Gibbers Siemon If you enjoy historic/period films, this is one to see. There is a weak link - Ms. Thurman- but her performance does not ruin the whole. I confidently proclaim all other performances top notch, from the "Sun King" to the title character, to the vast staff in the kitchen of the Prince de Conde's estate in the countryside. Excellent! Transporting! The effort and attention in production is exemplary and never gets in the way of the mood of the movie and the viewer being sucked in. It is an an example to try to match. "Vatel" is a convincing travel back in time to the opulence, ridiculous behavior and systems in the royal court of 17th C. France. The viewer really feels like a fly on the wall, observing the behaviors, politics, seductions, binding and imprisoning codes of conduct and misconduct that were easily paraded by the royal court. I enjoy this film to this day despite a couple dozen viewings.

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.

aa4353 I enjoyed this movie due to the historical treatment of how politics played out during the time of the European kingdoms. Money is always the problem and the money is always from the poor for the selfishness of the rich---some things never change. Vatel like so many perfectionists of their crafts comes to the realization that no one cares--not even his employer! Good film with underlying truths that quite possibly could be reviewed in today's world. If you have visited castles in Europe you will enjoy getting a feel about how the sub-basements were used--no more complaints about your kitchen. Gerard Depardieu gives a good performance and the costumes and scenery are exquisite.

Shannon SOME SPOILERS AHEADThe movie was mildly interesting as it describes (what I call) the "Martha Stewart" of 17th Century France, Francois Vatel. However, it just isn't interesting enough and I got bored very easily and very quickly. What saved this film was Gerard Depardieu's performance as the title character who organizes all the interior decorating, shows, and meals prepared for the coming of King Louis XIV to a chateau in Chantilly. Uma Thurman's performance as Vatel's love interest is well, below mediocre. I'd much rather watch paint dry or a pair of snails drag-race. Above all, I give this 2 out of five stars. The lush atomosphere also manages to save the film from a 1 star rating by me.