019]

Cooking shows are the key to my heart, and it all started with Chopped. This show inspires laughter, joy, and bonding with the family if you choose to watch it that way. The show leaves you guessing, hoping, and sometimes angry when people get chopped. It's an emotionally and mentally engaging show.

Always enjoy the concept, but ...

[jfh-72320 · 7/10 · 1 July 2020]

I've watched off and on for several seasons. I like the concept of seeing what chefs that can create from odd ingredients.

That said, my opinions about the show are declining for a few reasons. My rating is going done.

Two judges, Geoffrey and Marc never have anything positive to say, they only criticize. Geoffrey especially. His arrogance is unparalleled along with his opinion of himself.

Another reason is that Ted, more recently, has decided to interject his cooking wisdom into the show: "I personally cook mussels with garlic and butter". No kidding? Half the planet, and any novice at home does that.

Lastly, what brain surgeon decided to have Martha Stewart as judge? She's drab, and so outclassed by the cooks she attempts to critique.

Chopped

[letricia-26717 · 10/10 · 16 May 2023]

I love chopped. It's my favorite cooking competition to watch. I watch every single episode and never get bored of watching. I now love to cook. Before I didn't. Chopped has been the reason I now have tried new recipes. If I had a critique it would probably have to be when the judges are yelling at the competitors to get the food on the plate. It makes me nervous just watching and seems to me, that's, when food get left off the plate. Besides that I love chopped. I never get tired of watching and hope new episodes keep coming. So exciting!! I can't wait to see what will be coming out in the near future.

Laughable at times, but fun and different

[AStormOfSwords13 · 7/10 · 12 May 2015]

Chopped is not exactly the most prominent Reality TV competition. American Idol is having its final season next year, Survivor has been here since 2000 and is going to be at 32 seasons by this time next year, and I have watched Big Brother from the US and Canada editions (not to mention that Canada watches US Big Brother and vice versa). However, Chopped is a different kind of game.

On Chopped, you are given 4 ingredients for each meal from a basket and you have to make a dish out of whatever ingredients you pull out of the box, however bizarre they are, in a given amount of time (any other ingredient and machine in the kitchen can also be used). Seems simple enough, right? Well... not really. The show has 3 judges who will eat anything off the plates, critique the dishes, and decide who goes home out of a starting roster of 4 people. The insanity that goes on in the kitchen makes for a scramble that will put avid food fans at the edge of their seats. Really, it's the scrambling to make their dishes that shines in this show because not only does it make it fun, it crowns deserving winners upon deserving winners. I have even seen 1 winner of the show appear again as a judge, so if one of the judges wanted to be in the kitchen, don't count them out.

The judges critiques/comments I am mixed on. What judges make notes on while the contestants cook I do find to be positive feedback and helps us, the audience, learn about the ingredients that come out of the basket. But when giving criticism about the dishes, it can sometimes get pretty stupid real quick. Describing desserts too sweet and saying that grilled cheese cannot be a dessert are 2 examples of that and some of the eliminations are, in all honesty, kind of bogus as a result. But a lot of other criticisms are very fair and so unfair eliminations are not too much of a problem. I like Scott Conant, Chris Santos, and Amanda whatsherface especially as judges.

My other big problem is that the host is way too easy to make fun of during the cooking portions of the episodes and so it makes the show more laughable at times when it really doesn't need to be as so. However, it doesn't destroy the show entirely as he does a professional job with the eliminations and introductions.

All in all, Chopped is a fine choice for people who want to find something different on TV. However, it really needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Dinner & A Show

[estathena2 · 8/10 · 21 November 2021]

An early star on the Food Network's menu that's worth watching for the contrived drama, strange ingredients, & an ever-changing array of judges, not to mention the early seasons' mandolin victims. If you like dinner & a show, sit back & enjoy, & maybe add a few things to this week's grocery list if you're inspired.

Mysterious and mundane all at once! I like it.

