I watched this film with my sister-in-law, so this time you will be learning what I thought and what she thought about the film. We both agreed that the costumes and sets were amazing. It's obvious that the film makers had a lot of money and they did spend it. However, we were both wondering (and I hope someone out there can tell me more)--are the special effects, such as the incredible set that appears around King Louis XIV, anachronisms? In other words, while this really looked neat, was this even possible in the 17th century? We didn't know, but even today I doubt that such a spectacle would be that easy to create. However, we both felt that while the sets were nice and all, the characters themselves really didn't seem that deep or compelling (except for Vatel) and the relationship he forged with Anne. Nice to look at, of course, but not all that compelling much of the time.Here is where we both disagreed (I could tell, because she hit me over the head with a lamp when I told her I liked this): the ending. I loved the end, as it was a wonderful way for Gerard Depardieu's character to stand up to the King and make a statement about freedom. However, Linda (who's totally wrong) said it was just too depressing and hurt the film. And, now that I just read her this, I think I am afraid to go to sleep while I am visiting them! So, while we agreed on almost the whole film (she gave it a 6 and I gave it a 7), I was left feeling more positive about the film because I have a very high tolerance for depressing and dreadful endings that many people will not enjoy.Overall, not a great film but worth seeing--particularly if you like costume dramas.

Gérard Depardieu is François Vatel, I'm not sure what his actual title was, but he was a combination of master chef, kitchen manager, estate manager, and live show producer. The setting for the whole story is the country estate, over a few days, when the king of France, Louis XIV, and his vast party are dropping in for some peace and quiet. However custom at that time was that the king was to be lavishly entertained, no matter what. One problem was Vatel's employer, the prince de Conde (Julian Glover), was virtually broke, and hoped that the king would appoint him to a high military position, one that would pay well. And, if they were to go to war with Holland, that would assure it. Meanwhile, the merchants who provided food and other supplies were put off until then, and it fell to Vatel to convince them that the money would come.Much of the middle story involves the spoiled and decadent behavior the king and his vast traveling party. The king's brother, who was gay, made a request for Vatel himself. The king requested a young kitchen boy, and Vatel put a stop to that. Uma Thurman is the vaguely British Anne de Montausier, having an affair with the king, but attracted to Vatel. The movie focuses on Vatel himself, his everyday life, his skill at making changes in the menu when, for example, half of the lobster shipment was bad, or the fish catch was unusually small. Vatel is painted as a strong person with high integrity, and barely able to tolerate the misbehavior he witnesses. A good movie for those who enjoy realistic period pieces.MAJOR SPOILER. Desperate, Vatel's employer bets and loses Vatel in a card game against the king. When he learns this, partly feeling unappreciated and partly dreading going into service for the king, Vatel poisons and kills himself, honor before all else.

This is a movie made for His Majesty Gérard Depardieu,with an absurd supporting cast and lots and lots of wasted money. Depardieu is everywhere in the movie and reduces the others characters to walk-ons.Roland Joffé films everything he can,and tries to impress the audience with fireworks,audacious camera tricks,Fellini-inspired settings but he does not create anything.The Sun King is featured but he pales into insignificance ,which is a shame all the same!His brother is first shown as a wicked perverse man (in the French tradition:for that matter,take a look at the "Angélique "series)when the historians describe him as an admittedly gay man but a human being who was courageous,generous with the vanquished at war,and finally gentle(see "Monsieur,frère du roi" by Philippe Erlanger).At least his last line shows his real nature but it's too little too late.But the biggest bomb is Tim Roth's Lauzun!The duc de Lauzun was a Gascon ,who was always cracking jokes ,a bon vivant,fond of women ,so insolent that he was finally sent to the Pignerol jail where he met again Vatel's former master,Nicolas Fouquet -the movie briefly hints at him-.Tim Roth's sullen face is by no means duc de Lauzun,this joker who would marry the king 's cousin ,la grande Mademoiselle,a spinster,for her dough:oddly this colorful dowager does not appear at all.Montespan,La Vallière do,but they do walk-on parts.(Only one line each:Montespan:"I'm coming up" Vallière:'I'm coming down",the only touch of humor in the whole movie) Queen Marie-Therèse is not well portrayed either:she was rather ugly,gauche and self-effacing.Here she seems to outshine Montespan,which is rather odd!

The story is about an intelligent and skilled man, who was working for a prince and had to prepare everything (food, parties, etc. ) to welcome and to host the king of France, who was very much impressed with the work done by this man, Vatel (Depardieu). The plot showed an efficient acting of Depardieu, and poor one from Uma Thurman and Tim Roth, probably due to the roles given by the director to them. The film went plain, i.e. emotions were scarce and suddenly the end gave us something unexpected, in fact the previous scenes for the end did not show any intensity to justify what we saw in the epilogue. I cannot understand whether Joffé wanted to make a joke or was really his intention to show a coherent film with well elaborated plot.