Tulpenfieber

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 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 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).

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!

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.