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!

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.

Aren't movies in the 1600s fun to watch? There are always beautiful costumes and hairstyles to look at, gorgeous architecture and interior design, and peaceful royal gardens. In Vatel, King Louis XIV, Julian Sands, attends a three-day festival hosted by a prince, Julian Glover. Even though that's story enough to keep the movie going, that's not even the main plot. The prince's steward is the lead, and he's tasked with any number of errands and quests to please his boss. Sometimes he's put in charge of really important events, and sometimes his chores are small and demeaning.

Gérard Depardieu plays the humble royal chef, hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman, the king's mistress. She's far friendlier to him than any woman of her station would be, and he eats up the crumbs of affection knowing they're all he'll ever get. It's very sweet, and also rather sad. It's made very clear to the audience that it's an impossible romance, so even though you're watching it and hoping that somehow the class boundaries can be broken down, the movie doesn't make promises it can't keep. For example, the prince wants a particular fowl dish and refuses to compromise, and rather than sacrifice Uma's birds, Gérard has his own sent to the kitchen instead. See what I mean? It's a sweet gesture and very generous, but it inspires more tears than smiles.

This is a movie you probably should check out at least once. I've seen it twice, and it was entertaining both times. It's very aesthetically pleasing, and Gérard gives a wonderful performance, as usual.