Chefs Chris Cosentino and Aaron Sanchez.
“Chefs vs. City” quietly slipped into Food Network’s Friday-night lineup (10 p.m.) a couple of weeks ago. It’s probably for the best that it didn’t get a lot of hype – by flying under the radar, maybe the series is trying to avoid being called out for the shameless, blatant “Amazing Race” ripoff that it is.
There don’t seem to be a whole lot of original ideas at Food Network these days: “Chopped” is a pale imitation of “Top Chef.” “Food Detectives” has striking similarities to “MythBusters.” All 14 or so Guy Fieri shows are carbon copies of each other. That kind of network laziness bugs me.
But as much as I want to hate it, “Chefs vs. City” is actually pretty watchable. Celebrity chefs Chris Cosentino and Aaron Sanchez – both talented, likable guys – go from city to city, taking on local chefs in a clue-and-challenge format that will feel verrrrry familiar to “Amazing Race” fans. And that’s the problem: The clues, the racing from place to place, the wacky challenges . . . it tries to be “The Amazing Race” in every way. Only on a much lower budget and without any of the twists that make “TAR” so compelling.
I love “The Amazing Race,” so I’m torn. I’ve watched “Chefs vs. City” a couple of times now and I like how it gives me a little “TAR” fix that I’ve been missing for the past few months. But on the other hand, by being so similar, the unavoidable comparison is so stark and reminds you how superior “TAR” is.
I’ll tell you what it’s like: It’s like when it’s March, and you’ve been starved from baseball for five months, and you’re dying to see a game. So you end up at spring training watching a Padres-Brewers game just because it’s there. And at first, it’s great, because it’s filling that long-missing void. There’s the beautifully manicured field, the crack of the bat, the roar of the crowd . . . . and then, seven innings later, you realize you’re wasting your time watching backup players for two teams you couldn’t care less about when you could be off sipping a nice margarita somewhere. Yep, that’s exactly what it’s like. (Um, or maybe that’s just me.)
The series just isn’t in the same league as “Amazing Race.” For one, there are the stakes. All “Chefs vs. City” winners get are bragging rights. So effectively, they’re racing for nothing. Which eliminates 90 percent of the excitement. Geez, even the “Top Chef Masters” competitors win money for charity. Gotta give people a reason to care.
Then there are the clues, which are written in awful, cheesy rhymes that are almost bad enough to turn me off entirely. They’re also not so much clues as explicit directions on what to do and where to go next. The competitors are even spoon-fed maps to their next stop. And they had taxis waiting for them in the New York race. Lame. Any “Amazing Race” fan will tell you finding ways to get around an unfamiliar city is the most exciting part.
There’s also a ton of over-the-top product placement, from mini-reviews of restaurants to shameless plugs for Food Network. It gets annoying.
Oh, and they carry around little backpacks for no good reason other than to try to look more like Amazing Racers.
The challenges themselves, though, can be surprisingly good. I loved the identify-the-unlabeled-candy task in NY, and the identify-the-gourmet-burger-ingredients-while-blindfolded challenge in Las Vegas was even better. The contests are custom-made for chefs, most are really well-done and fun to watch, and they aren’t easy. I appreciate that, and that’s why I can’t completely write off the show.
So is “Chefs vs. City” worth watching? Ehhh, if you’re bored on a Friday night, you could certainly watch something worse. But it’s not exactly appointment TV. If you’re an “Amazing Race” fan, I say watch it once just to see the similarities. If you end up hating it, at least you can feel superior for liking the original. (And at least it’s better than “Amazing Race: Family Edition.”) I’ll probably check it out every now and then, if I remember, until the real “Amazing Race” debuts (Sept. 27, mark your calendars!).
