Tulip Fever

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!

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).

Countless reviewers will address this movie saying it was dismal and thin. They say the plots and subplots were disconnected and on loosely held together by a weak premise.

I thought the opposite. I chose to watch it anyway because of the cast. I'll admit none of them had a remarkable performance, award winning or otherwise. I think they were all fairly balanced without overselling any particular role. While the story centered around Sophia primarily, you could sense the desire, intrigue and frustration of the other characters. I went into it with no knowledge of the plot, tulipmania, or even the actual setting. About halfway through I began to get the feeling, "I see what going on here. This plots been done and redone." I thought I knew what to expect. At times I was right, but at others, grossly wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and would enjoy watching it again. The plot moves so quick at times I know I'll see more next time.

I've told you what I thought. Don't let anyone tell you what to think. Watch it and make up your own mind. I've seen far worse movies get higher praise.

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.

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.