Considering all the teen films like "the Breakfast Club" and "Pretty In Pink" that are lionized. It is surprising that this one is so ignored.

There is no sex in it, but sex is thought of, including the idea that it may matter what others think about it. The kids do not always get along with their parents, but neither the parents or the kids are seen as always right or wrong, and the parents are not seen as monsters.

It deals with hero-worship. How one girl does a dangerous thing, which could have lead to real dustier, before realizing that she was wrong.

The movie is kind of ahead of its' time. One kid asks another kid what birth control she uses. She says she is doing nothing to need birth control. She replies (wrongly) "oral sex".


This movie rocks" Jen sexy as ever and Polly wow were we really ever that young this movie can still touch the hearts of a lot of teens it needs to be put on DVD soon or it will become a classic. i Really enjoyed growing up to this movie i have always had a crush on Jen now i am too old but to this movie is made for all gens> you know i come from the early 80,s area were i Had to watch everyone els live the life i wanted but thru movies i can do that all over again i guess in short i am hoping and wishing that this movie not be lost in time but reborn to the youth so they may enjoy the heart warm filling you get learning about hormones and datting problems and how to get away with stuff that seems so major back then but don't mean nothan now so this movie is a dating tool.


First off, I'm a huge fan of 80s movies, and of Jennifer Conelly as well. So yesterday, I wandered into a local used book/movie store and found a VHS copy. I read the back and it sounded good and for $3.99, it was a good deal. So I took it home and popped it in the VCR. What a sweet movie! At my age now, I relate more to movies like About Last Night or St. Elmo's Fire, but still I remember what it was like to be 15/16 and in love with an older guy, etc. We all have those little crushes when we're younger. And if it doesn't work out, we're heartbroken and we think that we'll never get over it. But of course we do. Many times. It's that sort of sweet quality that I really got from this movie. The feeling of "Oooh! I remember when something like that happened to me..." is all through it. The characters are interesting and well-developed. I recommend it to anyone who likes 80s movies, teen films in particular, or to anyone who just wants to go back and remember a simpler time in their lives.


I really enjoyed this movie.I was fifteen when this movie came out and I could relate. This will be a movie I would show my kids to let them know, the feelings they are having are normal. It is funny to see how we could be so devestated by things at such a young age..who knew that we would bounce back....again and again....Great movie!!!!


I've been a Jennifer Connelly fan since Phenomena, and after I heard about seven minutes in heaven, I saw it as soon as I could. The movie is not only a comedy if you think a lot of these things most of us went through as kids and are currently going through not only was the movie terrific led by the phenomenal jennifer connelly it captivated my attention that this movie was terrifically written directed and acted out it was one good deal I loved it and have watched it again and again and for those of you who enjoy a good laugh or love jennifer connelly you to can not put off seeing this movie!!!!


The title of this film is taken from a party game called "Seven Minutes in Heaven." The game was popular among my husband's friends when he was in junior high school in Brooklyn, NY, and he describes it as something like "Spin-the-Bottle," "Lifesaver Relay," and other preteen kissing games. According to the rules, a boy's name and a girl's would be drawn, and the chosen ones ordered to get into a dark closet together and to stay there for seven minutes. In the meantime, there would be speculation among party guests as to whether or not the two had the nerve to hold hands, embrace, and/or kiss each other in the privacy of the closet. At the end of seven minutes, the game leader would say, "Time's up" or knock on the closet door, and the couple would emerge from the closet. After being quizzed by the other guests, the couple would have to admit what they had done during their "Seven Minutes in Heaven." Then other couples would be chosen to enter the closet until all the guests had participated. The couple who admitted to doing the most would be the winners of the game.

Such games have served as social "ice-breakers" for children and teens, but they can be embarrassing and intimidating to shy individuals. The film has been given this title because it deals with the teens' first experiences with crushes and romantic love.


I think that people are under estimating this incredible film. People are seeing it as a typical horror movie that is set out to scare us and prevent us from getting some sleep. Which if it was trying to do then it would deservedly get a 1/10 but i viewed this film with a few friends and we found it very entertaining and though it was a good movie after all it does have Stephanie beaton. This is the reason why i think that it deserves the 10/10 for the pure entertainment of the film.

The general view on this movie is that it has bad acting, a simple script that a 10 year old could produce and that it cant be taken seriously and people are rating it low because of this. But i see this as a thoroughly entertaining masterpiece...that has a hilariously funny script which is made even more entertaining by the actors and although not very serious it is very entertaining.


This movie is ridiculous! That's exactly what I like about this piece of "Guilty Pleasure". It is easy to condemn this movie for not including Pat Priest and Butch Patrick, the original Marilyn and Eddie. But look at the year and do the math. Pat Priest and Butch Patrick had long outgrown their parts! Time does that to young stars. Yvonne De Carlo, who re-prised her role as Lili, was pushing the Big 6-0 (even though she still looked good and was still the perfect "Lili").

It's a shame that Yvonne De Carlo wasn't given a larger part. Still, it was good to see Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis in the roles that made them so famous! During the 2 seasons that THE MUNSTERS was on prime time, it was the Gwynne/Lewis chemistry that made the series such a success. The rest of the cast were supporting cast members, not to say that they weren't needed. They were! The TV series wouldn't had survived as long as it did without them. Given the choice between Butch Patrick or Happy Derman (the original "Eddie"), the choice was too easy. Yvonne De Carlo was also the better choice over Joan Marshall.

Though this movie doesn't measure up to the original TV series, it still measures up nicely and is one of the better "reunuin" TV specials that plagued the boob-tube during the late 1970s/early 1980s.

'


This movie has one of the cheesiest plots I have seen. For me, that's what makes it so awesome! Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis are very good at what they achieved in the original Munsters series. While there was less slapstick, they still worked wonderfully together "comedically." I wish Yvonne De Carlo, as Lily, would have had more plot involvement. She showed that she could do comedy in the original series, but it was mostly wasted in this movie. This movie also stars the great Sid Caesar, but sadly he doesn't have any interaction with Gwynne and Lewis. I think some better work could have come out of that.


Fred Gwynne, Al Lewis, Sid Caesar, and Yvonne De Carlo star in this funny, funny movie. The late Fred Gwynne is truly wonderful as Herman Munster who lives with Grandpa Munster (Al Lewis), wife Lily (Yvonne De Carlo), and his son and daughter. Sid Caesar is hilarious as the owner of a wax museum that has a whole section dedicated to the Munster family. When the wax figures of Herman and Grandpa begin to terrorize the town everyone blames the two. The two now have to clear their names before it's too late. You'll laugh out loud just like I did.


