Rating: 
Summary: A fine spectacle, but paper-thin story
Review: I have a soft spot for custom dramas. I enjoy all the lavish customs, the meticulously researched sets and the witty and elegant banter unachievable in non-celloid life. With that said, I didn't like Vatel, which had all of the above qualities. This is due to a lack of remotely serviceable story. Louis the 14th is visiting the estate of Prince de Conde, who hopes to wrangle an army commande from the king to pay off his heavy debts. His faithful steward, Vatel, is charged with ensuring that the King's visit will be memorable one. Vatel is a genius in all the arts of housekeeping and entertaining, a veritable 17th century Martha Stewart. Of course, when the House of Bourbon come a calling, the word "entertaining" acquire a whole new level of meaning. Throughout the movie we are treated to one dazzling set piece after another of Vatel's epic efforts. Unfortunately, the highlights are overshadowed by very underwhelming story and characters. The central romance between Vatel and the lady-in-waiting generate less electricity than a AAA battery, and is implausible to boot. Bobbing along in the movie is a theme of a decent man standing up to a world of corruption. But with most of the filmmaker's effort focused on the lavish parties, it quickly gets lost amidst all the fireworks, ice-sculptures and food-preparation. Of course, all that is pretty enjoyable to watch. Your eyes will have a feast, but it's mostly empty calories.
Rating: 
Summary: A truly wonderful film
Review: I noticed that several people gave this film a poor review and while I realize that historical films are not for everyone, I think a few people missed the point of the film. Aside from the bittersweet love story, the sharp contrast depicted between Vatel and the court of Louis XIV highlighted the reality of the French aristoracy and court life during this period (as well as into the reigns of Louis XV and XVI). The situation of the French aristoracy vis-a-vis the King was not at all like that of their English counterparts. The aristocracy depended upon the King for a good deal of their wealth, as well as their position within the court and government. Hence the Prince de Conde's need for money from Louis XIV and his willingness to go so far as to bet Vatel in a card game to secure it was not so far fectched as it may seem. Although I cannot talk specifics pertaining to the real-life Vatel, I can say with certainty that during that time securing the King's good favor was worth almost any price. If any one out there has ever visited the palace of Versailles just outside of Paris (a project undertaken by the Sun King, himself, building upon a hunting lodge of Louis XIII) then I need not say more. For those who have not, however, French court life was lavish and based very much on adhering to etiquette (according to most historical accounts). Was it ridiculous and over the top? Of course, but that was the reality of the French court. For anyone to criticize Vatel based on the obsurdity of the court and a "childish king" then you don't know much about French history. Why do you think Louis XVI and Marie-Antoinette were such easy scapegoats (although that is arguable- some blame the king directly and at the very least indirectly for the revolution)? People were starving and heavily taxed, while the aristoracy sat unmoved or ignorant (depending on which accounts you agree with) of their plight. Vatel highlighted this contrast beautifully- in the movie Anne (who we can agree was a kind person) said to Vatel- "But the poor are happy to be the King's creditors." To which Vatel responds something to the effect of "My parent's were so happy [to be the king's creditors] they died of it." In truth, Vatel is a story set within a story- that of the frivolous and lavish French court and two people trying to get along within it. Anne understands what she lives in and the precarious nature of her position at court. In Vatel, she sees something different- something good. Vatel, on the other hand, isolated on a country estate knows little of the ways of court and only of the people he works with and the pride he takes in his job as master steward. His naivity of the reality of the court and of the court system proves to be his undoing. He believes his life and his work are not subject to the demands of King and court and on this, he discovers he is terribly wrong. I highly recommend this movie to fans of good historical films. It is both artistic and moving, and at least in terms of the setting and of court life, historically accurate.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch it twice--once to be amazed, again to concentrate
Review: It seems that filmmaking is every bit as "give and take" as other aspects of modern life. VATEL is an absolute visual masterpiece--the costumes, scenery, special effects, and accute attention to detail left me breathless as I watched this film not once, not twice, but three times. This is a film about a master party planner, and it certainly delivers on that premise. VATEL, played by French actor Gerard Depardieu, is a fiercly loyal steward to his master--he rarely sleeps during the king's visit because he alone is responsible for the successful staging of the over-the-top festivities. I suspect the audience is supposed to get a good sense of his rags-to-riches story, admire him for his selfless service to his bosses, and root for him when he falls for the impossible Anne (Uma Thurman in an understated role) but the character of VATEL, as poignant as it is, is all but lost in the overwhelming eye candy of this film. Other subtle hints at the lavishly opulent lifestyle of royalty (nothing has changed, really) and distinct separation of the "servant" and "the served" are also fuzzed by the abounding superfluity. The lack of sufficient buildup to VATEL's final decision left me a little confused until I watched it again and was finally able to focus on the actual storyline. While watching this film for the first time, one will be too overwhelmed with the artistry of this picture--which explains why it was nominated for the art direction Academy Award--but the real "plot" is there and it's a good one. This film isn't all fluff. It's multi-layered and much more complex than many people realize.
Rating:
Summary: Watch it twice--once to be amazed, again to concentrate
Review: It seems that filmmaking is every bit as "give and take" as other aspects of modern life. VATEL is an absolute visual masterpiece--the costumes, scenery, special effects, and accute attention to detail left me breathless as I watched this film not once, not twice, but three times. This is a film about a master party planner, and it certainly delivers on that premise. VATEL, played by French actor Gerard Depardieu, is a fiercly loyal steward to his master--he rarely sleeps during the king's visit because he alone is responsible for the successful staging of the over-the-top festivities. I suspect the audience is supposed to get a good sense of his rags-to-riches story, admire him for his selfless service to his bosses, and root for him when he falls for the impossible Anne (Uma Thurman in an understated role) but the character of VATEL, as poignant as it is, is all but lost in the overwhelming eye candy of this film. Other subtle hints at the lavishly opulent lifestyle of royalty (nothing has changed, really) and distinct separation of the "servant" and "the served" are also fuzzed by the abounding superfluity. The lack of sufficient buildup to VATEL's final decision left me a little confused until I watched it again and was finally able to focus on the actual storyline. While watching this film for the first time, one will be too overwhelmed with the artistry of this picture--which explains why it was nominated for the art direction Academy Award--but the real "plot" is there and it's a good one. This film isn't all fluff. It's multi-layered and much more complex than many people realize.
Rating:
Summary: A vivid rendering of royal extravagance
Review: It's 1671, and the King of France, Louis XIV, is looking for a general to carry war to the insufferably insolent Dutch. One of his nobles, the Prince de Condé, wants the job, thinking such royal favor will relieve his chronic impoverishment. The Prince's strategy to entice the sovereign's attention is ... well, to throw a lavish party, of course. VATEL is Condé's master of the kitchen and entertainment planner for the big event, for which the King, his Queen, and a large coterie of sycophants will descend upon the Prince's country estate to be lavishly fed, housed, and amused for several days. The expense and bother of it all will be staggering. Gérard Depardieu, Julian Sands and Julian Glover play the roles of VATEL, Louis XIV and Condé respectively. Additionally, Uma Thurman plays Anne de Montausier, the King's favorite "lady-in-waiting". ("Waiting for what?" would be an obtuse question.) And, Tim Roth has the role of the creepy Marquis de Lauzan, one of the monarch's carousing buddies. The best elements of this outstanding film are the opulent costuming and production design. Indeed, the culmination to the King's entertainment is a sensational "live event" that is itself an eye-popping spectacle within a spectacle. Depardieu, relatively unknown to American audiences, gives a bravura performance as the over-worked, hard-pressed and self-sacrificing major domo struggling to make his boss look good on a shoestring budget. (His contribution to the alleviation of Condé's gout is particularly heart wrenching.) Roth, in a style he does so well, is exquisitely slimy as the villainous Marquis. Thurman is fetching as a young woman not yet too debased to not want something better out of her life. In my opinion, VATEL should have won an Academy Award for art direction if nothing else. Visually, it's a truly sumptuous piece. The viewer will leave the screening disgusted at the extravagant excesses of past royalty, but certainly impressed with the flash of their presentation.
