Admirable film.

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Blistering performances.

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of 1980s 'costume drama', mind you!Maybe it's because many of the characters are portrayed as hard-nosed and bitchy, out of date and greedy.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

delicate subject. beautiful images. science of detail. result - an history lesson, a love story, new slices from a princess life/struggle, great performance and drops of political affairs. first steps of a queen out of any definition. beginning of a new era. and atmosphere of romance, force, innocence and difficult decisions. its important virtue - grace. the impression of subtle dance in middle of arena. nothing complicated, all full of flavor of that period. it is not exactly a show. it is an exercise about values and feelings. sketch of freedom power. picture of ladder for metamorphose of a kind of Cinderella in a magnificent queen. only strange - the portrait of Leopold I of Belgium. but nothing is perfect!

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).