[sstobierre · 7/10 · 12 May 2015]

1. If you appreciate creativity, you'll enjoy this show. 2. To think that you have twenty minutes to plan, prepare, execute and present an appetizer; thirty minutes each to do the same for an entrée and desert? 3. It makes me wonder, how many episodes were not aired because of the numerous contestants who could not finish. 4. Oh! and did I mention the mystery basket ingredients, usually one to a few of those have not been used before by the contestants. 5. Why not use liquid Nitrogen when making ice cream? It's so much quicker. 6. For special showings like the championship series, why not award the winners of each of the four episodes the usual $10,000 like the regular showings? Their prize shouldn't just be a spot in the final championship round. 7. I suspect the judges are bored and closed-minded, how about revamping the judging panel occasionally? 8. The judges inform contestants that they can use as little or as much of the mystery ingredients as they wish, yet when the cooks do that, judges have a problem with it. Where is the consistency?

Enjoyable

[fjmetro · 4/10 · 26 May 2020]

It is generally good but I will not watch it if Martha Stewart or Rocco DiSpirito are judging. With all the great chefs & personalities on Food Network there is no need to pick from the over ripe fruit (so called chefs)

Fudging Judging

[bcjjjs · 19 November 2016]

Reading the IMDb reviews prompted me to write one. Unlike some reviewers, I truly love the show's concept of four ridiculous ingredients and having to whip up an appetizer, entree and dessert within so-many minutes. Obviously, many other viewers do as well which is why the show is still on the air. Ted Allen is the perfect host.

I wholeheartedly agree that the judges can be irritating. *SPOILER ALERT* In the episode "Offal Surprise", Marc Murphy reprimands (!) Aaron Dubois, a chef with a great personality, for taking a sip of alcohol while he was making his dish. Dubois counters, "I was just having fun!" Dubois is then reprimanded for having fun in the competition. I kid you not! *SPOILER ALERT* In the episode "Viewers' Choice Baskets", Scott Conant, after tasting Tre Goshall's dish, states "that is the worst thing I've ever put in my mouth." Goshall counters, "I think that is an exaggeration." Indeed! There you have two examples of the sizes of Murphy's and Conant's egos.

My least favorite judge is Maneet Chauhan. If I had a dollar for every time she states, "too sweet"! My hope is that Maneet goes on a permanent vacation from Chopped. Alex Guarnaschelli seems moody; in some episodes, she is completely fair and in others, Alex appears to be very nasty.

I agree with the IMDb reviewers that the judges' decision on who wins each round seems fixed. *SPOILER ALERT* For example, I thought for sure that Dubois would win the "Offal Surprise" episode but as soon as he expressed that he was "having fun", Dubois' fate was inevitable.

If Chopped would do away with the "panel of judges" concept and stick to three fair judges, particularly Aaron Sanchez, Marcus Samuelson & Amanda Freitag, viewers would be happy.They criticize without slinging insults and praise with warmth and friendliness. However, I know the panel of judges format is here to stay and that the judges have very busy lives in reality, being unable to donate their time to every Chopped episode.

Choppy Judging

[nikkiten1979 · 6/10 · 20 March 2018]

This would be an amazing show if the judges (maybe not all) judged not by the look or personality of a "chef", but by the dish served... the fact is that the judges have decided beforehand WHO their winner is going to be from the first dish - the rest is nitpicking to trick the viewer into believing that others put out an inferior dish.

Another thing I don't like much about this show is lack of diversity... which is painfully lacking. Diversity in cuisines, chefs, etc. It's always the same types of food we see - same entrees, same types of appetizers, same types of desserts. Are these chefs foodies or are they looking for their own personal chefs to work in their kitchens at home?? The show as of late been very whited-out, definitely not enough people of other ethnicities (especially Black, Asian, or dark Hispanic) and if there are they VERY rareeeely win the show no matter how great a dish they present.

Backround music so high

[sevdakarababa-71077 · 7/10 · 21 March 2022]

I like this show but they need a better audio engineer. Backround music too high, impossible to understand while they are talking music goes very high very annoying. Second problem Juries voice balance also host's voice balance and contestants voice balances is tottaly terrible. Bass tones are so much open and with high volume backround music voices just dissappear.

Other problem is choice of musics they are constantly changing and they are extremly annoying. Audio engineer ruins the show sadly.

Formulaic with a Side of Entertainment

[Mooseda · 6/10 · 7 April 2022]

Chopped definitely has the initial allure that it's a fun and productive cooking competition, but after watching several seasons, the formula is surely sensed. The biggest reason I watch the show still is to be exposed to food ingredients I've never seen before and to see how they can be implemented. The rest of the show is way too scripted and at this point really annoying.