Rating:
Summary: A vivid rendering of royal extravagance
Review: It's 1671, and the King of France, Louis XIV, is looking for a general to carry war to the insufferably insolent Dutch. One of his nobles, the Prince de Condé, wants the job, thinking such royal favor will relieve his chronic impoverishment. The Prince's strategy to entice the sovereign's attention is ... well, to throw a lavish party, of course. VATEL is Condé's master of the kitchen and entertainment planner for the big event, for which the King, his Queen, and a large coterie of sycophants will descend upon the Prince's country estate to be lavishly fed, housed, and amused for several days. The expense and bother of it all will be staggering. Gérard Depardieu, Julian Sands and Julian Glover play the roles of VATEL, Louis XIV and Condé respectively. Additionally, Uma Thurman plays Anne de Montausier, the King's favorite "lady-in-waiting". ("Waiting for what?" would be an obtuse question.) And, Tim Roth has the role of the creepy Marquis de Lauzan, one of the monarch's carousing buddies. The best elements of this outstanding film are the opulent costuming and production design. Indeed, the culmination to the King's entertainment is a sensational "live event" that is itself an eye-popping spectacle within a spectacle. Depardieu, relatively unknown to American audiences, gives a bravura performance as the over-worked, hard-pressed and self-sacrificing major domo struggling to make his boss look good on a shoestring budget. (His contribution to the alleviation of Condé's gout is particularly heart wrenching.) Roth, in a style he does so well, is exquisitely slimy as the villainous Marquis. Thurman is fetching as a young woman not yet too debased to not want something better out of her life. In my opinion, VATEL should have won an Academy Award for art direction if nothing else. Visually, it's a truly sumptuous piece. The viewer will leave the screening disgusted at the extravagant excesses of past royalty, but certainly impressed with the flash of their presentation.
Rating:
Summary: VATEL
Review: JUST A PLAIN GOOD MOVIE FOR A SUNDAY AFTERNOON. WELL DONE
Rating:
Summary: Pretty but dull
Review: No doubt the scenery, costumes, and cinematography---in other words, all things visual---about this film are attractively done. Unfortunately, there has to be more to a film than that---there needs to be compelling, 3-dimensional characters and a decent plot. In both respects, this film falls short. Instead what we have is a slow-paced costume drama with cardboard characters: Depardieu, as the silent but pure-hearted and hardworking Noble Servant; Tim Roth in a stock role as the ruthlessly conniving court advisor; dull-witted but decadent royalty wielding unlimited power over their hapless subjects; Thurman as innocence-waiting-to-be-crushed. It's all stuff we've seen a million times before but unlike "Dangerous Liasons" this film has no verve, plot twists and surprising character development to keep it humming. 1-2-3, drearily predictable, you know what's going to happen a good 30 minutes before it happens. ZZZ. Thurman also looked much better in "Dangerous Liasons"---here, the makeup artists and lighting technicians have somehow managed to turn a usually exquisite woman into a waxen, cadaver-looking mannequin.
Rating: 
Summary: Five stars for the scene, 1 star for the story
Review: Scenes are amazing, history's in the making, grand-grand-parents are so close... Stop! You should realize, that people change with times! People in 17th century were quite different. Period. I understand democracy supporters crying loud over poor guy, but ... I do not believe it at all! Too much flash&fireworks for 17th century, and we never know, why guy was so upset - because of his love, or because he couldn't serve the king. Of course I'm joking, but so it the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Vatel = "Why critics are useless"
Review: See Vatel. See it for the truly exceptional art direction. See it for the performances of Depardieu and Roth. See it because Thurman gives what may be her best performance yet. See it to take a trip back to the Golden Age of France, without Musketeers. See it simply because of the movie magic of watching some of the most beautiful food known being created. However, this is not some Martha Stewart field trip to the seventeenth century . For all the remarkable spectacle Vatel presents, it is really a wonderful character study, layered over a profound fable of the stresses and dangers of living in a society obsessed with material excess and impossibly complex social codes. Sound familiar? Louis XIV carefully kept an entire social class deliberately distracted by the pursuit of pleasure and prestige in order to politically neutralize them. Considering that we are in the throes of a similar, though far more widespread social regression, the points of view explored in Vatel are relevant beyond what is usually found in a costume drama. Better still, it doesn't go all preachy, preferring to let the story to speak for itself. The critics panned it - but by and large they didn't get it. They complained about Depardieu's accent (umm, he's like...French! Duh...), which doesn't get in the way of the emotion of his performance unless the viewer is either narrow minded or hard of hearing. Since France has many regions and the social classes had different accents, it makes a weird kind of sense that his speech should be different from the Aristocrats. Then there's the irritating "a babe like Thurman would never go for fat old Depardieu" criticism - doubtless formed by critics who haven't got much experience of life. Others complained about the extravagance of the production overall. I suspect the same critics would complain about the lack of social realism in The Wizard of Oz. Did I mention that Vatel reminds me why I try not to take critics too seriously? I can't wait to see it again.
|
