Kirpianuscus beautiful at whole. for each aspect. because it is the result of wise options. to recreate the Paris. to give a complex and realistic portrait of Vatel. for use the right recipes to seduce the public. this is, in fact, the essence of this real seductive film. and the motif to see it twice. the delicate precision of the making the story, the tension, Gerard Depardieu as the only reasonable choice for the lead role are pieces for a fascinating trip across mysteries and across the spirit of a century. and this did special "Vatel". for the unique emotion. for the inspired answer. for the impeccable acting. and for the science to resurrect a page from the small history of France.

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.

rosscinema This film is considered a major flop and the French absolutely abhor it in every sense. I decided to view it and remain neutral and just let the film play out without having read the bad reviews beforehand. Story is set in Chantilly, France in 1671 and a broke nobleman named Prince de Conde (Julian Glover) has decided to throw a 3 day feast for Louis XIV (Julian Sands) and all of his royal friends with the hope that if he is impressed enough he will commission the Prince to General as war looms with Holland. Conde has put the 3 day feast and all of the entertainment in the hands of Francois Vatel (Gerard Depardieu) who can work magic when it comes to preparing feasts even though he may not have enough food. Vatel is a patient man full of loyalty and honor and ethics. At times he is forced to tell some of the royal guests "No" to certain extravagances and this has caught the eye of Anne de Montausier (Uma Thurman) who has become the Kings new mistress and also has to repel the advances of the Marquis de Lauzun (Tim Roth). *****SPOILER ALERT*****While the King is playing cards he asks Conde to put up Vatel as part of a bet and Conde reluctantly agree's. Conde loses and Vatel is given the news that he must pack his bags and get ready to head to Versailles. Vatel is so crushed by his loyalty being ignored that he kills himself. This film was directed by Roland Joffe who had given everyone a truly horrible adaptation of "The Scarlett Letter" and I don't think this film is anywhere near as bad as that although several critics will say otherwise. The look of the film is very impressive and the Art Design was nominated for an Oscar. Good cinematography make this a visual delight but the story seems to be another story. I do recommend this film and I'll first tell what I liked about it. First, I though Depardieu gave a convincing performance and his loyalty was very evident in his characterization. He convincingly played a man sworn to do the best he can and asks of nothing in return. Secondly, even though a romance between Thurman and Depardieu seems very unlikely I did understand why she would admire him. How can anyone not be touched by his tenderness and morals. But I have to admit that the story could have been a lot better if more had been explained about Vatel. We watch Vatel in this film spend too much time poking his fingers in pots and tasting the food. Of course all of royalty is portrayed as spoiled snobs and it's now become cliche to show them in this light. This film caused a ruckus when it opened at Cannes because the script was rewritten by an Englishman from a French story and it was filmed in English. The bad reviews were all aimed at Joffe and I'm not sure if his career will ever be the same. This film does have some glaring flaws but I suggest to people that if they view it to do so with a fair and open mind. I do think Depardieu is good in this film and Thurman isn't bad either. I think it's worth a look.

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!