User reviews

How could such a beautiful looking movie fall so flat? Sumptuous filming, a stellar cast, with brilliant period sets and costumes are not enough to disguise the fact that Tulip Fever (2017) drowns under the weight of its own plot contrivance and melodramatic performances.

Set in 17th Century Amsterdam, it tells the story of an orphan who "arrived barefoot and left in a carriage". Selected to marry for her great beauty, Sophia's (Alicia Vikander) sole purpose is to bear a child for wealthy merchant Cornelius (Christopher Waltz) whose first marriage was barren. Cornelius commissions struggling artist Jan (Dane DeHaan) to paint their portrait to celebrate his wealth and her beauty but the artist immediately falls under her spell. While the affair progresses, her maidservant Maria (Holliday Grainger) falls pregnant to a fishmonger and the two women concoct a subterfuge whereby Sophia pretends to be pregnant to keep Maria's secret. As a background sub-plot, Jan seeks his fortune in the over-heated tulip market by purchasing the rarest of tulip specimens from an imperious nun (Judi Dench). Melodrama turns into farce as the multiple narratives interweave, tighten, yet ultimately go nowhere.

High visual production values do not make up for story implausibility. The months of unsuccessful mating between Cornelius and Sophia is portrayed as a bawdy comedy of nightly rituals where Cornelius struggles to perform his marital duties. The affair under her husband's nose, the fake pregnancy, and fake birth are all ludicrously implausible. The background tale of wild speculations on the fickle tulip market is a distraction rather than necessary for Jan's predictable investment outcomes. The script sounds unnatural and dialogue is delivered unconvincingly: many lines are spoken across class boundaries in ways that would have been unimaginable in that era. With a top- shelf cast, the acting is flawless although Alicia Vikander stands out for the way she plays the same Alicia Vikander that we have seen in several films. The chemistry with both husband and lover is of the barely flickering variety, and her impersonation of Mona Lisa is, as always, impeccable.

Does the film's ending justify the effort? Disappointingly, no. The fate of all the characters is disconnected from the narrative flow and the storyline threads remain dangling in the wind. For some audiences, the beauty of this production will be worth the commitment. However, after an hour and forty-five minutes, all we learn is that great beauty, wealth, greed, and deception, do not bring happiness; nor do aesthetics alone make a great movie.

A love story (actually two of them) play out amid the backdrop of the famous tulip mania of Amsterdam, ca 1634. Both love stories hinge on wild improbabilites that are almost laughable. The story is based on a novel so we can perhaps blame it on that. Regardless, the movie is vastly entertaining (but not in the so-bad-it's-good category. There is a lot to like.) As we are told Tulip trading was rampant and "fortunes were won and lost" all because of a "beautiful flower."

Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is an orphan under the care of a convent that specializes in providing care and education for such unfortunates. She is appropriated by a wealthy nobleman (Cornelius Sandvoort) in Amsterdan who wants to marry and sire an heir. Historical context---keep in mind that Henry was fairly recent history at this time---can make this a daunting task for a young lady but Cornelius turns out to be a saint, an anomaly for one so powerful in such times. He has a love for his young wife and by and by he hires a handsome young painter (Dane DeHann, who bears a rather strong resemblance to a young Leonardo DeCaprio) to paint a portrait of he and his wife. Uh oh.

Meanwhile Sophia's servant, Maria (Holliday Grainger) is carrying on with a fishmonger (James Dryden), who wants to marry her and due to his low station tries to strike it rich with tulips. Complications ensue whereby Sophia and Maria concoct a scheme which might be termed the Mission Impossible of 1634 that strains credulity but can be overlooked with effort. Alica Vikander, the main heroine, agrees to some clandestine sittings for her young painter and in the doing is mind-stopping beautiful. (Vermeer would have loved her. She would not need golden earrings). What happens besides sitting and painting in these sessions is easily surmised.

Judi Dench is the Mother Superior (or whatever her title might be) but not per the usual, she is capable of the nod and the wink and can speak quite plainly not to mention her business acumen. You see, the convent grows, buys, and sells tulips and they need a shrewd-y to handle all that ... Judi does just this with aplomb all the while maintaining at least an appearance of piety. (Although if I remember correctly she actually hits somebody over the head with something.)

Another character is old Amersterdam, or the depiction of it. Swarming denizens bustle about in droves along streets and waterfront fulfilling the need for historcal context (along with the tulips, of course).

I had the privilege of seeing this film in preview in the famous Tuschinski theatre in the heart of the canal district in Amsterdam. Having enjoyed the novel whilst living there in 2011, I have watched as it's release dates have been continually changed giving all the signs of a production in distress. Early rumours of poor test screenings can be damaging whether true or not! Like another reviewer I found the opening narration at odds with the images and consequently confusing. The first 40 minutes edited in a pedestrian style merely to tick off necessary plot points, and without any sensitivity to mood or place, so prevalent in the novel. Strangely, the movie seemed to be both full of beautiful 'pictures', historical detail, visual treats and mood, and yet at the same time, the continued use of one street set left it feeling small and enclosed and almost like stage set. Little sense of Amsterdam as a City State enjoying a glorious rise on the world stage. At that point (after 40 minutes) having laid out the plot points and established the characters, the film starts to build, thanks to the real tension in the original story, a good script and some fine performances. I got over a niggling feeling of disappointment at the 'smallness' of the set production, and instead decided to enjoy the abundant visual detail and the way the story started to rip along. Ultimately the great story rose above the shaky first reel and the production design above its limited scale. I was with two friends who hadn't read the book, and we all three came to really enjoy the film, despite the confused and hurried beginnings. It deserves to rise above its production history and be widely seen and enjoyed. It doesn't quite reach the heights of the source material, but it's far from a failure with much to enjoy.

A pretty good period piece set in an interesting location during an even more interesting time, could have been great, but overall it's still good enough.. Christoph Waltz walks on water as always!

Great cast! Fine Acting! Glossy cinematography! Terrific sets! Excellent costuming! Even an intriguing first half of the film! Yet, ultimately Justin Chadwick's historical romantic drama concerning a 17th-century painter in Amsterdam who falls in love with a married woman whose portrait he has been commissioned to paint, during the period known as "Tulip Mania", fails due to its implausible, improbable, narrative outcomes.

It just goes to show that films left on the studio shelves for 3 years after being completed, before being released, as was the case with Tulip Fever, are usually top - shelved for good reason. In this case the film seems to have suffered through a combination of script and editing deficiencies and some poor directorial choices. It results in a movie that doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be some sort of comedy - drama, or straight out melodrama in corsets.

Whether due to editing or some other production choice, nothing much is ever made really clear. The titular, historically authentic,Tulip Fever itself is barely sketched out and then only against the incessant noise and rowdy crowds of Amsterdam's flower markets. Early in the film a quite close and friendly relationship is hinted at between the 2 female leads, Sophia (Alicia Vikander), a wealthy merchant's unhappy young wife and her maidservant, the more earthy and world - wise Maria (Holiday Grainger). Their love - lives are compared and contrasted with Sophia clearly ensnared in a loveless arranged marriage. But this thread is never really consolidated.

Instead we are served up a mish - mash of multiple storylines concerning fake and real pregnancies, suspicious lovers and various characters seeking their fortunes through investment in an over - heated tulip market. It all ends up being ludicrously implausible and both unfunny and undramatic, with a tacked on, unconvincing conclusion. What a waste!

I've given it a 6, because I'm sure there will be some, who like me, appreciate historical films such as this, with obviously high production values. There's no getting around the fact that Tulip Fever looks good. And Alicia Vikander is perfect as Sophia, plucked from obscurity in an orphanage and selected to marry for her great beauty. Similarly, Grainger succeeds as the pragmatic, Maria, who is anything but a dullard, or your conventional notion of a put upon servant. But these positives can't disguise that Tulip Fever ends up looking and sounding like a completely miscalculated opportunity, rather than a significantly interesting, period drama.

Thank the movie gods for Movie Pass. For without this I probably wouldn't check out lesser known films like this. Who am I kidding? I would have still watched it for the goddess that is Alicia Vikander. On paper this looked like a good period piece. Nothing excellent, but then again it's hard to judge something just from the trailers. I enjoyed the film for the most part. It's a little too overplotted though and could have used editing in that regard.

