The Young Victoria (2009)

Nice effects though.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Queen Victoria (Emily Blunt) was born in 1819 and gains the crown in 1838 after her uncle King William IV (Jim Broadbent)'s death. One year earlier, she is controlled by her mother Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her husband Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong). They want her to sign over her powers by declaring a regency. King Leopold of Belgium wants to secure the crown by sending his nephew Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) to seduce Victoria. She falls under the influence of Prime Minister Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany).This is a solid historical drama with Emily Blunt bringing a solid performance. In the end, it is more of a history lesson that needs more drama to make it compelling. It's a stoic biopic. Quebecois director Jean-Marc Vallée does a competent job bringing out the regal palatial glow. The story needs to zero in on the essential relationship that it wants to bring out. I'm not sure Albert is the most compelling although it's the easiest for a historical romance. I would have liked to see Victoria through Melbourne's eyes instead.

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of 1980s 'costume drama', mind you!Maybe it's because many of the characters are portrayed as hard-nosed and bitchy, out of date and greedy.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.

As I said on another post, I love period pieces. This one was very good too from a lot I have watched until now. But a bit flawed too. Emily Blunt was a great actress, she did a very good job, but not her best. Now I'm not an actress to dispute other's abilities to portray a character, but as a viewer giving his three cents I just got a little bit annoyed by her constant laughing at some scenes. I don't know the history about Queen Victoria, nor I read or learned about who and how she really was, but from this movie she seemed not that royal-sh. But Mrs Blunt still did a great job though, her laugh didn't made me rank lower this movie. The story was slow, decent and beautiful by the end. The acting was great, Rupert did a wonderful job as prince Albert. He is new for me on screen, unfortunately I haven't seen other production's by him until now, but I'm looking forward from now on. The costume and designer's were great also. But it didn't make me feel that I was watching a 1800's placed movie but a really modern one. Hope everyone understands what I mean.All in all it was good. Minor flaws, but worth watching.8/10

This is a really beautiful, sensitive, and romantic period movie. I like the surprising feistiness of Victoria, and the way the film fights against the subdued role of women in the Victorian age. There are some odd moments-- would Albert and Victoria's first meeting really be so honest, complaining about how they both felt controlled like chess pieces, with so much at stake? _while moving chess pieces_?! It felt cheesy at times then, but it does set up the central conflict of the film.The period pieces and drama are just really, really beautiful. Art/Costume is A+++, best I've ever seen in a period movie. There are little details like arranging sparkling wineglasses in order and focusing out. I kept trying to remember the color patterns of the gowns; they were so stylish. It's so inspiring. It's surprisingly historically accurate: they have a play on a that famous drawing where Victoria is told that she is queen, while still in her nightgown, with the councillors bowing down before her, which I thought was surprisingly sensitive. One reviewer says, "I doubt if (the king) would have gone so far as to bawl abuse at (his sister in law) during a state banquet". It's funny enough but the true story was that he did publicly yell at Victoria's mother while proclaiming his intention to 'carry on' until his lovely niece turned 18, so I loved to see that scene on film-- it's crazy to believe it actually happened. The music here is very classical and appropriate to the period, but you have to like Liszt and Schubert.I liked the characters more than I should've; it's romanticizing a harsher time. Albert's tutors upbraid him for not knowing Victoria's tastes, haha. He plays his part with subtlety, expressionless and reserved. Emily Blunt is so good in this role where you can see her frustrations, her anger, her happiness under a reserved demeanor.An unnecessarily dramatic ending, but I guess there does have to be romance in this movie to carry it along, since not much else is doing so. It's a little predictable and cliché--even as they were getting in the carriage I was thinking (knowing a bit about Victorian history) 'oh, they're probably going to shoot her now to make this a dramatic ending and tie up this movie nicely.' Sigh. There's no real intrigue, and plot points aren't carried out to the end (at one point, protesters storm at the palace gates, and Victoria shuts her eyes and rolls over in bed until the problem goes away.) I wish we were shown the intriguing romance with a story of how Victoria conquered the scheming at court in her first few years as queen; this movie is so mellow that it can only give us the romance.