‘Tulip Fever’ Blooms In Theaters With Withering Reviews

The long delayed “Tulip Fever” is now playing in cinemas, with the release confirming that the movie does indeed actually exist. Harvey Weinstein expected critics not to be kind to his movie, and offered a half-hearted defense, claiming that many people liked it, including star Alicia Vikander‘s Mom’s friend. However, that friend may be among the select few who will be recorded among those who enjoyed the period drama.

The day-of-release embargo (never a good sign) for “Tulip Fever” lifted this afternoon, and as you might’ve guessed, notices were pretty unkind. But the general consensus is that “Tulip Fever” isn’t a disaster, so much as a movie that has been recut and reworked to death. It’s not so bad it’s good, it’s just boring. So if you’re looking to buy a ticket and laugh at the screen, you might wind up falling asleep instead. Here’s what the critics had to say about “Tulip Fever.” If you’re still not put off seeing the movie, well, it’s in cinemas today.

Variety: “The long-delayed period piece, set amid one of the world’s most notorious economic bubbles, opens without much reason for audiences to care.”

THR: “…after a long, circuitous route to the screen, it arrives not as a lusty tale in full bloom, but as a tastefully arranged still life in search of an animating spark.”

Rolling Stone: “Forget fever – this floral-scented fiasco is so lifeless you can barely feel a pulse. ‘Tulip Fever,’ which was shot in 2014 but only hitting theaters now after years of recutting, retooling and release-date reshuffling, should have been allowed to die on the vine. Is it one of those clunkers that’s so godawful it’s great fun? You wish. The film just sits there onscreen like a wilting flower with nothing to nourish it.”

The New York Times: “…the most disappointing thing about the end to the speculative bubble surrounding ‘Tulip Fever’ is that there isn’t much there.”

Vox: “It’s not that ‘Tulip Fever’ is incompetently made or unpleasant to look at or offensive in any way. It’s just that it is very, very boring.”

The Globe And Mail: “It is your run-of-the mill period drama that plays it safe – certainly not daring enough to offend or to truly captivate. It lacks the heat of the rollicking tulip trade it tries to depict and the fire of the illicit love around which the film centres. It’s fine. But it’s also a little lost in its own reflection, searching futilely for the magic it cut years ago.”

The Wrap: “The resulting movie from director Justin Chadwick isn’t terrible, but it routinely flirts with terribleness: it’s disjointed, each scene torn between the pull of its sumptuous period detail and the dissonance of its mismanaged emotional structure and schematic plot. Mostly it reflects the kind of wishful thinking about beloved literary properties, evocative historical eras, and disrobed stars that results in lots of artisanal detail but a surfeit of actual filmmaking or true enchantment.

Pajiba: ” ‘Tulip Fever’ isn’t awful, but it is bad, and the ways in which it’s bad are actually pretty interesting. Put simply: I believe Tom Stoppard is playing a prank on us. ‘The year’s sexiest thriller’ isn’t sexy or a thriller, but God damn is it weird.”