Tulip Fever
Weinstein Company, The | Release Date: September 1, 2017 CRITIC SCORE DISTRIBUTION
38
METASCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 21 Critic Reviews
Positive:
4
Mixed:
9
Negative:
8
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand

Critic Reviews

Critic scorePublicationBy date
75
ObserverRex ReedSep 2, 2017
With so much to look at and a plot to digest as thick as Dutch cocoa, it is not without a few problems, but I found this astonishing movie so rich and satisfying that I liked it in spite of itself. It’s the kind of guilty pleasure that sometimes confuses, but never bores. Color it flawed but gorgeous. Read full review
70
NPRBob MondelloSep 1, 2017
Stoppard, remember, wrote the screenplay for the 1998 film "Shakespeare in Love," which brought wit and romance to this same period. Tulip Fever is not in that film's league, but it's lush and boisterous and crammed with the sort of arts gossip and commerce trivia that go nicely with gilded frames and talk of tulip futures. Read full review
67
Entertainment WeeklyLeah GreenblattSep 1, 2017
As Chadwick (The Other Boleyn Girl, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom) piles on the coincidences and misdirections, the movie finally collapses under its own schematic weight, and wilts to the ground. Read full review
63
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)Julia CooperSep 1, 2017
Tulip Fever is a film a-swirl in what-ifs and what-could-have-beens. The years-long anticipation of its arrival has only heightened the stakes for what is – and what maybe always would have been – a harmless historical romp through some flowers. Read full review
58
The A.V. ClubJesse HassengerSep 1, 2017
The filmmakers might claim the sexy superficiality as their whole point; if so, it’s a thin one. Chadwick and Stoppard seem to be making a movie about the impulsivity of desire, but they never dig into those feelings beyond depicting them. Read full review
50
Movie NationRoger MooreSep 6, 2017
It’s an unwieldy, unsatisfying film that doesn’t live up to the high-minded allegory it aims to be. Read full review
48
Paste MagazineAmy GlynnSep 14, 2017
Director Justin Chadwick has managed to concoct a story so overladen and contorted it would actually probably be more satisfying to watch actual tulips growing. In the ground. In real time. (At least then the visuals would be beautiful and the story would make sense.) Read full review
40
Los Angeles TimesKimber MyersSep 1, 2017
At 107 minutes, Tulip Fever has been trimmed of every ounce of fat. But connective tissue, muscle and even the heart are gone too, leaving a lifeless frame. Read full review
40
Screen DailyTim GriersonSep 1, 2017
A ripe, bittersweet romantic tragedy lies at the heart of Tulip Fever, but director Justin Chadwick’s aggressive tastefulness smothers the life from this potentially lusty melodrama. Read full review
40
The GuardianJordan HoffmanSep 1, 2017
There are, indeed, some sparks in this movie. The Vikander/DeHaan romance is a dud no matter how well it’s lit, but the “downstairs” passion between Grainger and O’Connell has a degree of realism and eroticism. Read full review
40
VoxConstance GradySep 1, 2017
It’s not that Tulip Fever is incompetently made or unpleasant to look at or offensive in any way. It’s just that it is very, very boring. Read full review
40
The New York TimesBen KenigsbergSep 1, 2017
It’s neither a secret masterpiece nor a laughable disaster. Read full review
40
The Hollywood ReporterSheri LindenSep 1, 2017
It arrives not as a lusty tale in full bloom but as a tastefully arranged still life, in search of an animating spark. Read full review
38
The Seattle TimesMoira MacdonaldSep 7, 2017
It’s all instantly forgettable. Except for the tulips — which, for the record, look stellar. Read full review
38
ReelViewsJames BerardinelliSep 4, 2017
Nearly every role is miscast, which is rather amazing. Christoph Waltz and Judi Dench (as an abbess) are perhaps the exceptions. Read full review
38
RogerEbert.comNick AllenSep 2, 2017
Tulip Fever reveals itself to be so nutty because it explicitly believes it’s not crazy, rambling through its odd events and obsessions without an ounce of 17th century kitsch. Read full review
33
IndieWireKate ErblandSep 1, 2017
Love makes people do crazy things, and as overwrought and silly as Tulip Fever is in both execution and aim, the film embodies that sentiment in an unexpectedly compelling manner. It’s unfortunate that it takes 107 minutes to get there, but a final twist offers the film’s sole play for emotional resonance. Read full review
30
Austin ChronicleKimberley JonesSep 6, 2017
As for Zach Galifianakis, playing a dim-witted drunk – file his role under head-scratching. Read full review
30
TheWrapRobert AbeleSep 1, 2017
Does Tulip Fever feel like a precious bulb poorly nurtured? Primarily it comes across as something laboriously over-handled, and any flower so treated is bound to lose its luster. After waiting so long, the strongest fragrance on display is one of sweat and mediocrity. Read full review
30
VarietyPeter DebrugeSep 1, 2017
Not only is there nothing presently in the zeitgeist to which to peg such a story (except perhaps the Dane DeHaan-Cara Delevingne reunion nobody asked for, shot before “Valerian” and shelved for nearly a year), but the entire package has a curiously old-fashioned feel — and not just because it takes place 380 years ago. Read full review
25
Rolling StonePeter TraversSep 1, 2017
Forget fever – this floral-scented fiasco is so lifeless you can barely feel a pulse. Read full review
More From This Movie

38 Critic Reviews

4.6 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL