Tulpenfieber

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.

Tulipmania is one of Europe's weirder historical events. Unfortunately, the movie barely touches on the tulip market craze, except as a deus ex machina to bestow sudden wealth and/or loss on characters who we barely care about and who do nothing to deserve it.

The main problem with the film is that the love triangle that is supposed to be the main story appears out of nowhere -- one of the characters simply looks up pensively, as if he just solved a riddle, and declares, "I'm in love!" Up until that point, he had shared maybe 60 seconds of screen time with the object of his affection. How can we care about the contrived swings in fortune of such shallow people?

Making things worse, this love triangle movie has five main characters, leading to underdeveloped characters, repetition of ideas and unnecessary subplots.

I loved the sets and I thought that Christoph Waltz, Holliday Grainger and Jack O'Connell did great jobs with the little they had to work with.

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!

Great cast! Fine Acting! Glossy cinematography! Terrific sets! Excellent costuming! Even an intriguing first half of the film! Yet, ultimately Justin Chadwick's historical romantic drama concerning a 17th-century painter in Amsterdam who falls in love with a married woman whose portrait he has been commissioned to paint, during the period known as "Tulip Mania", fails due to its implausible, improbable, narrative outcomes.

It just goes to show that films left on the studio shelves for 3 years after being completed, before being released, as was the case with Tulip Fever, are usually top - shelved for good reason. In this case the film seems to have suffered through a combination of script and editing deficiencies and some poor directorial choices. It results in a movie that doesn't seem to know whether it wants to be some sort of comedy - drama, or straight out melodrama in corsets.

Whether due to editing or some other production choice, nothing much is ever made really clear. The titular, historically authentic,Tulip Fever itself is barely sketched out and then only against the incessant noise and rowdy crowds of Amsterdam's flower markets. Early in the film a quite close and friendly relationship is hinted at between the 2 female leads, Sophia (Alicia Vikander), a wealthy merchant's unhappy young wife and her maidservant, the more earthy and world - wise Maria (Holiday Grainger). Their love - lives are compared and contrasted with Sophia clearly ensnared in a loveless arranged marriage. But this thread is never really consolidated.

Instead we are served up a mish - mash of multiple storylines concerning fake and real pregnancies, suspicious lovers and various characters seeking their fortunes through investment in an over - heated tulip market. It all ends up being ludicrously implausible and both unfunny and undramatic, with a tacked on, unconvincing conclusion. What a waste!

I've given it a 6, because I'm sure there will be some, who like me, appreciate historical films such as this, with obviously high production values. There's no getting around the fact that Tulip Fever looks good. And Alicia Vikander is perfect as Sophia, plucked from obscurity in an orphanage and selected to marry for her great beauty. Similarly, Grainger succeeds as the pragmatic, Maria, who is anything but a dullard, or your conventional notion of a put upon servant. But these positives can't disguise that Tulip Fever ends up looking and sounding like a completely miscalculated opportunity, rather than a significantly interesting, period drama.

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.