Version: Universal / Hong Kong Legends R4 DVD release. Cantonese / English subtitles

Once upon a time, five years ago, the world was obsessed with 'The Matrix', and I was perhaps one of the few fifteen year olds left who still believed that 'Terminator' was better than 'Matrix'. I was but a simple teenage boy, looking for a good action movie, and then there was a shining light on a TV station I had never really watched, a little station known as SBS. One night I noticed in the TV guide that a movie starring Jackie Chan - 'Police Story' would be on later. Being fifteen, and having only seen 'Rumble in the Bronx' and 'Rush Hour', I said... "WOW AWESOME" and sat down to watch it, and continually shouted "WOW AWESOME" as the movie progressed. Two weeks later, after SBS had shown the 'Police Story' trilogy, I knew I had found my new favourite actor.

Jackie plays Chan Ka Kui, a Hong Kong cop who busts a major drug-lord, Chu (Yuen Chor). Chu's secretary, Selina Fong (Brigitte Lin), is being held by the police as a witness against Chu, and Chan is assigned to protect her. Things go bad - reaaaal bad - when Chu's case is dismissed and he decides he wants Fong and Chan dead.

'Police Story' is one of the greatest action movies ever, and certainly one of my favourite Jackie Chan films. It starts off strong, and ends with one of the most incredible action sequences ever filmed. Everything in between is great. However, some of the funny parts may seem a little tasteless to more than a few people...

As a story, this is still one of Jackie's better efforts. For an action movie, the story is pretty good, and Jackie is a much better actor in this than he is in the acting & plot intensive 'New Police Story'. This isn't 'Miracles', but maybe that's a good thing.

'Police Story' is one of Jackie's finest works. It got me hooked on Jackie Chan movies, and should provide a nice start for any potential Jackie fans. The bad news for anyone who sees this first is that Jackie Chan movies don't come much better - 10/10


A winters day, 28th December 1986, two bored 14 year olds hire a movie. "Hmmmm, Police Story, looks interesting", "who is this Jackie Chan?", "never heard of him". Two hours later after watching the film, in a daze, we wanted to know more. 16 years later (and severely out of pocket from collecting JC movies!) the film still grabs me like no other. Ok, maybe I have a soft spot for it as it was my "first" (Cannonball Run doesn't count!!) JC movie, but it is an excellent movie. It has all the classic JC elements, Action, Humour, Action, Heart and ACTION! Some comments say it's dated, it was made in 1985, of course it's dated! But then so must Jaws, Casablanca, Singin' in the Rain and The Godfather!!!!!! Without movies like Police Story where would Hollywood action be today? PS set standards, many a scene has been stolen for use in other movies. To really fully appreciate it you must see it in widescreen, you miss so much of the movie otherwise (yes, he really does fall off the bus going round the corner!). If you haven't already, SEE THIS MOVIE NOW!!!!


Probably Jackie Chan's best film in the 1980s, and the one that put him on the map. The scale of this self-directed police drama is evident from the opening and closing scenes, during which a squatters' village and shopping mall are demolished. There are, clearly, differences between the original Chinese and dubbed English versions, with many of the jokes failing to make their way into the latter. The latter is also hampered by stars who sound nothing like their Chinese originals. In fact, the only thing the dubbing has corrected is the court trialat the time, trials in colonial Hong Kong were conducted in English, while the original has this scene in Cantonese!

Nonetheless, Chan's fighting style and the martial arts choreography inject humour where possible, so non-Cantonese audiences don't miss much. It's not, after all, the dialogue that makes a Chan flick, but the action and the painful out-takes. The story is easy to follow: Chan plays an incorruptible Hong Kong detective pursuing a gangland godfather (Cho Yeun), and assigned to protect a star witness (Brigitte Lin). The action is superb from beginning to end, and there's not much time to breathe in between. It'll never get you thinking, but what an entertaining, and well strung-together, film. Arguably, this is one of the best martial arts films out there.


Jackie Chan is considered by many film and martial arts movie fans as one of the greatest action stars ever to grace the silver screen and Police Story cemented his reputation as the likely successor to the late, great Bruce Lee. If Enter The Dragon bared the so-called bench mark of Lee's greatness in the 70s, then the same can be said about Police Story and Jackie Chan in the 80s.

Forget about the Rush Hour trilogy, or any of his US efforts- the one film that really typifies Chan's excellence, not to mention kick starting his status as a high kicking, bone-crushing kung- fu talisman, as well as his movie career was this, Police Story- the first in a series of successful cop films, set in mainland, present day Hong Kong.

I've seen many of his efforts- likewise the US-based Rush Hour, Rumble in the Bronx, The Medalian and The Tuxedo to name- and frankly many of them pale into insignificance compared to Police Story. In those movies, we saw a less 'dumbed down' version of Jackie, of whom didn't get the opportunity to utilise his fighting abilities to the maximum, not to mention the fight sequences were no where as good as those in such efforts as Drunken Master, Police Story to name.

The stunts in this movie are extraordinary and are the best featured in any action movie. The shopping mall scene is literally one of a kind and has to be seen to be believed: the flying shards of glass, Chan who is left dangling outside the bus only by his walking stick as a madman frantically drives through the streets of the town, and Chan successfully making usage of all sorts of inanimate objects and prop devices as weapons to fight the bad guys with.

Considering he is known for injuring and breaking every bone in his body and putting himself in harm's way, Jackie's persistence in showing his versatility as a stuntman himself by not relying on one, is somewhat of a testament to his reputation as a kung fu expert. Especially as he has the bruises to show for it. Thus, he has proved that he is no one-trick pony when it comes down to devising and coming up with various and clever looking moves.

Story-wise, there is not much to discuss but what it lacks in narrative, it makes up with its end-to end action and fight sequences. As for the dialogue, well it's not a really huge aspect of the film- which is why most fans of Jackie's and martial arts films are more interested in action, as opposed to the story.

Unlike say The Matrix, there are no wires or CGI, or any form of computer trickery involved. What you see is what you get- and what you get with Police Story is a great Jackie Chan epic, full of action and pulsating stunts.It is miles better than Rumble In The Bronx, Rush Hour and all his other American efforts.

Police Story is an excellent film and one I'd definitely recommend to anyone who is a novice Jackie Chan fan, but of whom are unsure which one they should watch first.


Back when musicals weren't showcases for choreographers, we had wonderful movies such as this one.

Being a big fan of both Wodehouse and Fred Astaire I was delighted to finally see this movie. Not quite a blend of Wodehouse and Hollywood, but close enough. Some of the American vaudeville humour, the slapstick not the witty banter, clash with Wodehouse's British sense of humour. But on the whole, the American style banter makes the American characters seem real rather than cardboard caricatures.

Some inventive staging for the dance numbers, including the wonderful fairground with revolving floors and funhouse mirrors, more than make up for the lack of a Busby Berkley over the top dance number. They seem a lot more realistic, if you could ever imagine people starting to sing and dance as realistic.

The lack of Ginger Rogers and Eric Blore don't hurt the movie, instead they allow different character dynamics to emerge. It's also nice not to have a wise cracking, headstrong love interest. Instead we have a gentle headstrong love interest, far more in keeping with Wodehouses' young aristocratic females.