The film takes place in 17th century madness where tulips were the craze and people would invest heavily in the flower. This is the setting for a forbidden love story about a married woman who starts an affair with a painter who was hired by her husband to paint them. The film also stars Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevigne (both hiding out in Amsterdam after the disastrous Valerian), and also the always great Christoph Waltz.

I thought production and costume design was good and captured a knotty grittier Amsterdam of the past. Waltz is always good, especially when there is a comedic element to his character like there is here. I enjoyed portions of the film but can't help but feel the writing of the film (or novel of basis for that matter) is too messy and can't escape feeling rushed. The first 20 minutes had too much quick cuts and quick progression. Once the film gelled in, it got better but was brought down by too much plot.

The tulip craze as a backdrop really took away from the main story. Judi French and Cara Delevigne are just there as part of it, with no real development of character. I like Dane DeHaan but don't think him and Vikander pair up well. There was a lack of chemistry. And then there's all that's going on with Holiday Grainger's arc. I still liked a bulk of the film it just needed to be stronger at some points. I thought the ending was also so shoe-horned in and disappointing.

The film would have worked better as a TV miniseries so then all the plot lines could be developed properly and characters given better to work with. Overall, it's enjoyable but just feel like better writing would make the film really stand out as the period piece it should be.

7/10

"Tulip Fever" (2017 release from the UK; 107 min.) brings the story of a young Dutch woman's love tribulations. AS the movie opens, we get a quick (animated) introduction how tulips entered into the Low Lands. We then get to know Sophia, an orphan living at the St. Ursula convent in Amsterdam. She is married out to an old guy. We then are informed that it is "Three years later, Amsterdam 1634", and Sophia has not yet been able to provide an heir to her husband Cornelis. At some point Cornelis commissions a portrait from a young up-and-coming painter Jan Van Loos. At this point we're less than 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from British director Justin Chadwick, who previously gave us the Mandela bio-pick "Long Walk to Freedom". Here he brings the best-selling novel of Deborah Moggach to the big screen, and certainly it's not the talent that is lacking: Alicia Vikander! (as Sophia); Christoph Waltz! (as her husband); Judi Dench! (as the abbess of St. Ursula); Dane DeHaan! (as the painter). Alas, the script is nothing short of horrible. The "love tribulations" left me completely unmoved. The way the "tulip fever" (which actually did happen in real life) is worked into the plot makes no sense at all. Worst of all, the way the scenes plays out, one has the impression that Amsterdam was the most people-congested place on earth, and literally in a party mode all the time. Bottom line: this film was shot in 2014 and a teaser was shown at the 2015 Cannes film festival. Since then, 2 1/2 years ago, the film has been gathering dust on a shelf while the movie makers desperately tried to salvage it by recutting it. They should've simply let this one die on the vine, as it easily is one of the worst movies I have seen this year (and I see a lot of movies).

"Tulip Fever" finally was recently released, and I happen to catch it during a recent family visit to Belgium. The Saturday early evening screening where I saw this at in Antwerp was attended poorly (6 people, including myself). Given the dismal reception this movie has gotten, I cannot see this playing long in the theater. If you wish to watch this movie (say, because Alicia Vikander is in it--reason I wanted to see it). do so at your own peril, and don't say afterwards that I didn't warn you! I cannot recommend this film in good conscience to anyone, sorry.

I loved it...I really did. It is slow paced, what I absolutely like. The costumes where beautiful and detailed. Also the scenery was well done and gave an atmosphere of how it used to be.

Worth watching...not the best...but really enjoyed it!

I have put a lot of store in Metacritic ratings, but found their rating on this surprisingly far from mine own impression (them 37 me 71). This is rare, but then again I rarely go see movies if they rate it below 70. Stoppard is a genius, and as a production designer I can't pass up a film whose trailers show decent period design, so i had to go see it on the big screen.

The design here was indeed pretty good, a little stagy on the interiors and a bit too obvious CGI, but worth the price of admission on its own none the less. The acting is actually very good, and the script has some nice subtleties, with a clever, satisfying and unusually nuanced resolution.

