Tulip Fever

Tulip Fever-720P

Tulip Fever-360P

Tulip Fever-480P

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

Quite confusing at first who the story was really about, since the narrator Mary is the house made and focuses on the story from her point of view but the camera focuses on Sophia. But then I realized that I actually enjoy it that was, it's like that in reality also. Where we are the story teller but someone else is the center of attention. And I think it quite worked since the story then ended with Mary getting everything she had dreamed of. Cornelius and Sophia are quite an odd couple. Cornelius a lot older, knowing what he wants, and Sophia a lot younger not knowing what she wants, until one day when Cornelius asks an artist to do their portrait. A young man doing what he loves, but not so good at business. Jan Van Loos and Sophia is more of a match and they too realize that and fall in love, but they hide their affair good, only Mary finds out. Cornelius wants a heir. A son to take over everything when he dies. But they can't get a child, the reason for that is unclear. The point of no return is when Mary reveals that she is pregnant, she knows that a pregnant house made would get fired, so she uses Sophias secret as leverage to stay. Sophia then comes up with the idea to fake her pregnancy and say that the child Mary is giving birth to is Cornelius and hers. And this is when more people get involved to cover up their secret. In the meanwhile Jan Van Loos gets into the Tulip trade business, to earn enough money for him and Sophia to escape the country. The plan is bullet proof, but in the end Sophia realizes her mistake, and I believe she realizes she actually loves Cornelius too, so instead she disappear. Cornelius finds out about everything, but instead of getting upset and angry he leaves everything to Mary, her newborn child and her lover and leaves the country to start a new life abroad. I really enjoyed it, the story felt new and original. It gave me that fairy tale feeling, not childish but for grownups. Plus I like the hidden comedy in it, a lot of times where I started laughing.

This is one of the most visually beautiful films I have seen in a long time. Settings and costumes are exquisite! The story line is true to the period, with a number of twists and turns. Acting is excellent. There was never a dull moment for me. It might help if the viewer is somewhat aware of the former trade in tulips in The Netherlands.

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.

I went to see it despite all the negative publicity and thoroughly enjoyed it. Especially when you consider all the carp out there. It's a smart screenplay, well acted and we'll cast. And you get to watch Vikander for two hours! Honest, it's pretty good,and entertaining.A nice respite from the usual summer junk. I loved it.

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.

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.