This musical is decidedly mixed, and none of the elements really fit together, but it somehow manages to be mostly enjoyable. The plot contains some of the elements of Wodehouse's novel, but none of its virtues, though he co-wrote the script. The songs, though charming, have nothing to do with this particular film, and are unusually crudely squeezed into the plot, even by pre-Oklahoma standards. Burns and Allen do their usual shtick quite competently, but it misses the tone of the rest of the film by about forty IQ points.

There are a few high points. Reginald Gardiner does good work when he remembers that this is a talkie, and stops mugging like a silent actor. And there are a few bits of writing which could only have been written by Wodehouse, though most of the film feels like the production of one of the Hollywood meetings he later parodied.


Joan Fontaine is "A Damsel in Distress" in this 1937 musical starring Fred Astaire, George Burns, and Gracie Allen. The plot, what there is of it, is about a British woman (Fontaine) in love with an American, who is mistaken for Astaire, a musical comedy star.

The film, directed by George Stevens, contains some wonderful Gershwin music, including "Nice Work if You Can Get It" and "A Foggy Day." The best scene is the "Stiff Upper Lip" number, which takes place in a fun house.

Astaire's singing voice sounds more robust in this film than it does in others, and he has a couple of excellent dance numbers. Burns plays his over the top publicist and Allen is Burns' secretary. She's hilarious. The problem, as others have pointed out, is Fontaine, who has to dance with Astaire at the end of the film. Stevens could easily have used a double because he shows the dance in a long shot, and it takes place among the trees. I would have thought it was a double except the dancing was so lousy.

Definitely worth seeing despite its flaws.


A Damsel in Distress is a delight because of the great Gershwin songs, Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine, and a terrific supporting cast headed by Gracie Allen and George Burns.

Typically silly plot for an Astaire film has him as an American dance star in England with Burns as his publicist and Allen his secretary. They concoct a story about his being a love bug with women falling victim to him left and right. He runs into Fontaine who is being held captive in her castle by a domineering aunt and docile father. Silly plot.

The great songs include A Foggy Day, Things Are Looking Up, Nice Work if You Can get It, and I Can't Be Bothered Now. Fontaine does not sing, but does a brief (and decent) number with Astaire. Surprisingly good in a few dance numbers with Astaire are Burns and Allen, including an inventive and fun romp through an amusement park.

Also in the cast are Reginald Gardiner, Constance Collier, Montagu Love, Harry Watson (as Albert), Ray Noble, and my favorite--Jan Duggan as the lead madrigal singer.

Jan Duggan is in the middle of the swoony trio who sings Nice Work if You Can Get It. Her facial expressions are hilarious. She was also a scene stealer in the W.C. Fields comedy, The Old Fashioned Way, playing Cleopatra Pepperday.

Much abuse has been heaped on this film because of the absence of Ginger Rogers, who, as noted elsewhere, would have been hideously miscast. The TCM host notes that Ruby Keeler and Jessie Matthews were considered. Yikes. Two more would-be disasters. Fontaine is fine as Alyce and the dynamic allows the musical numbers to belong to Astaire, with ample comic relief by Burns and Allen.

Fun film, great songs, good cast, and Jan Duggan in a rare spotlight!


I read that Jessie Matthews was approached and turned down co-starring with Fred Astaire in Damsel in Distress. Jessie Matthews in her prime never left her side of the pond to do any American musical films. IF they had teamed for this film it would have been a once in a lifetime event.

It's a pity because Damsel in Distress has everything else going for it. Fred Astaire, story and adapted to screen by author P.G. Wodehouse, Burns&Allen for comedy, and songs by the Gershwin Brothers. In answer to the question posed by the Nice Work If You Can Get It, there isn't much you could ask more for this film.

Except a leading lady. Though Ginger Rogers made several films away from Fred Astaire, Damsel in Distress is the only film Astaire made without Rogers while they were a team. Young Joan Fontaine was cast in this opposite Astaire.

Her character has none of the bite that Ginger Rogers's parts do in these films. All she basically has to do is act sweet and demure. She also doesn't contribute anything musically. And if I had to rate all the dancing partners of Fred Astaire, Joan Fontaine would come out at the bottom. The poor woman is just horrible in the Things Are Looking Up number.

When she co-starred later on in a musical with Bing Crosby, The Emperor Waltz, it's no accident that Fontaine is given nothing musical to do.

The version I have is a colorized one and in this case I think it actually did some good. The idyllic lush green English countryside of P.G. Wodehouse is really brought out in this VHS copy. Especially in that number I mentioned before with Astaire and Fontaine which does take place in the garden.

Burns&Allen on the other hand as a couple of old vaudeville troopers complement Astaire in grand style in the Stiff Upper Lip number. The surreal fun-house sequence is marvelously staged.

P.G. Wodehouse's aristocracy runs the gamut with Constance Collier at her haughty best and for once Montagu Love as Fontaine's father as a nice man on film.

The biggest hit out of A Damsel in Distress is A Foggy Day maybe the best known song about the British capital city since London Bridge Is Falling Down. Done in the best simple elegant manner by Fred Astaire, it's one of those songs that will endure as long as London endures and even after.

Overlooking the young and inexperienced Joan Fontaine, A Damsel in Distress rates as a classic, classic score, classic dancing, classic comedy. Who could ask for anything more?


Soon Americans would swarm over a darkened, damaged England preparing to invade Europe, but in 1937 the picture of hip Americans in the sunny, slightly ridiculous English countryside was an appealing, idyllic diversion. American dancing star & heartthrob Jerry Halliday (Astaire), on a European tour & weary of the screaming female crowds generated by the lurid propaganda of his manager (Burns), is unwittingly caught up in the marriage prospects of frustrated heiress Lady Alice Marshmorton (Fontaine). The tale is complicated by a betting pool among the Marshmorton servants that is run by (and rigged for) head butler Keggs (Gardiner), who's betting on Lady Alice's cousin Reggie (Noble), the favorite of Alice's stuffy, domineering aunt (Collier). The story would have been much better as a half-hour TV episode. The usual Wodehouse plot devices of mistaken identity and jumps to wrong conclusions wear thin in a full-length film. Both Alice & Jerry appear impossibly (and annoyingly) clueless by the second half of the film. The amusement park interlude & the climax in the castle are too long & begin to drag. Fontaine is too beautiful, too dignified & too quiet to be a ditzy blonde, no matter how aristocratic, while young footman Albert (Watson) is painfully awful. But while "Damsel" is a pretty diminutive vehicle for so much talent, the talent doesn't let us down. Astaire's romantic comedy skill is no less enjoyable here than in any of his films with Ginger Rogers and his dance scenes, both solo & with Burns & Allen, are up to par, though his one dance with novice hoofer Joan is necessarily tame. Gracie nearly steals the whole show as George's bubbly secretary who is at once airheaded, conniving & coolly self-confident. Her scene with solid character actor Gardiner as the devious snob Keggs is a one-of-a-kind classic. This & Astaire's priceless scene with the madrigal singers give "Damsel" a delightful color of naive but noble-spirited Americans mixing with noble but dull-spirited Englishmen. Gershwin is at the top of his game with "Nice Work if You Can Get it" & "Stiff Upper Lip," which carry the film through its weak points. And is there another film where madrigals get a Gershwin swing treatment? "Damsel" is more than a piece of trivia for those who might want to see Astaire without Rogers or Fontaine before she was a real star. It's a fine diversion as entertaining as any of the vaudevillian musical comedies that ruled the 1930s but will never be made again.


