Tulip Fever (2017)

Not only is the set very obviously there and visible there is very little of it. The rooms depicted are historically quite incorrect as is the outside depicting what looks like the back streets of London at the time not the sort of place you would find a wealthy trader in Amsterdam living at. But all that would be just a blemish on a otherwise average movie. The main problem I have with the movie is that a very important and by the clothing and position obviously wealthy man is depicted as a man of color. Please bear in mind we are talking about 1636 - 1637 mainland Europe... There certainly where man of color but most certainly not in positions like that this is before the slave trade had well and truly started and +200 years before it ended. If you are making a historical movie make it historically accurate. Just imagine the outrage if a movie about the rise and fall of the Zulu nation was made and a person of influence and power within the tribe would be played by a white man...

The ridiculous distortion of history in this movie is what earns it its low score, the movie itself is not very engaging and would not have scored higher than 6 stars.

Fmovies: 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.

'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.

Tulip Fever fmovies. I loved it. After reading the reviews of other users, I had no expectations from the movie. But, I was very surprised after I finished watching the film that I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. The plot itself is very intriguing and forces the viewer to enter a game of guesses and speculations on what will the characters dare to do next. It's a wonderfully playful and thrilling love story that I would recommend everyone to go and watch.

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.

"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.