🎦 Tulip Fever full movie mp4 hd 1080p download, 1080p download Tulip Fever full movie mp4 hd. 🎬
Tulip Fever
Drama, Romance
IMDB rating:
Justin Chadwick
Christoph Waltz as Cornelis Sandvoort
Dane DeHaan as Jan Van Loos
Douglas Hodge as Johan De Bye
Alicia Vikander as Sophia
Cara Delevingne as Henrietta
Michael Nardone as Daan The Auctioneer
Jack O'Connell as William
Kevin McKidd as Johan De Bye
Tom Hollander as Dr. Sorgh
Judi Dench as The Abbess of St. Ursula
Sebastian Armesto as Eduart Asmus
Joanna Scanlan as Mrs Overvalt
David Harewood as Prater
Matthew Morrison as Mattheus
Storyline: In 17th Century Amsterdam, an orphaned girl Sophia (Alicia Vikander) is forcibly married to a rich and powerful merchant Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz) - an unhappy "arrangement" that saves her from poverty. After her husband commissions a portrait, she begins a passionate affair with the painter Jan Van Loos (Dane DeHaan), a struggling young artist. Seeking to escape the merchant's ever-reaching grasp, the lovers risk everything and enter the frenzied tulip bulb market, with the hope that the right bulb will make a fortune and buy their freedom.
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x802 px 3707 Mb h264 4943 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x304 px 1069 Mb mpeg4 1425 Kbps avi Download
Ignore Critics - Engrossing Film
Saw this film this past weekend. I had initially checked out reviews here - which at the time were strongly biased to the negative. Having now seen the film I feel I was seriously misled. I went into the film less positive than needed. This is an excellent historical drama. At least 8 stars, and I have given 10 stars. I left the film decided to write this review to let others know that this is a decent film for entertainment, and for thinking. Well worth anyone's time.

Some negative comments made were sufficient to create such a confusing impression that they are inexplicable (imo) - examples: voice narration makes perfect sense, and there is nothing confusing about the initial 45 minutes of plot. I could go on but that should be enough to indicate that everyone should approach this film in a positive frame. If you are into period dramas and history elegantly rendered, this film definitely deserves your attention. Definitely deserves awards for costumes and sets Imo.

As stated by some others, source material for this screenplay was excellent so the story is both compelling and unique. The production is lush and beautifully realized. If you love period dramas, and good love stories, this one will do just fine, with the added joy of being an historical drama fully realized taking place in Amsterdam (rather than London). I found the tulip trade backstory fascinating.

Performances all round are uniformly excellent as well. No complaints. Well done, All.
Tulip Flu
'Tulip Fever' transforms a promising idea into Dutch farce as its script heaps unnecessary complications onto a tale of marital infidelity in 17th century Amsterdam. The film opens with beautiful penniless Sophia being married off to a wealthy middle-aged merchant who desires a male heir. After three years have passed and no child has appeared, the merchant commissions a double portrait of himself and his young wife for posterity.

When Sophia unwisely falls for the debt-laden artist, everything seems nicely set up for some intense domestic double-dealing, but director Chadwick drowns the narrative in a torrent of subplots. While Sophia cavorts with the artist in his garret, her maid has been dallying with a fishmonger in the scullery. Before too long, the lovers of both mistress and servant are speculating in Holland's tulip-mania bubble to improve their fortunes and romantic prospects. Meanwhile, the two women hatch an implausible plan to deal with their own problems. As the scheming becomes increasingly absurd, the story falls apart and the actors lose faith in their characters. Long before the end, most of the audience will have joined them, as the resolution to all the financial intrigues and amorous chicanery turns the final act into slapstick melodrama.
Strong source material, cast and detail overcome confused and shaky 1st reel.
I had the privilege of seeing this film in preview in the famous Tuschinski theatre in the heart of the canal district in Amsterdam. Having enjoyed the novel whilst living there in 2011, I have watched as it's release dates have been continually changed giving all the signs of a production in distress. Early rumours of poor test screenings can be damaging whether true or not! Like another reviewer I found the opening narration at odds with the images and consequently confusing. The first 40 minutes edited in a pedestrian style merely to tick off necessary plot points, and without any sensitivity to mood or place, so prevalent in the novel. Strangely, the movie seemed to be both full of beautiful 'pictures', historical detail, visual treats and mood, and yet at the same time, the continued use of one street set left it feeling small and enclosed and almost like stage set. Little sense of Amsterdam as a City State enjoying a glorious rise on the world stage. At that point (after 40 minutes) having laid out the plot points and established the characters, the film starts to build, thanks to the real tension in the original story, a good script and some fine performances. I got over a niggling feeling of disappointment at the 'smallness' of the set production, and instead decided to enjoy the abundant visual detail and the way the story started to rip along. Ultimately the great story rose above the shaky first reel and the production design above its limited scale. I was with two friends who hadn't read the book, and we all three came to really enjoy the film, despite the confused and hurried beginnings. It deserves to rise above its production history and be widely seen and enjoyed. It doesn't quite reach the heights of the source material, but it's far from a failure with much to enjoy.
with the chance to be beautiful. because it seems be example of impeccable strategy: the actors, the Amsterdam, costumes, flavor of an old world, provocative love story. the only sin - the high , rich ambition to say all the story in a manner remembering labyrinth. this is the basic sin. who transforms a sort of fairy tale in a confuse trip across stories, love stories, secrets, crazy plans and solutions. sure, it has a lot of virtues. and it is charming in deep sense. but something change the basic flavor. and the seduction is reduced.
Fevers for love, vanity and greed abound in 17th Century Amsterdam.
British TV director Justin Chadwick's film debut is like a 17th Century Dutch painting — in its historic and social setting, in its lighting but also and mainly in its themes.