This movie appears to have designed as a Fred Astaire-Ginger Rogers film--the plot outline, dance numbers, zippy music and the entire formula is there...except for Ginger! Whether it REALLY was originally intended as a re-pairing of the team is uncertain but it sure has the look of one of these films. Instead of the usual sidekicks for Fred (such as Eric Blore or Edward Everett Horton), Burns and Allen are used--probably since despite being known as a comedy team, they COULD sing and dance quite well. This actually shocked me, but the team were a welcome addition and some of the traditional Fred and Ginger numbers were done with either Fred and Gracie or these two along with George. Only once, at the very end, does Ms. Fontaine dance with Fred but it's very brief and with a distant camera shot.

And speaking of Burns and Allen, I think I owe it to the team to talk about them in the film. I have never been a fan of their show or their movies. In general, I find Gracie's idiot act very annoying and I have given some poor reviews to their movie shorts and full-length films. However, in this film I must admit that they were great--not only dancing competently but I actually thought they were funny and filled the hole left by Edward Everett Horton very nicely. They were on top of their game and the writers did a wonderful job in this department.

Now as for the rest of the film, it's all a lot of fun and is entertaining. The problem for me, though, was that Joan Fontaine was not a particularly good choice for the movie--not just because she was acting outside her range (after all, she wasn't a singer or dancer), but because she had the screen presence of a ball of lint. Because of this, the usual balance and great boy-girl dialog was lacking. There was also a very charming performance by Harry Watson as a devilish little boy who did everything he could do to play cupid--all because he wanted to win a bet! And finally, I loved the Fun House and Tunnel of Love sequence--it is too hard to describe but is so much fun to watch! Overall, I did like the film quite a bit--it had a lot of charm and excellent writing. Unfortunately, it also featured a bland performance by Ms. Fontaine that knocks off a point--bringing my score for this film to 7.


I first saw this movie years ago and have continued to view it several times a year when I have an opportunity. It is on my list of favorite movies along with some of the classics. Should anyone tell you it is foolish or outdated, ignore them... this movie is for anyone who enjoys laughing and music. The dancing isn't as important in this film as in other Astaire movies so the comedy and acting shine through. See this movie if you can, it may be light but it is still completely amusing. So I know that many people hate black and white films, they think old movies can't really be funny, this movie should make them change their minds. No one I know can watch this movie without being at least mildly amused. The only problem with the film: Fred Astaire singing without dancing. He may be a great performer and capable singer but it just isn't fascinating and leaves a big hole in the middle of the story. The comedy gets a bit cliché at times but the vaudevillesque performances of G burns and G Allen are just perfect for the piece and can satisfy anyone looking for some easy laughs. Give this film a chance even if you don't like old movies, this movie can appeal to the ridiculous in any one.


The question of whether or not one likes this film version of "The Ghost Train" invariably depends on one thing and one thing alone: your reaction to the performance of Arthur Askey.

He tends to steal almost every scene he's in, and not always in a good way. Sometimes you wish he'd settle down or back off just a little, to allow the plot's many characters to feature and develop (which they do to some extent). But somehow everything keeps pointing back to Askey's Tommy Gander character.

Personally I like the film, and even like Askey to an extent. I always seem to plonk it into the vcr at those odd hours of the early morning when I can't sleep and really can't find the energy to watch anything else. There is something about watching old b/w movies in the quiet dark of pre-dawn that I find appealing....


Curl up with this one on a dark and stormy night and prepare to be alternately amused, irritated and frightened. The creaky old plot about about a phantom train that's said to run through the lonely English countryside at dead of night may be implausible, but it's a lot of fun. There are some wonderful old cliches like "THE ACCIDENT" which the locals can remember but won't talk about. But primarily the movie's a vehicle for comedian Arthur Askey to showcase his particular brand of vaudeville style humour in between the scary bits. Askey's corny humor is not very trendy these days but if you just let it wash over you it can be fun. This is probably the best of Askey's movies.


I have a thing for old black and white movies of this kind, movies by Will Hay and Abbot & Costello especially as those are my favourites. I picked this movie up on DVD as it was using the same idea as Will Hay's "Oh Mr Porter" which is one of the finest comedies ever made. I just finished watching this movie less than ten minutes ago (the movie finished at 12:45am). I find that movies of this kind, to do with Ghost Trains, etc, are best viewed at night time with the lights out. That way you get into the storyline more and night time viewing works well with this movie.

The one-liners in the movie may seem a little dated to some viewers, I guess this depends on the viewer. They are not dated to me though. I am 28 and even though I am not old enough to have been around when this movie was first released (my dad was though). I still have a lot of appreciation for some of the old movies of this kind. Sitting in the room in front of the TV with some snacks and drinks and kicking back and relaxing at night while watching these movies, not many things can beat the feeling you get while doing this. It is an escape from reality for a while.

I noticed that one of the men in the movie (he has a black mustache) he appears about three quarters of the way through the movie after his car crashes and he is looking for a woman he was followed to the station. This man was in the Will Hay classic "The Ghost of St Michaels" as well. Just thought I'd point that out in case no one noticed :).

The set pieces in the movie are very atmospheric. Outside the abandoned station looks good and as if there is not a soul for miles in any direction, and the inside of the station is very cosy looking away from the rain storm that is outside. I felt like I would have loved to have been there in the movie with the cast. The atmosphere in this movie is something that is missing from a lot of movies now. It keeps you hooked from the moment the movie starts till it finishes.

We need more of this type of movie in todays market. But sadly it could be over looked in favour of movies with nudity and swearing and crude humour. This sort of movie making era (The Ghost Train, Oh Mr Porter, etc) to me is the golden age of cinema!.


Now this is one of Big's Best, Jack Hulbert's single role in 1931 split into two for the Band Waggon radio team Askey & Murdoch. It boasts a great stalwart cast, who ham the play up for all they're worth, especially Askey of course. Histrionics were provided by Linden Travers, melodramatics by Herbert Lomas, and pragmatics by Richard Murdoch.

The group of rail passengers stranded at the lonely country station for the night find more than they bargained for, ghostly trains, spectral porters, hairy sausage rolls and Arthur trying to entertain them all. His repartee with everyone falls between side-splitting and ghastly dull. When the formula works it's very good, but it sometimes gets very contrived and forced making the film seem more dated than it is. But those damn treacherous fifth columnists - thank any God Britain hasn't got any nowadays!

