Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

Let's be realistic.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

a real useful film. for its delicate beauty. for the different side of a legendary queen. for the recreation of atmosphere. for costumes. for the cast. and, more important, for the flavor who has different nuances by many other historical films because it gives the emotion who seems similar to the feelings when you admire old family pictures. its grace is the basic virtue . and the science of director to explore the parts of a kind of labyrinth of events, choices, gestures and decisions preserving the air of fairy tale who defines each love story. because it is a love story but "in nuce". the young queen is the axis of the venerable grandmother of Europe.

The main mistake of this movie is excessive pandering to modern audiences. It is understandable that they are trying to bring the actions in the movie closer to today's world. For example, the latest version of "Pride and Prejudice" that is elegantly done, while "The Young Victoria" remains overcrowded with glamorous details. The costumes are good. Each dress is impressive to observe, you will appreciate their effort, but when you look closely you will see a film that often promotes luxury at the cost of being authentic. Why should you watch this movie? Definitely not for the sake of new knowledge, but for the understanding of someone who was unable to find his way in the role that was premature given. And that is the biggest success of this film.

I don't think the film really sets itself apart from other period-bio films from its ilk. It has the usual sort of sentimentality. But, that doesn't mean it's not a good film. Rupert Friend is his usual pretty self, very hot, but he does bring a lot to his role. He can usually be very stoic and emotionless while being just decorated as pretty, but can often not bring much to the table. Here, he absolutely does. He's able to paint the shades of his character well, even if another more talented actor could've brought even more to it. But really, the film belongs to Emily Blunt, a severely underrated actress who brings so much to her roles, and in a leading role, she can knock it out of the park like she does here. She's incredible, definitely snubbed of an Oscar nomination.

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).