The film animates the details that the young portrait painter includes in his commissioned work: the love of beauty, reverence for nature, the temptation and fear of vanity and — most of all — its reminder of man's mortality. Here all of our rich life and all our hopes remind us of death. "First flower, first fall," master Sandvort says of a tulip but that truth rules the lovers' lives as well.

Of course this historic period piece essentially reflects on today. Why else revisit the past but to understand the now.

The madness of the tulip investment frenzy finds ample modern parallels in Nortel, the high tech, mortgage, marijuana and real estate bubbles, not to mention the evergreen turbulent stock market. There is always some current fever to tempt the gullible and greedy to get rich quick. And as so often, the vanity that believes in such unearned advancement oft proves disastrous.

Vanity is the film's — and the painting genre's — primary target. Out of vanity Sandvort buys his beautiful orphan wife Sophia like a precious jar and out of vanity pursues his hunger for a male heir. It is even vain of him to presume that it was his prayer — that God preserve the newborn infant over his first wife — that prompted God to take both. If he is vain to tell his friend that he'll dump Sophia if she's not pregnant in six months, he is moderated by his love to keep her. Indeed, at Sophia's ostensible pregnancy Sandvort asks Dr Sorgh to save Sophia over the child, if the choice is necessary.

Out of vanity Sandvort commissions the double painting, even after the artist clearly exposes the vanity of human wishes and security. Of course the plan backfires when the painter and Sophia Sandvort fall in love.

Both sets of young lovers risk their passions in pursuit of the tulip fortune that would fund their escape. Both are thwarted by folly. Maria's young man makes his fortune. Falsely assuming her infidelity, he goes to a tavern where he is robbed of it and is shanghaied into the navy and off to Africa. He leaves his pregnant lover in the dark. (Well, in the even darker, given the film's period lighting.) The artist briefly forgets he's in art not business and bets his future on the tulip market.

Of course there are other fevers than just the tulip. The minor one is the drunk's helplessness before temptation, even when conducting that serious mission. A creature of appetite, he eats the bulb on which so many characters' fates depend.

The other primary fever is love, which drives both young men into ruinous careers. So intense are the relationships that out of desperation Maria threatens to expose her dear and close mistress Sophia in order to save herself. Sophia spurns the doctor who offers to help her provide his husband's heir. But to enable her escape with the artist she concocts the complex plot to pass Maria's baby off as her own and to feign death.

The film's parts from the genre in its happy endings. None of the key characters die here. Sandvort, ashamed and defeated, bequeaths his house to Maria and makes a new fortune and family in the West Indies.

The two young men also thrive, once they abandon their delusion of easy wealth. The fishmonger becomes master of the Sandvort estate. The artist achieves fame for his art. From sketching his nude lover he advances to a commission in the church — where he learns Sophia did not die after all but became a nun. Sophia realized she could not go through with her indulgent escape, nor could she return to the loving and betrayed Sandvort. So she returns to her original home, the convent.

Love conquers all after all. As the abbess remarks, stories don't end; they just diverge. A painting freezes a moment in time. We read into it what may have led up to its composition and what we may deduce will ensue. But film continues through time, so it affords the grace of these happy resolutions.