Ultimately a nice harmless film, to welcome back to the TV screen as an old friend, but if you were expecting to be shivered out of your timbers you'll probably be very disappointed!


Ghost Train is a fine and entertaining film, typical of the better British comedy chillers of the 1930s and 40s. The antics of comedian Arthur Askey are not as funny as they once apparently were, but this can be overcome by viewing him as a period piece or a curiosity.

For a low-budget wartime production, Ghost Train is atmospheric, effective, and it provides some genuine suspense. Great fun for a dark (and, yes, stormy) night. Lighten up, take off the critic's hat, and enjoy.


So your bairns are away on a sleep-over ? The wife is visiting the mother in law? You though are at home. It's a dark and stormy night and there is no football on the telly and the dishwasher needs stacking? So now what are you going to do?

I will tell you!

Go make an old fashioned cocoa (Frys is best!)Get hold of some ginger nuts and sit down in front of the DVD. Now go select and play Arthur Askeys world war two thriller/horror The Ghost Train, return to that comfortable settee and enjoy the night in!

The Ghost Train is a genuine British war time classic! Arthur Askey with his side kick,Stinker Murdoch, entertain you and I suspect the cast, to a high octane, thrills and spills, espionage thriller.It's set in old rural England during the second world war.

It centres around a motley group of people that need to stay overnight, through circumstances outside any ones' control, in an old railway waiting room that they discover is haunted by an old train.

The plot unfolds neatly and precisely and is a credit to the entire cast it is humorous in parts and at times genuinely scary!

(The tale was written by that old boy Godfrey of Dads Army fame and it is clever )

Arthur Askey is entertaining and is very at home preforming his routines to you and the cast, he also shows he can act a bit! The cast are never out staged though, even the railway porter and the parrot help give the film the necessary gravitas.

Oh and when it ends please remember to stack the dish washer!


The Ghost Train is a treat to those who appreciate the typical 1940's humour. It incorporates World War Two into the plot but not as much as I initially believed it would, and the characters are a unique blend who play their roles fairly well. Askey, playing the role of Tommy Gander, is what brightens the story up for the parts which could of been portrayed as boring or "dragging".

The story of the haunted station is actually spooky even for present day standards. It is unique and the way the characters communicate with each is fantastic to liven up the mystery which is The Ghost Train. Gander is basically a nuisance to all the other members while the rest get along fairly well. He is always centre of attention and can be dubbed as being "annoying" but that is by those who do not appreciate 1940's humour. His humour is innocent and childish which makes it sweet to watch.

If it was not for Askey/Gander, than this film would of been shorter in action, enjoyment and the result would be not as effective in my opinion.


This was fun to watch, spookily atmospheric and effects were pretty good considering they were bang in the middle of World War Two. The plot did unravel pretty quickly at the end with the villains getting their comeuppance.

It must have been a good one to watch at the local flea pit in the 1940's when they were facing the biggest threat to their liberty from the Nazis - well made with quite a serious message about the dangers to Britain from third columnists.

But Arthur Askey was so annoying & unfunny you just wanted him to shut up - well at least I did ! I suppose different tastes in different times but the clowning around became tiresome. If he was playing an annoying little man as part of the script then he succeeded.

A good watch and quite short at just over 80 minutes - a good background for older kids too so they have an idea of what train travel in austere times was like; uncomfortable slow, dirty trains, being thrown off for no reason, surly staff ....


This film is one of those nostalgia things with me and I never REALLY expect anyone else to "get it" but am pleased when I recommend it and somebody DOES enjoy it. My late father HATED Arthur Askey but this film was one he really enjoyed and his consistent enthusiasm for "The Ghost Train" and "Old Ted 'Olmes" transferred to me as a child. Years later, I watch it every now and again, enjoying the familiarity. I always wonder if it will not be quite the same but I am never disappointed in it. There is much to enjoy. The sequence on the train is truly inspired when Askey and Murdoch proceed to annoy the arrogant male passenger. Then the whole section in the station is amazing with so much going on you have to keep up. Yes, it is dated and full of wartime Britishness in accents and plot (based on the original play by Arnold Ridley of Dad's Army fame!) but full of wonderful character performances - including Kathleen Harrison as a dotty spinster. The atmosphere is truly as near sinister as an Arthur Askey vehicle could get. This is available cheap as chips in the UK on DVD so treat yourself. It is a perfect Saturday/Sunday morning or any day lazy afternoon lightweight piece of entertainment. I Thank You....

OLD MOVIES CAN BE GOOD MOVIES!


This is a classic British comedy-thriller I had always wanted to check out but no opportunity had arisen for that until now. It's based on a popular stage play which had already been filmed a number of times previously (most notably in 1931 by the same director but, unfortunately, this version seems not to have survived in its entirety!); for the remake under review, the plot has been updated to the then-current wartime situation.

Anyway, I was mainly familiar with early British comedians through the films of Will Hay: given that this one features a similar plot of legendary hauntings, smuggling and enemy agents, it's very much in that vein (it was actually scripted by Hay's regular writing team of Marriott Edgar, Val Guest and J.O.C. Orton); the stranded travelers element, then, was an equally tried-and-true formula. The star this time around is Arthur Askey (abetted by Richard Murdoch) - none of whose films I had watched before - who is as unlikely a hero as Hay himself and whose personality proves to be just as potentially irritating...but one soon warms up to him, and Askey certainly comes up with a number of witty lines and amusing bits of business throughout to justify the fact that the lead character of the play (and the 1931 film version) was split into two here, with Murdoch acting as the star's straight partner.

The remote single setting (the events of the film largely take place during one stormy night) provides for some wonderful atmosphere; the last half-hour - with the sudden appearance of a mysterious couple (Raymond Huntley and Linden Travers) and eventually the arrival of the titular vehicle itself - is especially gripping and well handled. Also worth mentioning from the remaining cast list is Kathleen Harrison as the stereotypical frightened spinster, with a parrot as her constant companion and who is driven by all the excitement to take her very first drink.


Hello Playmates.I recently watched this film for the first time ever and it is also my first experience of Arthur Askey, I have to admit I was very impressed by this film. As a fan of black and white films generally, passport to pimlico, the lavender hill mob and Tommy Trinder (who is apparently a distant relative), this film appealed in that it provided good old fashioned British humour. I notice that there are some on here who have criticised Askey's performance, however in my opinion it stands the test of time as a fine example of forties comic acting and if anything adds to the picture by creating characters that are more than the mere stereotypes which seem to so dominate films now.If you can get hold of this film I would recommend you get hold of it,shame these films generally aren't shown on Sunday afternoons anymore.I am also glad to have had the opportunity to watch another piece of work by Arnold Ridley (Private Godfrey in dad's army).I thank you


One of my favourite films first saw it when I was about 10, which probably tells you a lot about the type of humour. Although dated the humour definitely has a charm about it. Expect to see the usual Askey & Murdoch banter so popular in its day, with lots of interesting, quirky co-characters. The lady with the parrot, the couple due to get married and are in trouble from 'her', and my favourite, the stationmaster, "Nobody knows where it comes from ... nobody knows where it goes.." Interestingly the ghost train was written by Arnold Ridley of Dads Army fame (Private Godfrey the medic) Watch it on a rainy Sunday afternoon after your lunch and smile.