For the most part I skip the judging critiques and the overdramatic dialogs by both the contestants and the judges. Any time a contestant is being shown in the "post interview" talking about their decisions, reasoning and opinions, you can bet that its foreshadowing to setup for a dramatic twist of that explanation during the judging, for example: contestant will explain that they chose to puree something and included sesame oil, but they'll also note how they used too much and they're worried about it, then during judging, the judges mention that they either used too much like the contestant initially said, OR have a dramatic twist where they show the judges faces upset or disappointed, and will say, "I love it". It is done in EVERY round and is frankly very agitating.

You can clearly tell that the same questions are being asked during these post or pre interviews, always trying to get that "competitive sound bite" to play in front of the camera. When the contestants share a very personal story of why they are there or what they have gone through, it's very cringey. A lot of the time they try to use these sob stories to try to get the audience or judge to feel sorry for them. This is not the platform to try to gain an edge by invoking emotions into the competition. There are some instances where the contestants are all harmonious and competitive in a playful way, but it's a very rare occasion.

The camera and timing of what gets shown plays tricks on the audience to better suit the format of entertainment. When the countdown is announced by Ted, the camera switches between angles so fast to make it seem like the chefs aren't going to make it, but in reality they were shots that were edited and mixed in to make it seem theatrical.

From other reviewers and articles I've read, many have stated that the judges basically strip the contestant down of their self-esteem with questions about why they did what they did, usually making choices just for this competition and would not be doing the same in the real world. I get that, but it's a cooking competition so that's what the premise entails.

As a sidenote: how does a cook or chef not learn by now that cooking a big filet of anything is impossible in the time given? It blows my mind that people still choose to pan sear a giant steak and try to finish it in the oven. You have at most 40 minutes in special occasion rounds but usually 30 minutes is the standard.

If you can overlook all these production flaws, then yes it is really entertaining watching random food ingredients being manipulated by all walks of life.

Sous Chef Competition

[Reviewer99 · 6/10 · 4 July 2022]

Typically I like Chopped. It's cool watching chefs create something from an unlikely combination of ingredients. Unfortunately the new Sous Chef competition is coming off as contrived BS on par with bad reality TV, which is all bad. The judges are obviously scripted and as a result they are being pompous, maudlin jerks playing to the camera.

fed up

[BadSausages · 1/10 · 20 October 2011]

I really enjoy watching the contestant chefs prepare elegant gourmet dishes from surprise unusual ingredients. For a while, that worked for me. But the more I watched, the more disgusted I became by the judges.

Of course, we, the audience, don't see everything that happened, only what the directors splice together for broadcast. And we can't taste the food. We can only hear the comments of the judges and the contestants. And we can only see the scenes cut from the various cameras, scenes provided obviously out of their natural sequence and spliced together to provide a feel for the competition rather than a raw presentation of it.

That is what the audience has and it is all the audience can use to judge the program. If the directors have omitted important information that would change our opinion, too bad.

The show's host gives the rules at the beginning of the show. Each dish will be judged on presentation, taste, and creativity. But creativity rarely gets the judges' thumbs up. The contest begins with each of four chefs preparing an appetizer. The chef with the "worst" appetizer is chopped and each of the three remaining chefs prepares an entrée. The chef with the "worst" entrée is chopped and each of the two remaining chefs prepares a dessert. The winner is chosen based on all three courses.

Given that scenario, a chef who is second worst in both the first and the second rounds should have a nearly impossible task of winning. However, it happens more often than we would expect. The judges' critiques of the first two courses are shown again along with their critiques of the final course, but the judges' interpretation inexplicably changes so that one final contestant, who earlier was deemed by them to be far inferior to the other final contestant, in the final analysis becomes a close competitor and even wins.

Worse for me is that chefs whose dishes appear to be quite beautiful and are given only mild negative comments by the judges, are chopped over chefs whose dishes appear to be quite unappealing and are given far more severe negative comments by the judges. In too many cases, judges have chopped chefs, not for any objective flaw, but because of the judges inappropriate subjective criteria, e.g., the absolute quantity (i.e., not the relative quantity of how much of one thing versus another thing was on a plate, but how much in total was on a plate, e.g., one clam was not enough for an appetizer, a sandwich was too much), the sweetness of a dessert (one judge likes things very sweet, another judge doesn't), the sweetness of an appetizer (one judge doesn't like sweet appetizers), the degree to which something should be cooked (some judges prefer rare, some prefer medium, none like well done).

