🎦 Film Tulip Fever, download cinema Tulip Fever, download Tulip Fever film online, Tulip Fever the film, Tulip Fever film review, cinema Tulip Fever online. Download Tulip Fever in HD, DVD, DivX and iPod quality. Film Tulip Fever download 2017 📹.
Download Tulip Fever Film Online 🎥
Year:
2017
Country:
USA, UK
Genre:
Drama, Romance
IMDB rating:
6.2
Director:
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 1920x808 px 7836 Mb h264 10450 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x300 px 489 Mb h264 652 Kbps mkv Download
Reviews
Not as bad as reviewers make it out
I have put a lot of store in Metacritic ratings, but found their rating on this surprisingly far from mine own impression (them 37 me 71). This is rare, but then again I rarely go see movies if they rate it below 70. Stoppard is a genius, and as a production designer I can't pass up a film whose trailers show decent period design, so i had to go see it on the big screen.

The design here was indeed pretty good, a little stagy on the interiors and a bit too obvious CGI, but worth the price of admission on its own none the less. The acting is actually very good, and the script has some nice subtleties, with a clever, satisfying and unusually nuanced resolution.

Perhaps part of what turned the critics were the expectations. The budget was high, the cast renowned and everyone agrees that Stoppard is a genius, leading to some let down for what might have been. But you need to meet a piece of art where it stands and not where you hoped it might be, and this is a much better film that its reviews suggest.
2017-09-09
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.
2017-09-16
Fun, fast-paced period piece with a talented cast!
Tulip Fever felt like modern Shakespeare, ironic tragedies fill the plot laced with wit and humor. The film hardly takes time to meander, moving like a whip through the streets of 17th century Amsterdam and plot line point by point, quick enough to entertain as not to bore. It was beautifully shot and the cast showed up to work, with Christopher Waltz and Alicia Vikander really shining. If you're a fan of period pieces and smart humor, you'll like this one! If you're in for a bit of romance there's some of that for you too, or if you want to see Alicia Vikander prove once again why she's an Oscar winning actress, the movie is worth a viewing.
2017-09-01
Review of preview of Tulip Fever
(Note: this is based on a focus-group preview. I imagine they tried to fix it, but I can't imagine how they could have succeeded.)

In the 1600s Dutch investors created a speculative bubble involving tulips. Or at least, a book says that happened, although according to wikipedia the claim has its skeptics as to the extent of this supposed mania. Whether it really happened or not, Tulip Fever is about an illicit romance that gets mixed into Tulip speculation. It's from a book, and perhaps the book is interesting, but the movie is decidedly not.

There are a number of issues with the film. The main character, played by Alicia Vikander, has zero personality. Her lover has little more. The other main characters are a little better, but it's only small parts by Judy Dench as an acerbic nun and Tom Hollander as an amusingly sleazy doctor that display any real personality.

The bigger problem is the script. First off, the movie doesn't have much going on for the first half. Just an unhappy marriage leading to adultery.

A plot of sorts finally kicks in maybe halfway through with the Tulip part, but introduced at the same time is the first of some really stupid twists; a mistaken-identity bit that is remarkably unconvincing and leads to further, equally unconvincing problems.

Towards the end, there's another stupid turn in the story that is so poorly prepped that a character has to be asked if he's drunk to set up a problem because the movie has never bothered to indicate he's a heavy drinker or particularly untrustworthy. Then something both predictable and moronic happens.

There's also an absurd, unsatisfying ending.

I mean, there's more stupidity, but I don't need to list it all.

The story's plot turns are the ridiculous sort you might expect from a Shakespeare comedy, which would be fine if this were actually a comedy. Perhaps the scriptwriter's intended a comedy and the director failed to notice?

This was written by the guy who wrote Shakespeare in Love, and is clearly meant to scratch a similar itch, but it is not romantic, charming, humorous, or involving, so it misses the target completely.

I understand this movie had originally been intended for a release a few months ago and then was altered, so what I saw was presumably an attempt to fix a disaster. I hate to think what the earlier version must have been like.

