Tulip Fever

Weinstein Company, The | Release Date: September 1, 2017

4.6	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 40 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

DotTheEyesSep 2, 2017

This is an attractively mounted, but oddly flat and uninteresting picture. It bears signs of its extended, reportedly tortured post-production. It feels overly finessed, as if a thousand and one people, from unacknowledged editors toThis is an attractively mounted, but oddly flat and uninteresting picture. It bears signs of its extended, reportedly tortured post-production. It feels overly finessed, as if a thousand and one people, from unacknowledged editors to concerned financiers, watched rough cuts, and their every note—"this part is too long; speed it up," "this scene needs explanatory voice-over"—was heeded, rendering the final product a lurching beast with no emotional center. There is an enormous amount of plot here, coincidences and confrontations and desires and twists of fate (imagine acts four and five of Romeo and Juliet on steroids), but it whips along without ever being particularly involving, let alone moving. The Attractive Young Wife of an Much Older Merchant and the Intense, Penniless Young Painter fall sordidly in love within the space of a few scenes because of course those characters fall in love in this type of period melodrama, not because the actors have chemistry or because the relationship is in any way well-developed. There a few points worthy of at least modest praise: the recreation of a thronged, unsanitary 17th-century Amsterdam is an impressive feat of art direction, for example, and I was pleased to see Christoph Waltz's character, a deceived husband, never become more than slightly boorish, allowing the actor to play notes other than dastardly. The use of "tulip mania," a historical example of a sensational-then-ruinous speculative bubble, as an overarching context is also novel, if a bit convoluted. Unfortunately, there also points worthy of special criticism: Zach Galifianakis' involvement will be writ large in the annals of egregious miscasting, his every buffoonish scene a pain to endure.

At times, I found myself imagining the entire enterprise played as a comedy. Though it is presented as a deadly serious romantic drama, there is a sizable dose of A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy or Tom Jones (1963) in its DNA, with so many characters rolling around in the sheets and the whose-baby-is-it-anyway? subplot and Judi Dench as an abbess with sass.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

KaptenVideoSep 13, 2017

It’s a timeless tale of love and betrayal and people doing **** things to people who are good to them, based on a 1999’s novel by Deborah Moggach who also wrote a screenplay for this.
Once upon a long time ago in Amsterdam: a married womanIt’s a timeless tale of love and betrayal and people doing **** things to people who are good to them, based on a 1999’s novel by Deborah Moggach who also wrote a screenplay for this.
Once upon a long time ago in Amsterdam: a married woman (Alicia Vikander) begins a passionate affair with an artist (Dane DeHaan) hired to work for her husband (Christoph Waltz). The lovers gamble on hot market for tulips to get the money for escaping together.
Also appearing, Judi Dench, Zach Galifianakis, Jack O’Connell, Holliday Grainger, Tom Hollander, Cara Delevingne and others.
This must be one of the more hated movies of 2017 I’ve come across: Metacritic score 37 out of 100, Rotten Tomatoes’s 8 out of 100. It’s far from disaster but I can’t say it’s good either.
To start with the positive, the movie looks gorgeous, the mid-17th century Amsterdam feels very lively and booming although we don’t see much of it, most events take place inside somewhere. The pictures added here really don’t do the movie justice but I didn’t find a better selection online.
The actors make their best of their material, although the characters are so one-note that only screen veterans in supporting roles (Waltz, Dench, Hollander) manage to give really memorable performances.
The young stars (Vikander, DeHaan) do adequate work and they have good enough chemistry to offer some steamy love-making scenes… but you can’t really compete with Waltz or Dench in terms of range or sheer presence, can you?
Based on acting and how the movie looks, the result would deserve a higher score… but the storytelling really makes a mess of everything.
In 107 minutes, there’s so many events and relationships and so little willingness to develop them properly that several major plot points or turns fall entirely flat and lose any believability or dramatic impact.
All in all, „Tulip Fever“ is disappointment. It’s certainly watchable if underwhelming… but it could have been good.
Still, I like both young stars and look forward to seeing them in other, better realised movies. It’s also interesting to note that Vikander is the new Lara Croft in „Tomb Raider'“ reboot coming in March.
The project has an unlucky history which is actually a fair bit more interesting than the final movie itself.
The shoots were originally planned in 2004, with Jude Law and Keira Knightley as leads and John Madden („Shakespeare in Love“) as director. However, the production was halted 12 days before the shooting because of changes in tax rules affecting film production in the UK.
Dreamworks had already built a massive set of the Amsterdam canals, and planted 12,000 tulips which were dead-headed.
The current production was shot in 2014 but the release was postponed for three years due to negative test screenings.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

KeithDowSep 7, 2017

'Tulip Fever' is a jangled mess of a film that serves as a classic case of too many creative cooks in the kitchen. I'd love to know how many times the script was re-written, how many times Harvey Weinstein slashed the budget, and how many'Tulip Fever' is a jangled mess of a film that serves as a classic case of too many creative cooks in the kitchen. I'd love to know how many times the script was re-written, how many times Harvey Weinstein slashed the budget, and how many times the film was re-cut in post-production.

There's plenty to mourn as a result. One might assume that a cast that includes Alicia Vikander, Dane DeHaan, Jack O'Connell, Zach Galifianakis, Judi Dench, and Christoph Waltz would propel any film into Oscar territory. Yet 'Tulip Fever' proves that no cast can overcome a muddled script, shoddy sound design, and poor editing.

Worst of all, the movie likely ruined any future potential for a better film to be made about the actual historical event known as Tulip Mania that occurred during the 17th-century Dutch Golden Age. Given such fascinating source material, here's hoping someone at least makes a documentary about it.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

GinaKSep 4, 2017

Although I don’t think this is an awful movie, it is not very good either. I spent a lot of time trying to put my finger on what exactly was wrong instead of being engrossed in the film, but I guess I ended up like the Weinstein Company andAlthough I don’t think this is an awful movie, it is not very good either. I spent a lot of time trying to put my finger on what exactly was wrong instead of being engrossed in the film, but I guess I ended up like the Weinstein Company and just gave up. The movie was too full of plot and desperately needed to be simplified, but perhaps this is what happens when the author is also one of the screenwriters. Then the film was dark and ugly – and I don’t care if that was what Amsterdam looked like in those days. The actors saved the film, but only because they were interesting to watch, not because they knew what they were supposed to be doing. So much talent wasted.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

bfoore90Nov 28, 2018

Alicia Vikander is fantastic in this but this film tries to be too smart for its own good. Set in 17th century Amsterdam, the film tries to bury you with its plot twists to make up for its narrative flaws.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

JLuis_001Nov 14, 2017

Alicia Vikander and Dane DeHaan need to start looking for better agents, especially DeHaan who accumulates his third consecutive failure.
This movie is a sleeping pill without direction and without style. I don't usually say this but if youAlicia Vikander and Dane DeHaan need to start looking for better agents, especially DeHaan who accumulates his third consecutive failure.
This movie is a sleeping pill without direction and without style. I don't usually say this but if you can avoid it, do it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews