emotionally and dramatically flat and lifeless; set decoration is the only lively thing on display . Roland Joffe directed two masterpieces: The Killing Fields & The Mission. But those two films, directed in 1984 & 1986, were made twenty or more years ago. I'd recommend either of those two films to anybody but Vatel I would recommend only to those viewers who can enjoy a film for its look, its set design and its attention to period detail even when the story and characters themselves are not all that captivating.     Vatel is a film that should have everything going for it. As mentioned the director has at least two masterpieces to his credit, Tom Stoppard had a hand in the screenplay (more on that in a minute), Uma Thurman is beautiful, and Gerard Depardieu & Julian Sands & Tim Roth are each capable of delivering memorable performances when they feel inspired. The problem is no one feels inspired by this material. And that is in part due to a lackluster set of characters--supposedly based on actual people--and a story that never really manages to capture our imagination.    Gerard Depardieu as master steward "Vatel" is required by his boss, the gout-stricken Prince Conde aka General Conde, to arrange elaborate feasts and entertainments for a visiting retinue of royals that include King Louis XIV, his mistresses, his brother, and various advisors & handlers. If these feasts and entertainments succeed in capturing the kings fancy then Vatel's boss may receive the honor of commanding the French troops in a war with Holland (that may or may not happen). So virtually every frame of the film is dedicated to following Vatel as he personally oversees virtually every dish and set decoration before it is presented to the royal retinue. As viewers we are amazed by Vatel's ingenuity with everything from outdoor theatrical sets that resemble large fold-out books to his ability to make delicate lanterns out of vegetable gourds (Martha Stewart would be impressed) but our interest is purely aesthetic because we never really care whether the Prince gets his royal comission or not and we barely care about Vatel. Next to the selfish, scheming and utterly corrupt royals the selfless and earthy and incorruptible Vatel seems, well, selfless and earthy and incorruptible. Along with his many domestic and artistic talents Vatel also has an uncanny way of understanding people's true natures and needs better than they. The problem with Vatel is that he is perhaps too selfless and so while he busies himself with entertaining others his own life is virtually a non-event.     Uma Thurman plays a woman of precarious social standing. She is from a noble family but her position at court is not yet secure and like everyone else she must humor the King to assure his continued favor. When he suggests that they meet in private "for a cup of chocolate" she has no choice but to agree. She is under no illusion that she is anything but a temporary amusement for the King but to refuse the King's advances would be social suicide. The royal world sickens her and we are supposed to see her as somehow too earthy and real for court life but one problem is that this character is barely there. Uma just barely goes through the motions when she is onscreen; instead of seeming like she is dissatisfied with court life she just looks like she is dissatisfied with having to be in this royal dud of a picture. This is too bad because she is supposed to be the muse that awakens or re-awakens Vatel's long dormant passions but there is absolutely zero spark between Uma Thurman and Gerard Depardieu. When the obese fifty-something Depardieu kisses the thirty-something Uma we just don't get it. Few screen romances have ever felt so unconvincing and so void of passion and so uncomfortable to watch. We do know that Depardieu as Vatel is capable of feeling affection because he is very fond of his pet parrots but alas none of this affection is apparent when Uma Thurman is in frame. We're supposed to feel that its the rabid social competition of court life that reduces love to a mere game of conquest and that true love in such a world doesn't have a chance. Instead what we feel is that lack of chemistry between actors is what kills passion.  Since the Depardieu-Thurman romance doesn't manage to throw off even one spark the primary story-line is D.O.A. . The elaborate theatrical productions and fireworks displays might hold your attention for a few minutes but this film is not interesting enough to hold your attention for two hours.     Julian Sands does a pretty good job as King Louis XIV and Tim Roth an ok job as one of the kings advisors but neither of these actors are given anything very interesting to do or say. Though Tom Stoppard's name appears in the credits when you look closer you realize that Tom Stoppard didn't write an original screenplay rather he merely adapted a French text. Thus even though this film tries to ride on the coat tails of the Stoppard penned Shakespeare in Love this production does not have any of Stoppard's signature cleverness or wit.
Output: NEG