web
counter
 

Sumptuously Anemic

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (36)



alg_blunt.jpg

Full disclosure: I don’t typically care for period pieces, nor can I claim with any honesty that I can’t take that bias into my review of The Young Victoria. I didn’t like it — in fact, I rather hated it. But if you like Victorian period pieces, then you might feel differently, assuming that one excellent performance, great cinematography, and lots of pretty costumes are enough to satisfy you. The Young Victoria, in that respect, is more than competent — fans of watching British actors titter and scowl while wearing uncomfortable clothing will no doubt come away pleased.

But if you put a lot of stock in script, pace, drama, or tension, then you’ll come away from The Young Victoria as disappointed as you’d be, perhaps, in Avatar. The Young Victoria is a visual feast of frill — your Granny’s toilet doilies have nothing on this movie. It’s lush and extravagant period porn, glamor and sumpt rendered exquisitely enough to give you sympathetic pinching pains around your fat rolls.

But it is also painfully dull, and about as empty as a bulimic’s tummy after a festive afternoon upchuck. Save for Emily Blunt’s charismatic performance as a Young Queen Victoria (and four or five minutes with Svengalian Mark Strong (as Sir John Conroy)), The Young Victoria is inert and lifeless through the first two acts. The third act, unbelievably, is even worse — it’s tortuously slow, so much so that I briefly grew nauseatingly bored and had to look away for a few minutes, lest Jean-Marc Vallée’s draggy costume drama slow my heart rate to a halt.

Those familiar with Queen Victoria — the longest reigning monarch in the history of the British Empire — may not be particularly familiar with the details of her life preceding her coronation, but undoubtedly, anyone with even a passing interest in seeing The Young Victoria knows how it will end, which completely removes the possibility of suspense or dramatic tension. The Young Victoria picks up shortly before the Queen’s coronation — she’s not quite 18, and her uncle, King William (Jim Broadbent), is trying to hold out long enough so that she doesn’t need a Regent to manage the empire in her stead before she comes of age. In that regard, Sir John Conroy and Victoria’s mother attempt manipulate control of the situation for their own gain, and put themselves in control of the kingdom.

Meanwhile, King Leopold (Thomas Kretschmann) over in Belgium is aiming to romantically insert Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) into the life of Victoria and somehow combine the two powers politically, for his gain. However, Paul Bettany’s Lord Melbourne — the British P.M. — is also exercising a major influence over Victoria. Victoria’s coronation also coincides with the rise of the Industrial Revolution and the change in dynamics between the Crown and Parliament, which sees the Monarch’s influence begin to fade in England.

Through all the scheming, tittering, overlong dance numbers, and the occasional campy outburst, Prince Albert and Victoria eventually do come together in a very flat and unromantic manner (see also: your history book), but Julian Fellowes’ (Gosford Park) script seems less concerned with their blossoming romance and more focused on Victoria’s attempts to gain independence from both her husband and her advisors and rise as a leader in her own right, which is noble and well-intentioned, but lacks the sort of epiphanic event or occasion that might work enliven a spirit-less film.

Indeed, The Young Victoria, unlike the Queen it wants to apotheosize, is too proper and glum, and I think even the most hard core costume drama whore will have some difficulty overlooking the soggy narrative and the overwrought fussiness — despite Blunt’s beguiling turn as the Queen — to fully immerse him or herself in the beautiful costumes and set pieces, This is a movie that could’ve used zombies. Crazy-cakes fast zombies in frilly dresses, corsets, and wigs with posh British growls and a love of Schubert.









James McAvoy Attached to Ian Fleming Film | Pajiba Love 12/29/09













Comments

That's too bad. I thought it was rather well done and Emily Blunt has promise.

Posted by: Rebecca at December 29, 2009 12:15 PM

"period porn"? Sign me up.

Posted by: NeoCleo at December 29, 2009 12:29 PM

Sounds like more Empty Dress Syndrome, nyet?

Posted by: caroline at December 29, 2009 12:31 PM

It’s lush and extravagant period porn, glamor and sumpt rendered exquisitely enough to give you sympathetic pinching pains around your fat rolls.