Perhaps part of what turned the critics were the expectations. The budget was high, the cast renowned and everyone agrees that Stoppard is a genius, leading to some let down for what might have been. But you need to meet a piece of art where it stands and not where you hoped it might be, and this is a much better film that its reviews suggest.

Tulipmania is one of Europe's weirder historical events. Unfortunately, the movie barely touches on the tulip market craze, except as a deus ex machina to bestow sudden wealth and/or loss on characters who we barely care about and who do nothing to deserve it.

The main problem with the film is that the love triangle that is supposed to be the main story appears out of nowhere -- one of the characters simply looks up pensively, as if he just solved a riddle, and declares, "I'm in love!" Up until that point, he had shared maybe 60 seconds of screen time with the object of his affection. How can we care about the contrived swings in fortune of such shallow people?

Making things worse, this love triangle movie has five main characters, leading to underdeveloped characters, repetition of ideas and unnecessary subplots.

I loved the sets and I thought that Christoph Waltz, Holliday Grainger and Jack O'Connell did great jobs with the little they had to work with.

Countless reviewers will address this movie saying it was dismal and thin. They say the plots and subplots were disconnected and on loosely held together by a weak premise.

I thought the opposite. I chose to watch it anyway because of the cast. I'll admit none of them had a remarkable performance, award winning or otherwise. I think they were all fairly balanced without overselling any particular role. While the story centered around Sophia primarily, you could sense the desire, intrigue and frustration of the other characters. I went into it with no knowledge of the plot, tulipmania, or even the actual setting. About halfway through I began to get the feeling, "I see what going on here. This plots been done and redone." I thought I knew what to expect. At times I was right, but at others, grossly wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and would enjoy watching it again. The plot moves so quick at times I know I'll see more next time.

I've told you what I thought. Don't let anyone tell you what to think. Watch it and make up your own mind. I've seen far worse movies get higher praise.

with the chance to be beautiful. because it seems be example of impeccable strategy: the actors, the Amsterdam, costumes, flavor of an old world, provocative love story, tragedy with profound roots. the only sin - the high , rich ambition to say all the story in a manner remembering labyrinth.and the total ignoring historical accuracy. and the shocking political correctness who is more than bizarre or shocking. this is the basic sin. who transforms a sort of fairy tale in a confuse trip across stories, love stories, secrets, crazy plans and solutions. sure, it has virtues. and it is charming. but something change the basic flavor. and the seduction is reduced.

Here is only one review of the 2014-version. Based on that review, it is fair to say that some of the plot holes have obviously been stuffed, while others are still wide open (or have been opened). I don't know if the holes have been faithfully adapted from the book or if they were specifically designed for the film.

In the 16th century there was a big economic bubble based on tulip onions. This is the background for a romance between a painter and a married woman. They make out a plan to get rich fast, so that they can run away to the East Indies. So far, so good. The point is now that the two strings never really are woven properly together. The development of the plot is, at best, sketchy. Character development, if any, is rather rhapsodical. The lovers (Vikander and DeHaan) are not really likable. The script gives them zero personality and they compensate by overacting. The only person carrying a bit of sympathy is the cheated husband (Waltz). On the other hand the makers strive to give us impressions of street life then, raw, loud and rather vulgar it is in their view. The final twist of the plot is surprising, but not convincing.

There are further things that were rather annoying in this film: The use of a narrator. It seemed that the makers didn't trust the force of their pictures and thought they had to spell it out for more distracted viewers. Shaky camera and fast clipping. I think it is a misconception to edit a costume drama to fit the taste of the MTV generation. (Make it more like The Girl with a Pearl Earring!)

One reason for historical fiction is to make us understand the burst of the recent economic bubble on the basis of a historical example. The makers of this film didn't really succeed in doing that. The persons in this film are far away and two-dimensional like drawings on a wall. Unless you write a review about them, you have already forgotten them tomorrow.

Costume drama - sure. But really, nothing so much worthy of attention. Alicia Vicander looks good, that's about it. A bit of a look behind the scenes in the tulip trade, but again, no depth. Weird and sort of inexplicable ending, illogical.. Not worth your time, really.