The script shows Tom Stoppard's usual level of intellectual ambition and clarity. There are also flashes of his wit. "What will you bid," one man asks after an auction. "Farewell." "Is that necessary?" Maria asks Dr Sorgh when he prepares to explore up her skirts. "Not really. Force of habit." Hence Sophia's return.
A good period piece that occasionally even steps into "great" territory
"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.
Pretty but basic historical love story
It's a timeless tale of love and betrayal and people doing shitty things to people who are good to them, based on a 1999's novel by Deborah Moggach who also wrote a screenplay for this. Once upon a long time ago in Amsterdam: a married woman (Alicia Vikander) begins a passionate affair with an artist (Dane DeHaan) hired to work for her husband (Christoph Waltz). The lovers gamble on hot market for tulips to get the money for escaping together. Also appearing, Judi Dench, Zach Galifianakis, Jack O'Connell, Holliday Grainger, Tom Hollander, Cara Delevingne and others. This must be one of the more hated movies of 2017 I've come across: Metacritic score 37 out of 100, Rotten Tomatoes's 8 out of 100. It's far from disaster but I can't say it's good either. To start with the positive, the movie looks gorgeous, the mid-17th century Amsterdam feels very lively and booming although we don't see much of it, most events take place inside somewhere. The pictures added here really don't do the movie justice but I didn't find a better selection online. The actors make their best of their material, although the characters are so one-note that only screen veterans in supporting roles (Waltz, Dench, Hollander) manage to give really memorable performances. The young stars (Vikander, DeHaan) do adequate work and they have good enough chemistry to offer some steamy love-making scenes… but you can't really compete with Waltz or Dench in terms of range or sheer presence, can you? Based on acting and how the movie looks, the result would deserve a higher score… but the storytelling really makes a mess of everything. In 107 minutes, there's so many events and relationships and so little willingness to develop them properly that several major plot points or turns fall entirely flat and lose any believability or dramatic impact. All in all, „Tulip Fever" is disappointment. It's certainly watchable if underwhelming… but it could have been good. Still, I like both young stars and look forward to seeing them in other, better realised movies. It's also interesting to note that Vikander is the new Lara Croft in „Tomb Raider'" reboot coming in March. The project has an unlucky history which is actually a fair bit more interesting than the final movie itself. The shoots were originally planned in 2004, with Jude Law and Keira Knightley as leads and John Madden („Shakespeare in Love") as director. However, the production was halted 12 days before the shooting because of changes in tax rules affecting film production in the UK. Dreamworks had already built a massive set of the Amsterdam canals, and planted 12,000 tulips which were dead-headed. The current production was shot in 2014 but the release was postponed for three years due to negative test screenings.
Holland in the Golden Age
Tulip Fever (2017) was adapted from a novel by Deborah Moggach, scripted by Tom Stoppard, and directed by Justin Chadwick.

The film is set in Amsterdam between November 1636 and February 1637, during the Tulipmania period of Dutch history. The price of tulip bulbs skyrocketed for those few months, and then crashed precipitously. Fortunes were made by speculators. Some became rich and stayed rich, if they were insightful enough to quit while they were ahead. Others, who stayed in the market, were ruined.

The movie shows us five people involved--directly or indirectly--in the Tulipmania. Alicia Vikander portrays Sophia Sandvoort. Sophia is a young woman whose entire family was saved from poverty when she agreed to marry an older merchant--Cornelis Sandvoort--portrayed brilliantly by Christoph Waltz. Cornelis is very proud of his beautiful wife, and arranges to have their portrait painted by rising young artist Jan Van Loos (Dane DeHaan). Naturally, the two young people fall in love.

There's a secondary plot that is very much entwined in the primary plot. That involves Sophia's maid, Maria (Holliday Grainger) and a young fishmonger, Willem Brok (Jack O'Connell).

Dame Judi Dench plays the abbess of an orphanage. Sophia was taken from the orphanage to be married to Cornelis. The orphanage appears to be a place where they grow tulips, and also certify that the tulip bulb you are paying for is the tulip bulb you're going to get.

The acting in the film is superb. (Three of the leads--Vikander, Waltz, and Dench--are Oscar winners.)

Production values are very high. I have some sense of what Amsterdam looked like in the 17th Century, because this was the Dutch artistic Golden Age, and many wonderful paintings display what we see on the screen. (This includes street scenes, seascapes, domestic scenes, and tavern scenes.)

Tulip Fever has been scourged by the critics. The reviewer for USA Today criticized the film on many levels. For example, it was badly marketed. That may be so, but that doesn't affect the quality of the movie.

The leads had no chemistry. Wrong--I don't know what film he saw, but it couldn't have been this one.