Recall the criteria: presentation; taste; and creativity. Portion size is not among the criteria, unless we stretch presentation to cover this, and that would be quite a stretch. Taste, I think, means that it should taste good, that the flavors of the required ingredients shine clearly and are well balanced. Again, it would be a stretch to include in the taste criteria whether an appetizer should or shouldn't be sweet. Of course, any dish, even a dessert, may be too sweet. And that would be factor in taste, along with too bland, too salty, too sour, too bitter. But too sweet is not at all the same as sweet or not sweet. And the degree of doneness (rare, medium, well) clearly does not fit under any of the criteria.

There are things that must be cooked to a minimum degree (e.g., chicken and pig). And anything can be overcooked. No, these don't fall under presentation, taste, or creativity. Nor does chef's blood, but getting your blood in the food is also a no-no. As is double-dipping, i.e., tasting the food from a utensil and putting the utensil back into the food. Indeed, sanitary conditions aren't among the criteria. But these are universal rules and properly implied. Things like rare, medium, well are personal preferences and not properly implied.

To be fair, if the judges have a standard by which dishes are to be judged, they should inform the contestants beforehand. But they don't. After a while, the show became, for me, an exercise in watching mediocrity win $10,000. I am not entertained by watching mediocre chefs play it safe with their cooking. I see nothing interesting. I learn nothing interesting. For those reasons, I had to chop this program from my schedule.

Annoyed

[ray_raygirl · 31 January 2018]

I really dont understand the judging or the editing of this show...how is it that contestant gets the better review at the end AND LOSES....RIDICULOUS. Its like a set up to fail...use to love chopped now im getting real annoyed

You've Been Chopped

[DKosty123 · 7/10 · 30 November 2016]

I give this show a solid rating though I have only become a recent viewer of this. I base it on the following-

Ted Allen - the host, is perfect for this type of program.

The contestants are real battlers.

Foods chosen for this is creative.

When the show finally had a "Beat Bobby Flay" Chopped episode, they came up with a field of 12 champs to try to beat him. They had a champs tourney to decide who would challenge him. While the concept was good here, they made one mistake in setting it up. The final episode only started with 3 people and Flay only had to face 1 champ in a final round. They should redo this tourney and have Flay face off with 3 former champs in all 3 courses and see if he can handle all 3 meal courses.

This makes Flays victory in the tourney much like a rigged contest. It is much easier to win chopped when you only have to do 1 course. Granted the winner, just like on Flays own series, got to name what they had to make, but the difference between winning 1 course and winning all three is huge.

Each regular show starts with an appetizer round, then an entree round, and then a desert round. Each round has a box of ingredients that must be used to make each course. Usually the box creates a challenge that forces the contestant to be creative.

Then a panel of judges sample each dish and decides which dish should be chopped. Now if every dish is ever raw, there will be a commercial break where the judges all have to run to the water closet. Usually this does not happen, but then Ted Allen controls the proceedings quite strictly.

The show is worth watching just to see how weird the food can be, and how strange the contestants and judges are. It is fun to find judges who like ostrich legs, and eel. Maybe some day the challenge will be to feature beauty mud in a dish. After all, women who use this stuff have been tasting it for years.

Milk That Gravy Train

[bearcrkrd · 6/10 · 8 July 2021]

They have taken a well past it's prime program and turned it into a parody. The current "Alton's Maniacal Baskets" driving this home, in spades. Overall though it is hard to knock this sweet and kind show regardless of my personal dislike of it's recent execution.

Martha Stewart episodes are bad.

[jfh-72320 · 7/10 · 5 May 2021]

Ruining the show with Martha Stewart. Quit watching any episodes with her on it. Letting her make up stupid rules is ridiculous

Appears series is flailing for new ideas, and they got desperate with Stewart. Inflating her already overinflated ego. She's a washed up fad - a kitchen cook from the past, at best. Only claim to fame is securities fraud ...

Episodes are not watchable.

The show is rigged!

[nelson-26585 · 3/10 · 11 September 2018]

I always enjoyed the show until they started swaying the results based upon the chefs personal story. It has become staged and I don't want to watch it anymore.