MartinHafer 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.

tedg Spoilers herein.A terrific script, one which appears to be concerned with class imprisonment but is far more clever. The key notion here is self-reference.Vatel is a producer of lush entertainments, presented to us by -- a producer of lush entertainments. Though only the translation is by Stoppard, this is the most Stoppardian of notions: to amuse us with a story about people just as greedy as ourselves for luxurious entertainment -- and to please while condemning.The story goes farther into the truth: all entertainers are slaves, prostitutes. The game for an artist is one of drawing lines between that slavery and the noble joys of creation. Vatel does what he does because his obnoxious sponsors provide him the means to do what he desires. That's all, or not all because he needs the applause.Also in Stoppardian fashion, we have Roth (Guildenstern , Mitchel, Vincent) there to tell us the terrible truth about ourselves. The plot involves competing attentions to Uma's character -- essentially a sweet whore with canaries -- and Vatel, the grand coordinator of revels. He is pulled by the King and his present employer as well as sexually by the King's brother. He wins the admiration (and protection) of that brother in refusing his advances by noting their common perversion in the quest for perfection.How perfect for this film to be lacking the salt of engaging drama, that excuse we normally give for watching. How perfect that we collectively reject it because it is merely beautiful.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching

sebaeyza Enough has been said about "Vatel" so I wouldn't like to be redundant. However, I should emphasize on how superb the score is, it really takes you out on a trip to another era, of magic and beauty on one side, and the dread of poverty and human misery on the other. Throughout the film, you can easily perceive how the film is very critical on the selfishness and futility of the scheming and shallow gentry of the king's court. We see grandeur and pomposity in the face of pain and misery suffered daily by the servants and the common people. If you're a fan of classical music, you should certainly watch this beautiful film. Its score is indeed healing and uplifting.

dbdumonteil 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!