Critic Reviews

Hell's Kitchen is a cut above the rest of the current crop of reality shows because of its unique approach and, of course, the bombastic host. [30 Jul 2005]

The show's dependable high point finds him banishing everyone from the cooking area and screaming so many bleeped words that it;s hard to track a whole sentence. [27 Sep 2012, p.43]

Worse than the food is this year's pool of contestants, which doesn’t seem to contain any cooks compelling enough to keep us interested for an entire season. [12 Sep 2014, p.57]

And therein lies the main flaw of this otherwise entertaining show. Not much time is devoted to actually teaching the novices the top-notch technique that they'd need to make it in one of Ramsay's successful London establishments, let alone the restaurant that gives the program its name.

How Gordon Ramsay's loud, awkward "cooking" competition show has lasted nine seasons is a mystery, but at least it keeps these fools away from the fryolator.

It's painfully derivative on so many fronts that it sometimes seems you're watching five reality shows at once.

Ramsay is mean to the point of being unlikable. ... But viewers who like their reality shows with a dash of nastiness may revel in just how cruel he can be. [29 May 2005]

Not surprisingly, watching a functional maniac pitching fits gets old pretty quickly. It's like listening to "You are the weakest link" on a loop for an hour straight. [30 May 2005]

Though [Ramsay's] bleep-filled rants are supposed to bring out the best in his staff, they seem like blatant workplace harassment. When he turns his ire on the customers, it's even harder to stomach.

"Hell's Kitchen" cribs both the format of "The Apprentice" and that show's major problems. As with the two "Apprentice" sequels, the cast is filled with people who appear to have no clue what they're doing - or, at least, are placed in positions in which they'll inevitably fail so Ramsay can cuss them out. [30 Sep 2005]