Tulip Fever
- 2017
- Tous publics
- 1h 45m
IMDb RATING
6.2/10
24K
YOUR RATING
An artist falls for a young married woman while he's commissioned to paint her portrait during the Tulip mania of seventeenth century Amsterdam.An artist falls for a young married woman while he's commissioned to paint her portrait during the Tulip mania of seventeenth century Amsterdam.An artist falls for a young married woman while he's commissioned to paint her portrait during the Tulip mania of seventeenth century Amsterdam.
- Awards
- 1 nomination total
Richard Alan Reid
- Bidder 1
- (as Richard Reid)
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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!
Worth watching...not the best...but really enjoyed it!
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaThis movie was shot in 2014 but the release was postponed for three years. The first test screening happened in November 2014 and didn't get positive reactions. This movie was originally scheduled to be released in June 2016, but the release date was pushed to July 2016, then to February 2017, August 25, 2017, and it was finally released in theaters in September 1, 2017.
- GoofsWhen Jan is telling the bailiffs "if I was liquid now I'd be a bigger fool than I look," his mouth stops moving well before the dubbed line finishes.
- Quotes
Cornelis Sandvoort: First to flower, first to fall.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Midnight Screenings: Valley of Bones (2017)
- How long is Tulip Fever?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Тюльпанова лихоманка
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $25,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $2,455,635
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $1,158,017
- Sep 3, 2017
- Gross worldwide
- $9,204,549
- Runtime
- 1h 45m(105 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content