Reviewed bygoaltenderinterferenceVote: 4/10/10
Tulipmania is one of Europe's weirder historical events. Unfortunately,the movie barely touches on the tulip market craze, except as a deus exmachina to bestow sudden wealth and/or loss on characters who we barelycare about and who do nothing to deserve it.
The main problem with the film is that the love triangle that issupposed to be the main story appears out of nowhere -- one of thecharacters simply looks up pensively, as if he just solved a riddle,and declares, "I'm in love!" Up until that point, he had shared maybe60 seconds of screen time with the object of his affection. How can wecare 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 andunnecessary subplots.
I loved the sets and I thought that Christoph Waltz, Holliday Graingerand Jack O'Connell did great jobs with the little they had to workwith.
Reviewed bywerwolf_dkVote: 4/10/10
Here is only one review of the 2014-version. Based on that review, itis 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 ifthe holes have been faithfully adapted from the book or if they werespecifically designed for the film.
In the 16th century there was a big economic bubble based on tuliponions. This is the background for a romance between a painter and amarried woman. They make out a plan to get rich fast, so that they canrun away to the East Indies. So far, so good. The point is now that thetwo strings never really are woven properly together. The developmentof the plot is, at best, sketchy. Character development, if any, israther rhapsodical. The lovers (Vikander and DeHaan) are not reallylikable. The script gives them zero personality and they compensate byoveracting. The only person carrying a bit of sympathy is the cheatedhusband (Waltz). On the other hand the makers strive to give usimpressions of street life then, raw, loud and rather vulgar it is intheir view. The final twist of the plot is surprising, but notconvincing.
There are further things that were rather annoying in this film: Theuse of a narrator. It seemed that the makers didn't trust the force oftheir pictures and thought they had to spell it out for more distractedviewers. Shaky camera and fast clipping. I think it is a misconceptionto edit a costume drama to fit the taste of the MTV generation. (Makeit more like The Girl with a Pearl Earring!)
One reason for historical fiction is to make us understand the burst ofthe recent economic bubble on the basis of a historical example. Themakers of this film didn't really succeed in doing that. The persons inthis film are far away and two-dimensional like drawings on a wall.Unless you write a review about them, you have already forgotten themtomorrow.
Reviewed byjadepietroVote: 4/10/10
(RATING: ☆☆ out of 5)
THIS FILM IS NOT RECOMMENDED.
IN BRIEF: A love story that never blossoms into anything remotelyrealistic or moving.
SYNOPSIS: A historical romance set in 16th century Amsterdam thatfollows two star-crossed lovers amid the flower wars.
JIM'S REVIEW: Behold the tulip! Most delicate and beautiful, yetfragile and easily bruised. Its life expectancy is short-lived and itsags from its own top heaviness, finally withering after its bloom. Thesame can be said about its namesake, 's Tulip Fever, an overwroughtillogical melodrama that is fetching to gaze upon and, quite literally,a dull affair.
Tulip Fever is a visual feast for the eyes and a fertilizer for themind. There is some good here, at least, technically: The stunningproduction design by Simon Elliott, detailed period costumes created byMichael O'Connor, and Eigil Bryld's luscious photography are firstrate. Danny Elfman has a lovely score also. These artisans deservebetter future projects. But mostly, there is plenty of bad on view.
Justin Chadwick directed this potboiler with little flourish. His filmis well crafted but its central romance is tepid at best. Thescreenplay, based on Deborah Moggach's best-selling romance novel,tries to interweave its narrative with some historical accuracy andsome sexual passion and fails in both aspects. That celebratedplaywright Tom Stoppard (along with the author) created this sluggishand loopy film adaptation is mind-boggling to me. The love storyelements never gels with the political backstory and it all leads to anending that becomes thoroughly nonsensical and unsatisfying.
The story-line goes like this: Apparently tulips were all the rage inAmsterdam, a valued commodity back in the mid 1600's. This special andrare flower brought high prices in what appeared to be a Ponzi schemeof sorts and the owner of this flora could earn serious guilders. Janvan Loos (Dane DeHaan, very miscast), a talented but struggling artist,wants to be part of the " flower fever". Hired to commission portraitsof a rich merchant and his lovely young wife (already you can see wherethis is going), Jan begins a torrid love tryst with Sophia (AliciaVikander) while his cuckold husband Cornelius (Christoph Waltz), who isin dire need of a male heir, is oblivious to their nightly romps.
Mr. Waltz, forever typecasts as The Man You Love to Hate, takes overthe villain role and adds some nice layers to his stock character. ButMs. Vikander and especially Mr. DeHaan are unconvincing and unappealingin their roles as the doomed lovers. Their love scenes together arelaughable. Mr. DeHaan, always a poor man's Leonardo diCaprio type,seems like a little lost boy in heat and Ms. Vikander rarely finds theright persona of a woman losing control over her life. Instead sheloses control of her character. The two actors fail to add thenecessary heat to burn those embers of passion. Yes, they're naked andsweaty, but who cares?
The supporting cast is totally wasted and the talent involved is givenlittle to do. Such fine British performers as Holliday Grainger, JackO'Connell, Douglas Hodge, David Harewood, and the great Judi Dench areill-treated. American and Scottish actors are treated no better asMatthew Morrison and Kevin McKidd are given little to do. Tom Hollanderdoes succeed in adding some needed humor in a minor role. But CaraDelevingine and Zach Galifianakis are walking enigmas in their parts asa prostitute and manservant, although if they switch roles, the filmwould at least be memorable.
Tulip Fever reinforces the law of supply and demand in the core of itsstorytelling. Unfortunately, good drama is in short supply and demandto see this film should be limited. So don't invest your time or moneyin this folly. It's a real bust.
In 17th Century Amsterdam, an orphaned girl Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is forcibly married to a rich and powerful merchant Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz) - an unhappy "arrangement" that saves her from poverty. After her husband commissions a portrait, she begins a passionate affair with the painter Jan Van Loos (Dane DeHaan), a struggling young artist. Seeking to escape the merchant's ever-reaching grasp, the lovers risk everything and enter the frenzied tulip bulb market, with the hope that the right bulb will make a fortune and buy their freedom.