Tulip Fever (D+ or 1.5/4 stars)
Wanna know why a movie made in 2014, but pushed each year to this eventual late-2017 release, was released as such? You guessed it ... because it stinks! All the ingredients were there for the type of film that I love: a juicy 17th century period tale that includes Oscar-caliber filmmakers & actors. But to say that this bodice-ripper is a disappointment would be an understatement. Set in 1634 when the tulip industry was changing the history of Holland, ‘Tulip Fever’ tells 2 stories: 1) the scheming, betrayals & deception involved in the lucrative tulip bulb market; and 2) a tale of reckless romance & the dire consequences of adultery. Alicia Vikander plays Sophia, rescued from an orphanage run by the Abbess (Dame Judi Dench). Who rescues her? That would be respectable & wealthy nobleman, Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz); who looks to use her for the purpose of delivering a son/heir.
After many awkward sexual failures, to cheer themselves up, the couple hires struggling artist Jan van Loos (Dane DeHaan) to paint their portrait. A heated affair commences btwn. Jan & Sophia and, the artist bargains at the balooning tulip market to finance their escape/new life to the East Indies. All the while, Sophia's maid, Mary (lovely Holliday Grainger), gets knocked-up by her fishmonger boyfriend, Willem (hunky Jack O'Connell) & Sophia pretend to her husband that the baby is theirs {needs to be seen to be believed}. Cornelis would get his baby; the maid's reputation would be saved; Sophia would pretend to die in child birth; and she'd then run away with her artist paramour -- got that!? Somehow Cornelis falls for the trickery, but when Sophia gets sealed in a wooden coffin & rowed away to wait for her lover, another twist enters the fray ... and the strategy backfires. The plot turns ludicrous, & tulips end up playing a role in everyone's fate.
Yikes. Not only does this tone-deaf costume drama tell an utterly PREPOSTEROUS story, but it tells it with bizarre choices as most of the plot points become idiotic, confusing & worse. Based on a novel {the book SHOULD make more sense, I would hope), 'Tulip Fever', perhaps, should have focused more on the fascinating tulip craze of the 17th century, rather than the one-dimensional characters & their nutty lust-driven schemes; which require these characters to be naive, dumb or both -- truly. It's painful to see these characters fly from one part of a subplot to another subplot, fairly oblivious as to what really just occurred & what's about to happen. One of the worst examples of this: a character played by Zach Galifianakis {in a horrid minor role} - the drunk, simpleton sidekick to Dane DeHaan's character - is given an important errand, yet royally screws things up; we could see his folly coming from a mile away and, when it happens, it generates disgust in us as viewers, rather than suspense or humor ... which is what the filmmakers were going for.
Christoph Waltz comes out of this film looking best; lending a liiiiittle depth to the clueless, cuckolded husband role. Alicia Vikander 'acts' her ass off trying to make something out of her nothing character; but it ultimately looks like she's just trying too hard. Her chemistry with Dane DeHaan is non-existent {even as their flesh intertwines throughout}. DeHaan also plays his part too anachronistically; I didn't believe him to be a 17th c. painter. On a side note: I also couldn't believe the awful brown wig they put on him in an "8 years later" sequence, when the character had blonde hair earlier in the film -- more ineptitude on the filmmakers' parts. I preferred the low-key "downstairs" romance btwn. Holliday Grainger & Jack O'Connell, but their subplot ends up being one of the worst. Judi Dench is wasted as the enjoyably acerbic Abbess who guards the tulips in her garden. And Tom Hollander's role as a naughty doctor comes across as a huge misfire of comedic tone.
Director Justin Chadwick gave us the flawed-but-inherently-watchable The Other Boelyn Girl 9 yrs. ago, but this film is nowhere near as good; it's as if he doesn't know what to DO with it. Sure, he enables 17th c. Amsterdam to come to life with lavish sets {the hustle & bustle of the fish & tulip trade market}, beauuutiful costumes {noble people & scullery maids, alike} & a stellar Oscar-caliber cast {I'm reminded of another 17th c. Holland-set drama, the infinitely superior Girl with the Pearl Earring} ... but all that winds up being window dressing to a fairly insipid & agitating {plot wise} motion picture. While the 1st half of his film is a touch confusing, it really goes off the rails in the 2nd half with absences of logic, ridiculous coincidences, mistaken identities, characters who disappear from the proceedings with nary an explanation, and soap opera-level subplots that even Days of Our Lives would cast away ... all crammed into about 45 minutes. Ugh.