Dejavu? Oh, wait. That was period sex. But I don't like the idea of either types of period porn. No way I'm being cajoled into this one!

Posted by: ThunderSacTriumph at December 29, 2009 12:40 PM

I generally don't care for period pieces either - though speaking of period porn, I did like that one with Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close and all that seducing shit. The name escapes me at the moment.

But this sort of film? It would only bring on deep, deep sleep.

Posted by: Cindy at December 29, 2009 12:48 PM

When you say, "a love of Schubert", you're not talking about his music. Are you.

Posted by: Neodiogenes at December 29, 2009 1:03 PM

(see also: your history book)

Or, several episodes of Doctor Who....

Posted by: dammitjanet at December 29, 2009 1:06 PM

But if you like Victorian period pieces, then you might feel differently, assuming that one excellent performance, great cinematography, and lots of pretty costumes are enough to satisfy you.

Well, I loved The Duchess for these very reasons, so it looks like I should go see The Young Victoria. Thanks, Dustin.

Posted by: Robert at December 29, 2009 1:14 PM

Where's Ranylt when you need her? If SHE said she didn't like the film, I'd KNOW it was bad.

How is it that I can be so interested in the Victorian Age yet completely bored with the monarch for whom it's named? She always struck me as a complete cow.

Posted by: jimbob at December 29, 2009 1:27 PM

"period porn?" That sounds bloody awful.

Posted by: Peanut_Butter_And_James at December 29, 2009 1:31 PM

I don’t typically care for period pieces, nor can I claim with any honesty that I can’t take that bias into my review of The Young Victoria.

I don't care much for them either, but I had a completely different experience with this film.

The movie was beautiful on all levels, and their love story was played out simply and I think, powerfully. It isn't your typical sparks-fly, whirlwind-romance, love-at-first-sight, fast entertainment, but a story about two people who fall in love over time and form a partnership worthy of telling because it lasted.

That it's in the history books makes it that much more exciting to see played out onscreen.

Posted by: intrepidflower at December 29, 2009 1:44 PM

@Cindy: "I generally don't care for period pieces either - though speaking of period porn, I did like that one with Jeremy Irons and Glenn Close and all that seducing shit. The name escapes me at the moment."

Did you mean John Malkovich and Glenn Close? That has to be "Dangerous Liaisons", which was all-around awesome, with some of the greatest dialogue ever written.

Posted by: GLM at December 29, 2009 2:07 PM

How is it that I can be so interested in the Victorian Age yet completely bored with the monarch for whom it's named? She always struck me as a complete cow.
Try and find a copy of her letters and diaries (or, rather, a selection as she wrote a LOT!). Victoria could be HYSTERICALLY funny, so incredibly snarky and sarcastic and just plain mean at times. Sometimes it's just hard to remember that this is a 19th century person writing (and then you get to the bit where she'd just finished Jane Eyre - and loved it - or written to Charles Dickens).

As for the movie, I loved it. Yes, it's costume porn, but oh when the costumes look like this! It's everything I want in a costume drama, and more. The soundtrack was wonderful, too, and the sets. And you really can't go wrong with THAT cast. I was actually most impressed by Rupert Friend as Prince Albert, who sparked a need for biographies about him, not just about his royal spouse!

Posted by: Linda at December 29, 2009 2:11 PM

I think I am more thankful for the comments section than the reviews. I think so many of you do an excellent job arguing your likes and dislikes of movies and I can make more of an informed decision on what I watch.

That is all. Nothing bitchy. Just kudos.

Posted by: Goddess at December 29, 2009 2:19 PM

side note: jean-marc vallee directed one of my favourite films of this decade called, C.R.A.Z.Y.
i'm not sure it's available in the U.S., but i'd highly recommend it.
it's nothing like "young victoria", for which he was a director for hire.

summary from IMDB: It's a story of two love affairs. A father's love for his five sons. And one son's love for his father, a love so strong it compels him to live a lie. That son is Zac Beaulieu, born on the 25th of December 1960, different from all his brothers, but desperate to fit in. During the next 20 years, life takes Zac on a surprising and unexpected journey that ultimately leads him to accept his true nature and, even more importantly, leads his father to love him for who he really is. A mystical fable about a modern-day Christ-like figure, "C.R.A.Z.Y" exudes the beauty, the poetry and the madness of the human spirit in all its contradictions

