Robert J. Maxwell Emily Blunt is Victoria who, when her uncle dies, succeeds to the throne. Everyone figures her to be a passive leader. After all, she's just a kid, has no experience, and is a woman to boot.Various august personages are vying for influence over her. Now, if this were an ill-considered movie, we'd have a robust feminist figure dressing down the Old Boy network and taking charge in no uncertain way.But this is a a more savvy story than that. She's no will o' the wisp when it comes to decision making and even temper. She can throw a childish fit. But she needs a man, just as men of that stature need a wife, and she finds him in one of her less aggressive suitors, Prince Albert of Saxony, Coberg, and Ruritania. And, no, we don't get to see Prince Albert go to the can.It's different from what you'd expect and its informative. (I, for one, never knew that Albert was shot in an assassination attempt.) Ordinarily, This kind of biopic takes us through to the inevitable end. As Ernest Hemingway once observed, every love story is a tragedy because at the end one of the lovers dies.NOT HERE. We don't even follow Victoria and Albert into old age, just the first couple of years of their marriage. The last shot is of the two of them in bed, the smiling queen gently hugging the heroic Prince Consort or whatever he was. Their futures and their ends are given in a printed epilogue.I liked it. Okay, so it ends happily instead of tragically, but these days, who needs more tragedy in his life? The location film is superlative. It will make you rufous with envy. It will coagulate your eyeballs. The ladies costumes are suitably muted but the men in uniform wear outrageous colors. Out of uniform they wear black suits with stylishly skinny shoulders. Most of the interiors have so many paintings they resemble the Louvre except for the dining rooms. They're all framed, tinged, and imbued with gilt and appointed with Louis XIV furniture and resemble Donald Trump's suite at Trump Towers.Emily Blunt is a professional and convincing actress -- and in fact all the performances are at least adequate. She's also quietly pretty. It's not high drama, to be sure, but, again, I don't think I could take much more high drama without stroking out. It's a velvety narrative of romance and the exercise of power. You'll probably not be bored.

Filipe Neto This film tells the events surrounding the ascension to the throne of Queen Victoria of Great Britain, one of the most striking and well-remembered queens that the country has had to date. Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, has a script by Julian Fellowes, the direction of Sarah Ferguson (former Duchess of York) and features Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend in the lead roles.Although the film doesn't have a completely neutral script, it sought to portray the truth of historical facts, even failing to judge them impartially and having some historical inaccuracies in the middle. When a historical film is made it shouldn't change the history portrayed, even for dramatic purposes. But this unfortunately costs to understand for most directors and writers. The sets and costumes are excellent and are fully consistent with the time, the picture isn't surprising but does what it has to do, the soundtrack uses reasonably well pieces of classical music in vogue at the time. Most actors fulfill their functions, especially the rotten duo Miranda Richardson and Mark Strong. Emily Blunt, however, has earned stardom by giving life to a dreamy and passionate Victoria, still ignored by us and obscured by the queen she would become later. The film managed to capture the relationship between Victoria and Albert in a very forceful way, such as the importance of that for the re-popularization of the monarchy during that time.This film tries to be a historical drama with deep touches of romance, taking the lives and loves of Victoria to show us that a monarchy is not only gold, sex and scandals. It fulfilled that purpose appealing to the audience's heart with a Victoria who we managed to like, and that's far from the unpleasant old lady that comes to our minds most of the time.

Tim Kidner Don't get me wrong, Emily Blunt seems perfect as the young Queen, her diction exemplary, her poise Regal. As are all the leading players are (not diction, or poise!) very good in their roles from our favourite big and small screen stars - Miranda Richardson, Paul Bettany, Mark Strong, Rupert Friend, Jim Broadbent etc.There are lots of reviews up here and so I won't want to repeat too much of they say, but somehow, the very high standards of production, often very glossy (and Oscar winner for Costume Design), plus the lush and swelling stereo (surround) sound, take away the tactility of both the subjects and the film itself. Not that I'm necessarily wanting to get back to the VHS quality of 1980s 'costume drama', mind you!Maybe it's because many of the characters are portrayed as hard-nosed and bitchy, out of date and greedy. This does highlight the romantic side of the film, though, between Victoria and Albert, as they get to know each other, but this takes a good while to reach and isn't as clammily awful as it could have been. Endearing almost, which is a bit distant from the often perceived hardness of the monarch in her more documented reign of later life.It's entertaining enough with some gorgeous photography of some lovely stately homes and is perfect fodder for a dark early winter's evening. There's no sex or violence, though adults will be in no doubt when those bits take place, hence the PG certificate.As a history lesson, it's OK, it's never rammed down our throats and if we choose, we can just let it run and simply enjoy the surface sheen. The acting never really is raised beyond what is needed - Jim Broadbent as King William IV shouting very loudly at a huge banquet might be considered as full-bodied acting but it's not necessarily good. The two main players do have their moments but Julian Fellowes' (writer also of Downton Abbey) screenplay is necessarily rather clipped and to the point - I don't think small-talk was the done thing in Victoria's household!So, good solid entertainment that's good to look at and which should please the Period Drama brigade as well as reaching a wider - and younger, audience. The Sinead O'Connor end titles song is a beautiful and fitting climax that firmly tells us that this film was intended to be a popularist one, which, I think is a good thing.

Leofwine_draca Taking place in the mid 19th century and at the height of the British Empire, THE YOUNG VICTORIA is a film that explores the early life of one of Britain's most famous monarchs. It's a beautifully shot film with a stately feel that moves along in its own time, building a tapestry populated with foreign princes, conniving politicians and overbearing family members. How much you'll enjoy it depends on your tolerance for pomp and splendour, because THE YOUNG VICTORIA is absolutely packed with it.Given that the movie takes place during one of the most reserved eras of British history, it's no surprise that most of the cast give carefully mannered and subdued performances. Emily Blunt feels sufficiently regal in the part, although I never warmed to her character; her entire career seems to consist of playing a snob, and there's no exception here.Rupert Friend, Paul Bettany and Miranda Richardson all get important parts but are basic window-dressing, while Mark Strong is a shoehorned-in villain. Jim Broadbent has one excellent outburst during a dinner scene which really shakes things up. This film may not be entirely historically accurate, but it provides a neat counterpart to the popular royal topics in recent time s(i.e. 20th century or Tudor monarchs).