When I saw this movie it was set for a February release - a delay on its original release date - but now apparently it's scheduled for August. So it had one delay before I saw it - presumably because the first version was even worse than this - and now there's another delay which I would guess is because they still hope to fix it.

The best thing to do would probably be to just bury it.
2017-03-03
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.
2017-09-11
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.
2017-09-13
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.
2017-09-13
Love and Tulips in the Netherlands of the 17th century
Hi everyone. I watched Tulip Fever yesterday. I wanted to see this film, because it has an excellent cast. Just take a look at this list: Alicia Vikander, Christoph Waltz, Judi Dench, Jack O'Connell and etc. Although I'm not a fan of this genre (Romance, Drama). This picture tell us about tulip fever int 17th century in Netherlands. It is the first story line. The second story line is a love story of one family. And of course these two stories overlap. This is the main plot of the film. During the film, the main characters will make difficult life decisions. But this is not a love story like Woody Allen's. The story has several interesting plot twists. But I think that if you've seen many romance films, for you it will be predictable twists.

Well, now what I liked: 1) The production designer has created great costumes (you can see them in the scene when Alicia Vicander comes to the market and we see a contrast between the rich and the poor) 2) Justin Chadwick ambiguously show us tulip fever (love fever and tulip fever). This intrigues the viewer

And some disadvantages: 1) I was disappointed, when i see the play of actors. Only Alicia Vicander and Christophe Waltz really played well, and the viewer can only empathize with them.

As for me, I liked this movie, although I'm not a fan of this genre. Finally, I can recommend Tulip Fever everyone who wants to get acquainted with costume dramas.
2017-08-29
That was strangely done comedy?
If it was one. The movie was fun and entertaining and a joy to watch. It feels like a comedy, despite its dark drama tone, or rather style. It made me fell like I should not laugh, so I didn't, which was hard not to do.

A great tale taking place during an era in history when everyone was going wild over what was a new and rare flower. Didn't fully understand or grasp the entire Tulip Fever joust but luckily that was more of a sub plot despite the title. The movie is a strange Shakespeare-like love affair between a painter and a woman who was practically sold to a well meaning man to be his wife.

How perfect was it that Christoph Waltz plays this well meaning man. It's one of his best attributes, playing a bad guy that you can't help to like. Though not as evil as his charter in Tim Burton's Big Eyes ( I mention this movie because they are closer in comparison), he just acts as the antagonist in the plot that centers around two people who should not and cannot be together in a somewhat Romeo and Juliet style of fate. Also give a shout out to Zach Galifianakis. There were some pretty big names in this film (As far as acting. I mean with three Oscar winners in it), and Zachary had to stomp it with the big dogs. Though his role was very small, it was important as it really points out that this is a dark comedy.

It reads like a sex romp comedy too cultured and sophisticated for my taste (Prefer other Galifianakis works like The Hangover ), but it's done well, so I really enjoy it.

http://cinemagardens.com/
2017-09-18
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.
2017-09-05
🎬 Download film Tulip Fever * Tulip Fever 2017 film * Tulip Fever 2017 in cinema * Tulip Fever film 2017 * Tulip Fever cinema listings * Tulip Fever film city * Tulip Fever film release date * Tulip Fever in Cinema UK. * Vincent: When I downloaded a film and still Tulip Fever in HD I was ecstatic! * Phillip: DivX format movies are my favorite and most important online. * Denise: When I saw that the network released the films release Tulip Fever I immediately downloaded it to the DVD format. * Anita: Cinema Tulip Fever online my very best movie! * Sherrie Fretwell: Justin Chadwick - super in film Tulip Fever and the actors 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 I have them all crazy. * Jacobs: Film Tulip Fever my favorite movies and it does not matter that I even joined this site. * Margie: Though I am a girl, give my opinion, a cheap film Tulip Fever pleased with my entire family, Im the acting 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 very specific 📀.
×