Posted by: celery at December 29, 2009 2:25 PM

that summary was written by vallee (or so it says), but really, the movie is better than it sounds in that paragraph :)
(english isn't his first language)

Posted by: celery at December 29, 2009 2:28 PM

It was kinda boring,very pretty, but what I would have liked was a better sense of Victoria, and what was going on in this time period. Sure, I could read her bio, but I think the film should tell me why I should appreciate the subject of it. I have no idea why she is important, or what pissed off people so much (maybe they said it and I missed it?)and when it was over, I realized I hadn't learned anything about Victoria or anyone else. Emily Blunt was good, all of it well done, but for the story and pacing.

Posted by: Chickaboom at December 29, 2009 3:05 PM

A British period piece WITHOUT Sophia Myles?

SCANDALOUS!

/we are not amused

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 29, 2009 3:08 PM

If it's costumes you want and you don't want to sit through the movie, may I suggest this link: http://www.costumersguide.com/cr_victoria.shtml

The site has a lot of material, including cross-references of costumes that have appeared in multiple TV shows or movies.

I confess to a love of costume and clothing ogling. I have a Costume folder in my bookmarks with sites for historic clothing on sale and some individual sites for women who recreate period clothing. It is an unsurprisingly vast sub-culture because aren't they all? This is a particularly amazing website for a woman who recreated an 18th century woman's wardrobe ENTIRELY by hand and using the original sewing techniques for her Master's thesis: http://brocadegoddess.wordpress.com/exhibition/

As for the movie, it looks dull, dull, dull and unless I am promised some serious 1870's bustle era costume porn, I will have to avoid it.

Posted by: Supercomfypampertimefloatythrone at December 29, 2009 3:26 PM

Posted by: Peanut_Butter_And_James at December 29, 2009 1:31 PM

I see what you did there, young man. And may I say: 1) Ewww. and 2) Well done!

Posted by: Anna von Beaverpuppet at December 29, 2009 3:43 PM

Period drama dont do it for me, though I'll happily read a historical/regency novel.

Posted by: Jean at December 29, 2009 3:56 PM

I love period dramas, but they can be pretty dull if they're not infused with enough personality.

Posted by: kelsy at December 29, 2009 4:38 PM

I'd rather watch the film adaptations instead of their source material because at least I know I'll be done w/the film in 3 hours max versus trudging through a 700-page monolithic piece of Victorian shit that will require more time than it is worth.

I do the opposite w/Clive Barker. His books feed the imagination infinitely more than the cinematic manifestations of his words. His books are more chew-worthy than, let's say, Middlemarch.

Posted by: Recondite at December 29, 2009 4:51 PM

Full disclosure: I don’t typically care for period pieces, nor can I claim with any honesty that I can’t take that bias into my review of The Young Victoria.

Then why bother?

Where's Ranylt when you need her? If SHE said she didn't like the film, I'd KNOW it was bad.

Yes, this. This isn't a review, it's a gripe against a genre.

Posted by: Abby at December 29, 2009 5:40 PM

Using this thread to give a shout-out to the brilliant "Her Majesty, Mrs. Brown" about the older Victoria.

Posted by: samantha t at December 29, 2009 5:50 PM

Oh my goodness, I just got really sleepy reading the review. I can't get through it. Sorry.

Posted by: Candy at December 29, 2009 5:53 PM

To be fair, Dustin did tweet about this review last night, also envoking how much easier it would be if Ranylt was still here. Giving her all the slow, dry, subtle period films (and the occassional awful horror/sci-fi flick) really must have made every other contributor's life easier. I love this kind of film and rarely try to review it because I don't even know where to begin addressing it. I wind up with massive rambling essays on historical inaccuracies and my love of British actresses that reveals nothing about the film.

Posted by: Robert at December 29, 2009 5:59 PM

I've been known to watch movies just for the costumes, so I'll be seeing this, too; but probably on Netflix as I think it came and went during the couple of days I was out of town.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 29, 2009 8:57 PM

AGAIN with the Avatar hate, ugh. Just fucking get over it, it underwhelmed you big fuckin' whoop. Move on. As a female, even I feel you dwell too much on things. Hurry up and turn in your penis card already you big tampon.