After many awkward sexual failures, to cheer themselves up, the couple hires struggling artist Jan van Loos (Dane DeHaan) to paint their portrait. A heated affair commences btwn. Jan & Sophia and, the artist bargains at the balooning tulip market to finance their escape/new life to the East Indies. All the while, Sophia's maid, Mary (lovely Holliday Grainger), gets knocked-up by her fishmonger boyfriend, Willem (hunky Jack O'Connell) & Sophia pretend to her husband that the baby is theirs {needs to be seen to be believed}. Cornelis would get his baby; the maid's reputation would be saved; Sophia would pretend to die in child birth; and she'd then run away with her artist paramour -- got that!? Somehow Cornelis falls for the trickery, but when Sophia gets sealed in a wooden coffin & rowed away to wait for her lover, another twist enters the fray ... and the strategy backfires. The plot turns ludicrous, & tulips end up playing a role in everyone's fate.
Yikes. Not only does this tone-deaf costume drama tell an utterly PREPOSTEROUS story, but it tells it with bizarre choices as most of the plot points become idiotic, confusing & worse. Based on a novel {the book SHOULD make more sense, I would hope), 'Tulip Fever', perhaps, should have focused more on the fascinating tulip craze of the 17th century, rather than the one-dimensional characters & their nutty lust-driven schemes; which require these characters to be naive, dumb or both -- truly. It's painful to see these characters fly from one part of a subplot to another subplot, fairly oblivious as to what really just occurred & what's about to happen. One of the worst examples of this: a character played by Zach Galifianakis {in a horrid minor role} - the drunk, simpleton sidekick to Dane DeHaan's character - is given an important errand, yet royally screws things up; we could see his folly coming from a mile away and, when it happens, it generates disgust in us as viewers, rather than suspense or humor ... which is what the filmmakers were going for.
Christoph Waltz comes out of this film looking best; lending a liiiiittle depth to the clueless, cuckolded husband role. Alicia Vikander 'acts' her ass off trying to make something out of her nothing character; but it ultimately looks like she's just trying too hard. Her chemistry with Dane DeHaan is non-existent {even as their flesh intertwines throughout}. DeHaan also plays his part too anachronistically; I didn't believe him to be a 17th c. painter. On a side note: I also couldn't believe the awful brown wig they put on him in an "8 years later" sequence, when the character had blonde hair earlier in the film -- more ineptitude on the filmmakers' parts. I preferred the low-key "downstairs" romance btwn. Holliday Grainger & Jack O'Connell, but their subplot ends up being one of the worst. Judi Dench is wasted as the enjoyably acerbic Abbess who guards the tulips in her garden. And Tom Hollander's role as a naughty doctor comes across as a huge misfire of comedic tone.
Director Justin Chadwick gave us the flawed-but-inherently-watchable The Other Boelyn Girl 9 yrs. ago, but this film is nowhere near as good; it's as if he doesn't know what to DO with it. Sure, he enables 17th c. Amsterdam to come to life with lavish sets {the hustle & bustle of the fish & tulip trade market}, beauuutiful costumes {noble people & scullery maids, alike} & a stellar Oscar-caliber cast {I'm reminded of another 17th c. Holland-set drama, the infinitely superior Girl with the Pearl Earring} ... but all that winds up being window dressing to a fairly insipid & agitating {plot wise} motion picture. While the 1st half of his film is a touch confusing, it really goes off the rails in the 2nd half with absences of logic, ridiculous coincidences, mistaken identities, characters who disappear from the proceedings with nary an explanation, and soap opera-level subplots that even Days of Our Lives would cast away ... all crammed into about 45 minutes. Ugh.