As a matter of fact, this is one of those movies you would have to give 7.5 to. The fact is; as already stated, it's a great deal of fun. Wonderfully atmospheric. Askey does indeed come across as over the top, but it's a great vehicle for him, just as Oh, Mr Porter is for Will hay. If you like old dark house movies and trains, then this is definitely for you.

Strangely enough it's the kind of film that you'll want to see again and again. It's friendly and charming in an endearing sort of way with all of the nostalgic references that made great wartime fare. The 'odd' band of characters simply play off each other as they do in many another typical British wartime movie. It would have been wonderful to have seen this film if it had been recorded by Ealing studios . A real pity that the 1931 original has not survived intact


If the very thought of Arthur Askey twists your guts, don't worry, you can still watch and love The Ghost Train, like the equally marvellous Back Room Boy, it is a film that is simply too damn good to be sunk by a single performance, even that of the lead actor. Personally, I love Askey, perhaps it's because I go into his world, rather than unreasonably expecting him to come into mine, which is a mistake too many people make. The Ghost Train is so intensely atmospheric that you couldn't conceivably watch it without being amazed at the deep, dark world it transports you to, it is immersive in a way that few cheap and cheerful flag-wavers managed to be during the desperate early '40s and it's a film that I would imagine few people have ever watched just the once. The cast are, without exception, extraordinarily good, perhaps Linden Travers lays it on a bit thick, but against the backdrop of a lonely railway station in wartime, she could hardly play a nutter and not stand out. The sad passing of the lovely Carole Lynne earlier this year broke the last link we had with this incredible film and now it really is in the past, but waiting patiently for us to press play.


In the colonies we're not all that familiar with Arthur Askey, so I nearly skipped this film (which had its TCM preview recently) on account of the negative comments here on his appearance in "Ghost Train" -- which I expected to be thoroughly annoying. Instead I was pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing audibly. The physical aspects of Askey's comedy and his timing when delivering a line suggest what you'd get if Charlie Chaplin and Woody Allen had a baby. There is no comparing him to Bud Abbott or any of the other usual purveyors of comic relief who turn up in films of this genre. One can feel, moreover, the thread connecting Askey to British comedy 30 years later; at least it is clear from an American point of view that he has more in common with the Monty Python troupe than with any of his counterparts over here. As for the rest of the film -- the more movies you've seen, the more likely you'll guess at the ending, but it is still quite entertaining and atmospheric and worth waiting for its next appearance.


I have seen the recent Region 2 DVD of this movie displayed in the "horror" section in an Oxford Street store and also advertised as a "classic thriller". In reality it is almost solely a vehicle for Arthur Askey, one of the most popular names in British comedy and light entertainment for over four decades.

Perhaps his incessantly cheerful, exuberant and essentially good-natured humour comes as a bit of a culture shock to many accustomed to the sour and cynical flavour of much British comedy of the past twenty five years. However there are still those who appreciate his lively and cheery persona and total avoidance of pathos. Askey was an idol of the great Tommy Cooper who frequently borrowed the "self-strangulation" gag that Arthur attempts to entertain the stranded passengers with.

There is a striking, rare appearance by the under-rated Linden Travers, who makes an impact as the mysterious Julie.


a timeless classic, wonderfully acted with perfect location settings, conjuring a marvelous atmospheric movie. a simple story mingled with humor and suspense. i wish that a video was available in Britain. i have seen this film on many occasions and it remains one of my favorites along with Oh Mr Porter.


This movie reminded me that some old Black & White movies are definitely worth the look.

Initially I had some reservations, however from the beginning of the movie until the end I was captivated. I was VERY impressed with the mixture of drama, suspense & comedy.

Arthur Askey (Tommy Gander) is HILARIOUS and had me in stitches the whole time.

Definitely add this movie to your movie-night for some light relief from the sometimes depressing and "too" powerful or overly "funny" movies of today.


I was young film student in 1979 when the Union of the Soviet Filmmakers came to Sofia Bulgaria and premiered Konchalovsky's "Siberiade"; Tarkosvky's "Stalker" and Danelia'a "Autumn marathon". I was stunned by the cosmopolitan dimension of the art form. Then and only then, I saw "Siberiade" 4 and 1/2 hours epic and was speechless. Way better then Bertolucci's "1900". By far!

Hope Andron will somehow get to the negative and make "director's restored version full lenght " someday! On DVD of course! Also I fiercely fought in defense of this Cinema against most of my colleagues who were equating Soviet film with bad taste! Time is on my side.


I have seen the film a few days back on a video tape and even though it was hard to swallow it at one take (because of its length and story), I liked it very much. I was impressed first, by the script and then, by the realization of this script. The film takes you on a ride, but that is not an easy, joyful ride; it goes through time and different political regimes and shows the influence of them to ordinary people's lives. What I loved was the inner logic the film followed; logic, which just like logic in life, was rather illogical and confusing at times but in the end, when I thought about it, all the events and twists made sense. It makes no sense though to try to re-tell the story as it spreads in more than 50 years of time. I also liked very much Nikita Mikhalkov's character Aleksei and the way he played it, as some critics would saw, with restless abandon. What I didn't like about it, was that I think he later played characters that remind me of Aleksei in films like "Cruel Romance" (Zhestokij romans, which I actually love) and to some extent in "The Insulted and the Injured" ("Unizhennye i oskorblyonnye"). "Sibiriada" shows, I think, what a great film-maker Andrei Konchalovski was before he went to Hollywood and made forgettable films like "Tango and Cash" and less forgettable like "Runaway train". I would prefer "Kurochka Ryaba" to them...


It is a story of Siberian village people from the beginning of 20th century till the 60ties. It is about passion and feelings, about Russian soul, and very romantic. This movie IS NOT action packed, it flowes slowely. In second part one can find great songs - Russian romances. It is much more better than Doctor Zhivago. The director of this movie moved to America and made Runaway Train for example.


For anyone who wishes to get an impression of the Soviet view of modern Russian history this monumental film is a treasure. The story starts at the turn of the century (1900) in the yellowish sepia colours of old photographs which improves to black and white during the middle of the century and to full colour when the story approaches modern times (i.e. the 1960s).

The story focuses on a boy in a remote Siberian village, who is marked by the arrival and arrest of an anarchist during the czarist era. He later joins the Bolsheviks after the revolution and brings soviet communism to his village. His son, by the local beauty, fights the Germans during the Second World War. When he returns to the village, the oil industry takes off and we are treated to some Soviet economic idealism.

This film is long and slow, but utterly logic and very well made. It can be seen in three parts.


