House of Knives

I enjoy most of the cooking shows on the Food Network with the exception of the kiddies' shows and some of the baking is boring.

This is also OK. I recognise most of the chefs even though I'm not a committed viewer and mostly watch late at night when I want something light and unchallenging.

Season 1 is currently on repeat and I don't mind watching it again.

Just a question - has the host had a hair transplant? It seems rather "high".

As for anonymous judging, has no-one ever seen any of the Masterchef series? The judges are present in the kitchen and comment on the cooking and then call the contestants up one by one to taste their dishes and give them feedback in front of everyone. If you want highly produced just look at the Australian version, yet it's hugely popular in many countries. The format works.

It's the first time I've seen Anne Burrell since the tragic news and it was very poignant.

Show itself is unspectacular but good, the whole theme and host delivery is pretty cheesy but in a very deliberate way that makes it kind of acceptable.

The real star of the show is the competition and level of cooking. Most of the contenders absolutely bring it, and the ones that cook anything that isn't incredible really stand out. Really high level cooking and competition.

The judging is ok. They're animated and it's fun to watch them eat a dish that you can tell they're really enjoying. But they do know who cooks what - anonymous judging is preferable IMO.

If you like competitive cooking shows, it's worth watching. There are cooking shows with better formats, but the competition is quite fun to watch nonetheless.

This is a classic cooking show. Nothing more and nothing less. It's Chopped with a slight twist (which frankly isn't that interesting of a twist). Scott Conant is engaging BUT as a judge. As the lead he's just not engaging which is a shame. It's not a bad show but it tries way too hard to be interesting. If you want to watch it as a competitive cooking show it works. It you can't get past all of the big time over production, manufactured excitement, "exciting" music, etc I get it. If there is a Season 2, my advice is stop trying so hard. You're Chopped and that's okay. Just making an organically interesting show and maybe you have a future. It's also tough to watch Anne Burrell. May she rest in peace . . .

So in my opinion , anything artistic weather it be photography, painting, cooking ...etc should be anonymous judging, meaning the judges do not know who cook what, so you you have to judge the food not the cook and be persuaded by personal bias. That's why i love watching Tournament of Champions or Triple Threat. This is neat twist in cooking but the Judging is Joke. No disrespect to the judging I'm talking about the judging format. They probably already have their winner picked out.

We all love watching our favorites cook I just think to be a fair format the judges should never know who cooked what especially if its something that produces a finish product. They didnt say they were being judge on watching them cook, from the judging it looks like they just want to make sure the food meets the challenge and the test. Theres not even a score card to average the scores like they do on Guys Grocery Games. Just my opinion, I think it be more interesting if it was a blind taste test and the judges never know who cooked what. Go TOC.

Loved all the chefs. The cooking itself was great. The judging was detailed. But poor Scott Conant- it seemed as though he might pop a vein at any time. The premise was just hokey. House of Knives, culinary council, a throne. Just ridiculous. I was embarrassed just watching it.

Scott is a great chef and has been a judge on Chopped for Years. He has always made insightful comments. Apparently the producers of this show wanted drama and made poor Scott practically shout when he would say things like "take the throne!"and "your house has fallen." It was just too much. I laughed so much I started crying.