The film had too much nudity, or the trailer promised too much nudity. This is an R-rated romance. Did he expect to see the young couple just holding hands or playing Monopoly?

The dialog was too plain. A lover says, "You have my heart." His partner answers, "And you have mine." Sounds OK to me.

Finally--and apparently worst of all--is that the movie was about buying and selling tulips! What did he expect from a movie entitled Tulip Fever? It wasn't about selling onions. It was called Tulip Fever because it was about Tulipmania!

Having dispensed with the USA Today review, I have to admit that the film has a dismal IMDb rating of 6.3. It's a much better film than that. I recommend it, if only to see Dench, Waltz, and Vikander act. We saw it on the large screen at Rochester's excellent Little Theatre. It won't work as well on the small screen, but it's still worth seeing.

P.S. Alicia Vikander is emerging as the brightest new star on the screen. I think she is our next Meryl Streep.
Good plot but some weak casting and chaotic direction
It's not often that a historical fictional work has a good plot that comes together and has a feelgood ending, so I was pleasantly surprised. The way things came together and worked out was quite clever. The Vermeer like interiors and costumes are quite admirable as is the attention to detail.

There are a couple of faults with the production. The sets were crowded and too slum like - could have been prettier. How about some pretty tulip fields? Some scenes were too chaotic and there was too much running around. The tulip market bubble was to frenzied to be clear.

Quite an impressive cast list but there are some casting faults and successes. Holliday Grainger is for once suited to the role - her plump cheeks really make her right for the role of Dutch maid. Alicia Vikander on the other hand seemed too dark complexioned and thin to be a Dutch woman from that time. Not suited for the role. Dane DeHaan is too sickly and weak looking to inspire such a passion. Why he was cast as a romantic lead baffles. Christoph Waltz is even more masculine looking than him.

Worth a watch for the good story.
Read my two lips! This is a beautiful movie! Critics don't know how to review a female oriented film
In 1600's Amsterdam, Sofia (Alicia Vikander) has had an unconventional life. As an orphan, she was rescued to live at an abbey, run by the Abbess (Judi Dench). Then, as a beautiful young woman, she was "bought" by a wealthy widower, Cornelis (Christoph Waltz); that is, he gave a great gift to the Catholic run operation and received Sofia as his second wife. Cornelis' great dream is to have offspring, but in three years of marriage, Sofia has not conceived. In the household is a maid, Maria (Holliday Granger) who is Sofia's only friend. Then, two events shake Sofia's existence. First, Maria has a handsome suitor, Willem (Jack O'Connell), the fishmonger, and passion takes over as the two meet in Maria's chambers. As a result, Maria becomes pregnant. However, due to a twist of fate, Willem is made to enlist in the Navy. The maid is in despair. But, more importantly, Cornelis decides the world must have a portrait of himself and his beautiful young wife. Commissioning a rising artist, Jan (Dane DeHaan) the younger man is instantly drawn to Sofia and she loses her heart to him as well. They meet in secret and hatch a plan, involving Maria and the aid of brash Dr. Sorgh (Tom Hollander, hysterical). All throughout the tale, men and women are gambling on the price of tulip bulbs, a commodity at the time as precious as gold, including Jan; each of them want to be instantly wealthy. Will Sofia leave Cornelis for Jan, under cover of darkness? Listen, read my two lips. This is a beautiful film with a great story and a sensational art direction, including costumes. Vikander, Waltz, DeHaan Granger, O'Connell, Zack Galifinakis, Hollander, and Dench do very fine work. If you love history, love stories, and intrigue, you will ADORE TULIP FEVER! Do not let any critic, any review, any friend dissuade you from seeing it!
📹 Tulip Fever full movie mp4 hd 1080p download, download Tulip Fever full hd 1080p movie. Nancy: Download Tulip Fever english subtitles i loved it. Subtitles is a very good human invention. Still I can add that I look through a lot of movies, including all genre Drama, Romance very much. My favorite film director - is of course Justin Chadwick and Zach Galifianakis, Christoph Waltz, Holly Grainger, Dane DeHaan, Douglas Hodge, Alicia Vikander, Cara Delevingne, Michael Nardone, Jack O'Connell, Kevin McKidd, Tom Hollander, Judi Dench, Sebastian Armesto, Joanna Scanlan, David Harewood, Matthew Morrison, Alexandra Gilbreath acting is just wonderful. * Nichol: Long sought where I could find here download Tulip Fever HD and good downloading movie website on the site. * Terry: My favorite movie format is MKV and I download Tulip Fever MKV, I was just amazed at the quality. Recommened to all MKV format. 📀