'Tulip Fever' transforms a promising idea into Dutch farce as its script heaps unnecessary complications onto a tale of marital infidelity in 17th century Amsterdam. The film opens with beautiful penniless Sophia being married off to a wealthy middle-aged merchant who desires a male heir. After three years have passed and no child has appeared, the merchant commissions a double portrait of himself and his young wife for posterity.

When Sophia unwisely falls for the debt-laden artist, everything seems nicely set up for some intense domestic double-dealing, but director Chadwick drowns the narrative in a torrent of subplots. While Sophia cavorts with the artist in his garret, her maid has been dallying with a fishmonger in the scullery. Before too long, the lovers of both mistress and servant are speculating in Holland's tulip-mania bubble to improve their fortunes and romantic prospects. Meanwhile, the two women hatch an implausible plan to deal with their own problems. As the scheming becomes increasingly absurd, the story falls apart and the actors lose faith in their characters. Long before the end, most of the audience will have joined them, as the resolution to all the financial intrigues and amorous chicanery turns the final act into slapstick melodrama.

I almost skipped seeing this movie because of bad reviews, but I am so glad I went anyway. This is really an excellent film. I cannot see for the life of me what the critics (both professional and ordinary moviegoers like myself) are pissing and moaning about. The story moves along quickly, with lots of fun twists and turns and lots of interesting characters who are established early and then return at surprising moments. Lots of good steamy sex too, so stay away if you don't like that. I read reviews about the weak acting—they are all wrong. Judy Dench totally nails her role. It seems I have to relearn this lesson over and over: IGNORE THE CRITICS!

This film tells the story of a young woman who is bought by a wealthy man to be his wife. She soon falls in love with a painter, and the affair becomes the most entangled in the backdrop of intense tulip speculation.

The story is very unexpectedly captivating. The doomed affair of the wife and the painter is very engaging. It is incredibly sad to see that this affair destroys everything near them, and themselves as well. I feel incredibly sorry for the maid, who has to give up a huge part of her life. The build up to the ending is great, as everything falls apart with every character. I like this film a lot.

A fascinating film could be made of Seventeenth Century Amsterdam's equivalent of the South Sea Bubble and the Wall Street Crash, but this isn't it.

The troubled production of this big screen adaptation of Deborah Moggach's bestselling novel was charted in the press like that of 'Cleopatra' over half a century earlier and like that the end result is good-looking (the tulips standing out from the general murk as little splashes of colour like the fish in 'Rumble Fish') but garrulous and uninvolving; but mercifully a lot shorter.

Being a twenty-first century historical film it contains plenty of unsexy sex and vertiginous steadicam photography; and as in 'Cleopatra's day a big historical epic wasn't complete without a cameo by Finlay Currie, so the cast today inevitably includes Judi Dench.

Oh, how the mighty had fallen for this nonsensical romance. Even the great actors and actresses such as Alicia Vikander, Judi Dench and Christoph Waltz couldn't save this historical period romance misfire. Even Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne is involved in another follow-up misfire (Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets). Perhaps there is more to meet the wilted tulip in its detail; Talk about on its crappy Fifty Shades of Grey-styled sex scenes between Vikander and DeHaan which NO ONE is buying it (not sexy and spicy) and probably the chemistry is very muddled and confusing at the same time. Even the screenplay from the acclaimed screenwriter, Tom Stoppard is completely wasted.

Making matters worst is the execution of the film which is messy and crappy at the same time. Plus the dialogue and the performances is laughable and wooden. Truly this unfortunate misfire which anyone could be thinking that the film is Oscar-bait is not worthy of an Oscar and instead serves as a big embarrassment to the cast but not Alicia Vikander, Judi Dench and Christoph Waltz for there are some good-quality films that are involved that can make them forget their participation in this wilted movie mess and probably this terrible historical nonsense garbage is just added to the worst movies of 2017 so far.

People seem to be negative about this film. Frankly with all the action adventure, violent, and plain poorly written films out there this one stands above those. All the actors give us good character portraits and the action and plot move quickly. If you like period films then this would be for you. I'm sure if I analyzed it to death I would see the flaws, but it was an enjoyable film.

Such beautiful locations and costumes, such wonderful actors, and yet the screenplay is full of common places. The script is very expository with a voice over that is completely unnecessary and explains way too much. It really underestimates the audience's capability of understanding. It could have been a good movie.