The legend of Andrei Konchalovsky's towering 4 and a half hour poem to Siberia is not to begin at once, because it must hold back for space, because it takes its time in roundabout explorations of half-remembered childhood memories in a turn-of-the-century backwoods village, yet the movie goes on picking up steam building in emotional resonance as though even the sounds and images which compose it become imbued by sheer association with their subject matter with that quality of fierce tireless quiet dignity that characterizes the Soviet working spirit. Konchalovsky celebrates Soviet collectivity but in an almost revisionist way to paeans like Soy Cuba and Invincible the mood turns somber and reflective. News of the revolution reach the secluded Siberian village through the grapevine. The fruits of its labor reach it only when a world war calls for the young men to enlist. Through all this, Konchalovksy zeroes in on the individual, with care and affection to examine the bitter longing and regret of the woman who waited 6 years after the war for a fiancé who never came back, waited long enough to go out and become a barmaid in a ship with velvet couches and which she quit years later to come back to her village to care for an aging uncle who killed the fiancé's father with an axe, the irreverent folly of the fiancé who came back from the war a hero 20 years too late, came back not for the sake of the girl he left behind but to drill oil for the motherland, the despair and resignation of the middle-aged Regional Party Leader who comes back to his small Siberian village with the sole purpose of blotting it out of the map to build a power plant. The movie segues from decade to decade from the 10's to the 80's with amazing newsreel footage trailing Soviet history from the revolution to war famine and the titanic technological achievements of an empire (terrific visuals here! all kinetic violence and skewed angles and flickering cramped shots of crowds and faces) but the actual movie focuses on the individual, on triumphs and follies small and big. By the second half a sense of bittersweet fatalism creeps in; of broken lives that never reached fulfillment choking with regret and yearning. "It can't matter", seems like the world is saying, to which Konchalovksy answers "it must matter" because the protagonists keep on trying for redemption.

Yet behind this saga of 'man against landscape' something seems to hover, shadowy, almost substanceless, like the Eternal Old Man hermit who appears in every segment to guide or repudiate the protagonists, sometimes a mere spectactor, sometimes the enigmatic sage; a little behind and above all the other straightforward and logical incomprehensible ultimatums challenges and affirmations of the human characters, something invisible seems to lurk. Ghosts of the fathers appearing in sepia dreams, repeated shots of a star gleaming in the nightsky, a curious bear, indeed the Eternal Old Man himself; Konchalovksy calls for awe and reverence before a mystical land of some other order. In its treatment of a small backwoods community struggling against nature progress and time and in the ways it learns to deal with them, often funny bizarre and tragic at the same time, and in how the director never allows cynicism to override his humanism, it reminds me of Shohei Imamura's The Profound Desires of the Gods. When, in a dream scene, Alexei tears through the planks of a door on which is plastered a propaganda poster of Stalin to reach out at his (dead) father as he vanishes in the fog, the movie hints at the betrayal of the Soviet Dream, or better yet, at all the things lost in the revolution, this betrayal made more explicit in the film's fiery denouement. The amazing visuals, elegiac and somber with a raw naturalist edge, help seal the deal. By the end of it, an oil derric erupts in flames and the movie erupts in a wild explosion of pure cinema.


Apart from having the longest reign in British history (63 years), Queen Victoria also holds two other distinctions. She was, apart from our current Queen, the oldest ever British monarch, living to the age of 81. And she was also the youngest ever British (as opposed to English or Scottish) monarch, coming to the throne as a girl of eighteen. And yet whenever television or the cinema make a programme or film about her, they seem far more interested in the older Victoria than they do in the young girl; the version of Victoria with which modern audiences will probably be most familiar is Judi Dench in "Mrs Brown". "The Young Victoria" tries to redress the balance by showing us the events surrounding her accession and the early years of her reign. It has the rare distinction of being produced by a former Royal, Sarah Duchess of York, whose daughter Princess Beatrice makes a brief appearance as an extra.

There are three main strands to the plot. The first concerns the intrigues of Victoria's mother, the Duchess of Kent, a highly unpopular figure even with her own daughter, largely because of the influence of her adviser Sir John Conroy, who was widely rumoured to be her lover. (According to one unfounded rumour he, and not the late Duke of Kent, was Victoria's natural father). The second strand concerns the growing romance between Victoria and her German cousin Prince Albert, and the attempts of King Leopold of Belgium, who was uncle to both of them, to influence this romance. (Leopold's hope was to increase the prestige of the House of Saxe-Coburg, to which both he and Albert belonged). The third concerns one of the strangest episodes in British political history, the Bedchamber Crisis of 1839, when supporters of the Tory Party (which had traditionally supported a strong monarchy) rioted because the young Queen was perceived to favour the Whig Party and their leader Lord Melbourne, even though the Whigs had historically supported a quasi-republican system of government, with the monarch reduced to a figurehead.

Scriptwriter Julian Fellowes is known for his Conservative views, and at times I wondered if this may have coloured his treatment of political themes, as he seems to lean to the side of the Tories, the predecessors of the modern Conservative party. Their leader Robert Peel is shown as statesmanlike and dignified, whereas Melbourne, for all his dash and charm, is shown as devious and uninterested in social reform. There may be some truth is these characterisations, but Fellowes glosses over the fact that only a few years earlier the Tories had opposed the Reform Act, which ended the corrupt electoral system of rotten boroughs, and that they had benefited from William IV's unconstitutional dismissal of a Whig administration.

Lessons in dynastic and constitutional history do not always transfer well to the cinema screen, and this one contains its share of inaccuracies. Prince Albert, for example, was not injured in Edward Oxford's attempt on Victoria's life, and Melbourne (in his late fifties at the time of Victoria's accession) was not as youthful as he is portrayed here by Paul Bettany. King William IV certainly disliked the Duchess of Kent (who was his sister-in-law), but I doubt if he would have gone so far as to bawl abuse at her during a state banquet, as he is shown doing here. I also failed to understand the significance of the scene in which the Duchess and Conroy try to force Victoria to sign a "Regency Order"; the Duchess's constitutional position was made clear by the Regency Act 1830, which provided that she would become Regent if her daughter was still under eighteen at the time of her accession. No piece of paper signed by Victoria could have altered the provisions of the Act.

There are also occasional infelicities. In one early scene we see Victoria and Albert playing chess while comparing themselves to pawns being moved around a chessboard, a metaphor so hackneyed that the whole scene should have come complete with a "Danger! Major cliché ahead!" warning. Yet in spite of scenes like this, I came to enjoy the film. There were some good performances, especially from Miranda Richardson as the scheming Duchess and Mark Strong as the obnoxious Conroy. It is visually very attractive, being shot in sumptuous style we have come to associate with British historical drama. Jim Broadbent gives an amusing turn as King William, although he does occasionally succumb to the temptation of going over the top. (Although not as disastrously over the top as he was in "Moulin Rouge").

