Tulip Fever (2017)

R   |    |  Drama, History, Romance


Tulip Fever (2017) Poster

An artist falls for a young married woman while he's commissioned to paint her portrait during the Tulip mania of seventeenth century Amsterdam.


6.2/10
17,915


Videos


Photos

  • Christoph Waltz and Alicia Vikander in Tulip Fever (2017)
  • Alicia Vikander and Dane DeHaan in Tulip Fever (2017)
  • Jack O'Connell and Cara Delevingne in Tulip Fever (2017)
  • Christoph Waltz and Alicia Vikander in Tulip Fever (2017)
  • Holliday Grainger in Tulip Fever (2017)
  • Jack O'Connell and Cara Delevingne in Tulip Fever (2017)

See all photos

Get More From IMDb

For an enhanced browsing experience, get the IMDb app on your smartphone or tablet.

Get the IMDb app

Alicia Vikander Through the Years

Take a look back at the career of Alicia Vikander on and off the big screen.

See more Alicia

Reviews & Commentary

Add a Review


User Reviews


23 July 2017 | werwolf_dk
4
| Tulip Fever is not contagious
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.

Metacritic Reviews


Critic Reviews



Box Office

Budget:

$25,000,000 (estimated)

Opening Weekend USA:

$1,158,017 3 September 2017

Gross USA:

$2,455,635

Cumulative Worldwide Gross:

$9,204,549

Contribute to this page

2020 TV Guide: The Best Shows Coming This Year

Look ahead at which TV shows are still set to premiere in the rest of 2020, including Prime Video series "Utopia" and Season 2 of "The Mandalorian."

Browse our picks

Around The Web

 | 

Powered by ZergNet

More To Explore

Search on Amazon.com