Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Payno I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Cody One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Ian (Flash Review)Would you rather invest in Bitcoins or Tulips? Well in In 17th Century Amsterdam, Tulips were as profitable and erratic as the stock market. That fascinating story is the backbone for a complicated love story. An older and wealthy merchant forcibly marries or buys a beautiful and youthful orphaned girl with the main goal of birthing a child for him. Later, he hires a youthful painter chap to paint their portrait. Of course a romance ensues between the two youths, yet the painter needs more money for his plan to secretly start a new life with the girl so his invests in tulips. A convoluted plan is hatched to earn money fast to start their life. How will things shake out? With many dramatic story lines, surprisingly the film felt flat. The characters weren't likable, no surprise from their actions, thus were unengaging. The various plans seemed partially unbelievable and there was of course a double cross mixed in. It had nice production quality and great cinematography. Overall, it's a fairly unique story, has great actors yet failed to enthrall.

susan-317 I LOVE costume dramas. And this movie had the makings of a great costume drama. It was wonderfully cast, beautifully designed and perfectly costumed. It looked great.What a cast! Ms. Vikander as the lead; Christoph Waltz as the widow who buys Alicia Vikander out of poverty; DeHaan as an artist who is NOT pretending to be Keanu Reeves as he did in Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets; the beautiful and talented Holliday Grainger who I loved in The Borges as Lucrezia (WOW!). Tom Hollander plays a doctor for laughs. And Kevin McKidd is in the movie for two minutes. What the heck? Zack Galifianakis as an alcoholic idiot. Again - what the heck is he even doing in this film?Joanna Scanlan apparently is contracted to play in every Dutch painter movie.And Judi Dench plays an Abbess who grows tulips.There were so many great characters, but the movie focuses on the wrong ones. Even the tulips are a character and we don't see enough of them. I didn't mind the I Love Lucy wacky bits, either, though they didn't quite fit.The film went horribly wrong somewhere. I lost interest in the main plot line, as did the characters. Even I was more interested in the characters that leave for the West Indies. What happened to all of them? Especially the man who leaves and comes back. "Where were you?" "Africa."I don't know if it was the editing or the script, but something needed a bit of extra work. If that had been accomplished, this would have been a marvelous film!

warrenfingers I enjoyed the work overall and understood what I saw to be a brand of expensive fiction. Dang, there's lots of waist to throw away, this isn't that. I find it notable that 1) The novelist was part of the writing team (#backstory?) 2) the plot often relied on easy vagaries to create itself as well as 5-cent resolutions 3) There were some hackneyed text/dialogue choices. Still, overall here was a lot of good cinema put to use-on this ol' much-done song of love and egregious expectation.

Karlien1968 I loved it...I really did. It is slow paced, what I absolutely like. The costumes where beautiful and detailed. Also the scenery was well done and gave an atmosphere of how it used to be.Worth watching...not the best...but really enjoyed it!