Posted by: Alexa Castro at December 29, 2009 9:58 PM

Neat period piece, about a bit of The Widow's life that is usually glossed over or ignored (past is prologue, after all).

I'd like to see a movie covering the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. It has everything - romance, dynastic shenanigans, the first ever managed press leak and spin (The Ems Dispatch) and - for the delight of right wing yahoos - France loses.

Of course, past being prologue, the 1870 dustup DID contribute to the outbreak of World War One ...

Posted by: The Wanderer at December 29, 2009 10:07 PM

As a female, even I feel you dwell too much on things. Hurry up and turn in your penis card already you big tampon.
Posted by: Alexa Castro at December 29, 2009 9:58 PM

----------------------------------------


Mmmmmmmmmmm
There's something about this girl... that I really like.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 30, 2009 5:52 AM

Well, I liked it. It was NOT too slow. It was actually quite well-paced. And yeah, of course, if you're at all well-educated, you know how it's going to end. It's how you GET there that's the fun. And it WAS fun. Every actor was superb. I laughed, I cried, yadda yadda yadda.

What is with people reviewing genres they hate? I've seen people reviewing ballets and right off the bat telling their readers, "Well, I HATE the ballet..." or "I LOATHE the opera..." Well, DUH. I'm supposed to go ahead and believe you're being OBJECTIVE as you PAN The Nutcracker or Tancredi, then?

Dude. You HATE period pieces... then get someone ELSE to review the period flicks. Someone with at least a MODICUM of objectivity. Please. It's only fair. At least when you pan Avatar, we know it's because you honestly find it mediocre. (Or we try to believe it's honest.) But you've come right out and SAID you hate period pieces. How is someone supposed to take a review seriously after such an admission? It's only a step up from saying, "Um, I haven't seen this movie, but I've seen several previews..."

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at December 31, 2009 6:28 PM

Now that we've dispensed with the twaddle we can move on to the real review.

For anyone who is at all familiar with the events of the period between roughly 1837 and 1842, this movie is visually a treat. The romance that slowly develops between Victoria and her first cousin Albert is nicely evoked. Victoria was head over heels in love with Albert, as the fact that they had nine children together testifies.

The costumes are perfect; even when Victoria is pregnant, she is wearing a corset, you can tell. Almost all of the action takes place indoors: inside sumptuously appointed palaces, inside Westminster Abbey for the coronation; even the scenes that take place in the symmetrical gardens surrounding the palaces might as well be indoors. You really get a good sense of the way in which early C19 monarchs were completely insulated from the people.

Less satisfying were the dramatic plot elements. The relationship between Victoria and Melbourne was totally wrecked by having a much-too-young actor play the Prime Minister. In the event he was in his 50s I believe, and much more a father-figure than some kind of lover to the Queen. Also, the result of the Bedchamber Crisis was totally overblown, but the director completely missed the opportunity to capitalize on the real social discontent that was occurring at that time: the Chartist movement.

I don't want to give away another plot point, but let us say that history was mangled toward the end of the movie to force a dramatic resolution that was just annoying. Nonetheless, I recommend the movie. If you see it and then rent the 1997 Mrs. Brown, you can have yourself a nice little Victoria-themed film festival.


Posted by: Jamie at January 1, 2010 7:24 PM

haven't seen it yet ... but soon. if emily blunt is in it, i am there.

Posted by: snake at January 4, 2010 7:47 PM

now that i have seen it, i can appreciate dustin's review. it is right
on the money. if you like period pieces, enjoy. beyond blunt and the settings, however, there is nothing going on and there has never been a more sudden or less dramatic conclusion.

Posted by: snake at January 6, 2010 12:50 AM

The music was superb until the anachronistic and schmaltzy pop tune over the credits. Talk about losing a mood. Reminded me of Pocahontas and Aladdin credits.

Posted by: Paulina at January 14, 2010 2:45 AM


















Viral Hits

>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> Mindhole Blowers

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time