A love story (actually two of them) play out amid the backdrop of the famous tulip mania of Amsterdam, ca 1634. Both love stories hinge on wild improbabilites that are almost laughable. The story is based on a novel so we can perhaps blame it on that. Regardless, the movie is vastly entertaining (but not in the so-bad-it's-good category. There is a lot to like.) As we are told Tulip trading was rampant and "fortunes were won and lost" all because of a "beautiful flower."

Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is an orphan under the care of a convent that specializes in providing care and education for such unfortunates. She is appropriated by a wealthy nobleman (Cornelius Sandvoort) in Amsterdan who wants to marry and sire an heir. Historical context---keep in mind that Henry was fairly recent history at this time---can make this a daunting task for a young lady but Cornelius turns out to be a saint, an anomaly for one so powerful in such times. He has a love for his young wife and by and by he hires a handsome young painter (Dane DeHann, who bears a rather strong resemblance to a young Leonardo DeCaprio) to paint a portrait of he and his wife. Uh oh.

Meanwhile Sophia's servant, Maria (Holliday Grainger) is carrying on with a fishmonger (James Dryden),who wants to marry her and due to his low station tries to strike it rich with tulips. Complications ensue whereby Sophia and Maria concoct a scheme which might be termed the Mission Impossible of 1634 that strains credulity but can be overlooked with effort. Alica Vikander, the main heroine, agrees to some clandestine sittings for her young painter and in the doing is mind-stopping beautiful. (Vermeer would have loved her. She would not need golden earrings). What happens besides sitting and painting in these sessions is easily surmised.

Judi Dench is the Mother Superior (or whatever her title might be) but not per the usual, she is capable of the nod and the wink and can speak quite plainly not to mention her business acumen. You see, the convent grows, buys, and sells tulips and they need a shrewd-y to handle all that ... Judi does just this with aplomb all the while maintaining at least an appearance of piety. (Although if I remember correctly she actually hits somebody over the head with something.)

Another character is old Amersterdam, or the depiction of it. Swarming denizens bustle about in droves along streets and waterfront fulfilling the need for historcal context (along with the tulips, of course).

It's 17th century Netherlands in the heat of the tulip mania. Orphan Sophia (Alicia Vikander) marries the wealthy older merchant Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz). All she needs to do is to bare him an heir. It's three years later and she has not yet given him any children. The housemaid Maria (Holliday Grainger) is having a fling with the fishmonger Willem (Jack O'Connell). Sophia is having an affair with painter Jan van Loos (Dane DeHaan). Maria gets pregnant and Sophia has a plan with the help of Dr Sorgh.

It's a jumble of secrets and schemes. I almost want to separate these aspects into different movies. The movie looks good and the cast is great quality. There are issues with the plot. There is no reason why anyone would trust Zach Galifianakis. It makes more sense that the whole group follows Jan to the abbey to retrieve the bulb. His character is stupid and is never given much exposition. I was willing to accept this movie up until that point. After it, the whole endeavor falls apart.

"Tulip Fever" is a new 2017 film, a co-production between the UK and the US and if we take a look at the people who made this, there's some illustrious names in here. The novel this is based on is by Deborah Moggach, who is most known for adapting the Keiry Knightley movie "Pride and Prejudice". But this one here is an original work by Moggach. The writer who adapted her novel was Tom Stoppard, Academy Award winner for his "Shakespeare in Love" screenplay. And the director is Justin Chadwick, the youngest from the bunch, an Emmy nominee and you will find 2-3 works in his body of work too that are pretty famous, for example "The Other Boleyn Girl", a movie I really enjoyed a lot in contrast to most other critics. But back to this one here now. It runs for 105 minutes and features Oscar winner Christoph Waltz, Alicia Vikander and Judi Dench. Dane DeHaan, Zach Galifianakis (didn't expect him in here) and Cara Delevingne are included too. These should be the most known names.

In the center of it all is Vikander's character, a young woman married to a considerably older man she doesn't love and things get considerably more complicated when she falls in love with a young painter. This is the core premise of the film basically, the one that is also advertised in the trailer. There is another romance plot involving a second couple and their fate is closely connected to the other three central characters as we find out more and more the longer the film goes. Initially, I did not really see the necessity of these two being included, but with the way things unfold, it does make sense and with the very ending even, it was absolutely necessary to be a part of this film. Without giving any major spoilers, let me say that really a lot happens towards the end from the giving-birth scene onward. It may be slightly too much at times, especially with all the decisions the main character has to make, but it still felt pretty realistic and damn entertaining too I must say. This is probably where the film is at its very best even.

Vikander keeps her Hollywood career nicely on course and proves she is certainly among the finest actresses from her age group these days. But the by far best performance here comes from Christoph Waltz and after relatively forgettable antagonist performances in Bond and Tarzan films, I am truly glad to see him dish out such an excellent portrayal again. Of course you can only be as good as the character is written, but the Austrian actor is hitting all the right notes in here. It's once again a performances that walks the fine line between lead and supporting just like his 2 Oscar-winning turns and it would be nice to see him get in a third time. I wouldn't even mind him winning, but at this point I would say a nomination would be a sensation already as I don't think this is the kind of movie that is likely to score acting nominations. Consideration for the art direction or costumes seems way more likely. Anyway, the writers here manipulated us quickly into thinking he would be the main antagonist here, for example during one scene when Vikander's character says he would never let her go, which is not just refuted at the very end, but I believe all in all he is perhaps even the most likable character of them all. This is a film where virtually every character is likable and their actions can be justified somehow, even if they may seem questionable. But yeah, the occasional misogyny may be his biggest flaw, but still there is never a doubt about whether he loves Vikander's character. And with his previous wife and kid, he has been through a lot. Did he buy his young new wife like cattle? Maybe, but he gave a better life to all her relatives this way and he is also a honorable businessman. No comparison to his character in the Amy Adams movie, another film where painting is a crucial component of the story. Oh yeah and Waltz also brings his usual amount of comedy that still never feels forced. Sometimes feels slightly gross though the way the character talks about his genital. Gross and entertaining at the same time. So yes Waltz is the most impressive here unless we count Vikander's gorgeous body. Yummy, I'm sure his character can only second that. (no pun intended) If there is anything that did not impress me that much about the film, it may be the tulip references and as a consequence also Dench's inclusion in here. Also the attempts to make Vikander's character the metaphoric equivalent of this flower were rather on the shoddy side. But it wasn't bad by any means either, just inferior to other sequences that were much more memorable. And I found DeHaan relatively forgettable, even if you cannot blame the actor that much as it's so difficult to shine next to Waltz and the character also wasn't really written that impressively. But these are really just minor complaints. The good in here is far more frequent than the bad and I very much recommend the watch. A definite contender for best period piece of 2017. Don't miss out.