The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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.

There is a warning about spoilers but just about everyone on this site talked about the ending of this film anyway so...???? What ? Anyway, I am adding a comment to someone who posted here that Vatel "died for his art" which is wrong. I wonder if they actually paid attention ??? He died apparently because he did not care to have his HONOR and his feelings continually shredded. He experienced a series of heartbreaks,sad events and disappointments that were pointing to a future of more certain unhappiness. Since he was a man of honor and decency that was too much for him to bear. That is a lot different than "dying for his art". The end of the movie made it clear that people assumed so but it was not true. There. Now like everyone else here, I have discussed the ending.

The biggest problem of this barely watchable piece of dreariness is that there is almost no story, but plenty of scenes with Depardieu organizing catering and what-not. Costume dramas are supposed to have intrigue, political and personal, plot-twists, surprises, and not just look nice. If you want a good period piece, take a look at "Barry Lyndon" or "The Duellists", not this European-produced hogwash. These two films are visually superior to "Vatel", as well. Whatever little intrigue and plot there is tends to be unpleasant rather than fascinating.Who cares whether Vatel's boss or some other moron gets to fight the king's war? Plus, who wants to watch Uma Thurman's wooden acting? She and Depardieu have no chemistry simply because she is a non-reactive agent in Chemistry's Actors' Periodic Table.

* spoiler follows *Countless promising movies have been spoiled by sugary "Hollywood" endings (The Tailor of Panama comes immediately to mind). But Vatel, a superb movie about the creation of spectacle, misses perfection precisely because its director eschewed a spectacularly upbeat Hollywood ending, presumably in deference to historical accuracy. I think he made the wrong choice. Right up until the climactic scene, my meter had been pointing to a perfect 10 all the way. Vatel is one of the most dazzlingly complex yet perfectly executed movies ever made -- with superb casting, great direction, sublime performances, and magnificent production values in every detail. And then the hero gets in a jam, and falls on his sword. End of story. Bah humbug, what a letdown. No wonder the film was a box office dud. Maybe that is what the real François Vatel really did, fall on his sword. But it just did not fit with the humane and careful character of Vatel so wonderfully created by Gérard Depardieu in this film. This is a dramatic interpretation, folks, not a documentary. Drama demands story arc, but this film chops it off. I have long been a student of the late 17th century -- which is why I was curious to see this movie in the first place. It is not true that a man in Vatel's predicament had no options. In fact thousands of the most capable French artisans and entrepreneurs of that period fled absolutist France, either to the rich and tolerant Dutch Republic, or to the laissez faire England of Charles II. In either one Vatel might quickly have grown wealthy and influential on his artistic talents and management ability. In England he could even have purchased a patent of nobility, and then married his aristocratic lady love. This would have been the kind of plausible fairy tale ending that would leave movie-goers feeling they had gotten their money's worth, and would make them want to tell their friends to see it, too. As much as I admired most of Vatel, I so hated the ending that I doubt I will ever watch it again, and I cannot in good conscience recommend it. 8/10.