The main reason for the film's success, however, is the performances of Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend as the two young lovers Victoria and Albert. Blunt is probably more attractive than Victoria was in real life, but in her delightful portrayal the Queen is no longer the old lady of the popular imagination, the black-clad Widow of Windsor who was perpetually not amused, but a determined, strong-minded and loving young woman. Her love for Albert, and their happy family life together, was one of the main reasons why the monarchy succeeded in reestablishing itself in the affections of the British people. (With the exception of George III, Victoria's Hanoverian ancestors had been notoriously lacking in the matrimonial virtues). Blunt and Friend make "The Young Victoria" a touching romance and a gripping human drama as well as an exploration of a key period in British history. 8/10


I went into this expecting not to like it; I figured it would be terribly worthy and earnest, and rather plodding and dull.

It's actually far better than that, and I found myself really enjoying it. I don't know too much about Queen Victoria beyond what most know - married to Albert, who died young, and she mourned him ever after. Seeing the circumstances she grew up under was fascinating; in fact I found myself wishing I'd seen more of the story, and I imagine we may see a sequel at some point.

Visually the film is stunning. The sets and costumes are incredibly lavish without being too gaudy and over the top. The acting is top notch from everybody involved.

In a word, it was great!


Despite some reviews being distinctly Luke-warm, I found the story totally engrossing and even if some critics have described the love story as 'Mills and Boon', so what? It is good to see a warm, touching story of real love in these cynical times. Many in the audience were sniffing and surreptitiously dabbing their eyes. You really believe that the young Victoria and Albert are passionately fond of each other, even though, for political reasons, it was an arranged marriage. I did feel though that Sir John Conroy, who was desperate to control the young Queen, is perhaps played too like a pantomime villain. As it is rumoured that he was in fact, the real father of Victoria (as a result of an affair with her mother The Duchess of Kent) it would have been interesting to explore this theory. Emily Blunt is totally convincing as the young Princess, trapped in the stifling palace with courtiers and politicians out to manipulate her. She brilliantly portrays the strength of character and determination that eventually made Victoria a great Queen of England, which prospered as never before, under her long reign. I believe word of mouth recommendations will ensure great success for this most enjoyable and wonderful looking movie.


The 63 year reign of Queen Victoria is perhaps one of the most documented and popularly known historical reigns in British history. On the one hand, her story lacks the theatrics of earlier royals thanks to a change in social climate and attitudes, and on the other her story is one that perpetuates because it is notably human. Taking on the earlier years of her life where the budding romance between herself and the German Prince Albert was taking forefront, director Jean-Marc Vallée who has only until recently remained in the unbeknownst shadows of the industry here takes Victoria's story and captures that human element so vital to her legacy. It's a story that feels extremely humble considering its exuberant background, and yet that's partly what gives it a distinct edge here that separates it from the usual fare.

Taking a very direct and focused approach that centres in on a brief five or so year period between her ascension and marriage to Albert, The Young Victoria does what so little period pieces of this nature offer. Instead of attempting a sprawling encapsulation of such a figure's entire life, Vallée instead opts to show one of the lesser known intricacies of Victoria's early years which are easily overlooked in favour of the more publicly known accolades. The result is a feature that may disgruntle historians thanks to its relatively flippant regards to facts and the like, yet never to let document get in the way of extracting a compelling story, writer Julian Fellowes sticks to his guns and delivers a slightly romanticised yet convincing portrayal. Vallée takes this and runs, making sure to fully capitalise on those elements with enough restraint to maintain integrity in regards to both the history involved and the viewer watching.

A major part in the joy of watching The Young Victoria play out however simply lies in the production values granted here that bring early 1800's Regal Britain to life with a vigorous realism so rarely achieved quite so strikingly by genre films. Everything from the costume designs, sets, hair styles, lighting and photography accentuates the grandiose background inherent to Victoria's story without ever over-encumbering it. Indeed, while watching Vallée's interpretation come to life here it is very hard not to be sucked in solely through the aesthetics that permeates the visual element; and then there's the film's score also which works tremendously to further the very elegant yet personal tones that dominate Fellowes' script. Entwining the works of Schubert and Strauss into Victoria and Albert's story not only works as a point of reference for the characters to play with, but also melds to the work with an elegance and refrain that echoes composer Ilan Eshkeri's original work just as well.

Yet for all the poignant compositions, lush backdrops and immaculate costumes that punctuate every scene, the single most important factor hereand indeed to most period dramasare the performances of the cast and how they help bring the world they exist in to life. Thankfully The Young Victoria is blessed with an equally immaculate ensemble of thespians both young and old that do a fantastic job of doing just that. Between the sweet, budding romance of Victoria (Emily Blunt) and Albert (Rupert Friend) and the somewhat antagonistic struggles of her advisors and the like (spearheaded by a terrific Mark Strong and Paul Bettany), the conflicts and warmth so prevalent to Fellowe's screenplay are conveyed perfectly here by all involved which helps keep the movie from being a plastic "nice to look at but dim underneath" affair so common with these outings.

In the end, it's hard to fault a work such as The Young Victoria. It's got a perfectly touching and human sense of affection within its perfectly paced romance, plus some historical significance that plays as an intriguing source of interest for those in the audience keen on such details. Of course, it may not take the cinematic world by storm and there lacks a certain significance to its overall presence that stops it from ever becoming more than just a poignantly restrained romantic period drama; yet in a sense this is what makes it enjoyable. Vallée never seems to be striving for grandeur, nor does he seem content at making a run-of-the-mill escapist piece for aficionados. Somewhere within this gray middle-ground lies The Young Victoria, sure to cater to genre fans and those a little more disillusioned by the usual productions; beautiful, memorable but most of all, human.

- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)


Rupert Friend gives a performance, as Prince Albert, that lifts "The Young Victoria" to unexpected levels. He is superb. As we know, Queen Victoria fell into a dark, deep depression after Prince Albert's death and looking into Ruper Friend's eyes I understood. The film doesn't take us to his death but to an incident that may very well could have cost his life. An act of love. I believed it, or I should say, him. I believed what he felt was real. Nothing or anybody gets anywhere near the delicacy and profundity of Friend's characterization. Emily Blunt is good but I didn't believe for a minute she was Victoria. No real sense of period. It may no have been her fault but her prince deserved the crown.


And that's why historic/biographic movies are so important to all of us, moreover when they are so well done, like this one!

Before I saw "The Young Victoria", I knew a few things about Queen Victoria, but in the end I got much more knowledge about it.

Emily Blunt is simply GREAT as Victoria (Who would guess that!) and She probably will get a nomination at this years Oscar's. Personally, I'm cheering for her...

For technical issues, I am pleased to say that is a very successful production, with wonderful Art Direction/Set Decoration and, of course, like It was expected to be, a terrific periodic Costume Design!

The one drawback is that I want to see more and know more about this interesting queen, but foremost, incredible woman and mother!

BRAVO: 9 out of 10!


This film is about the life of Queen Victoria during her youth and her first few years as the monarch of Great Britain.

"The Young Victoria" has amazing production. Every scene is designed and decorated to immaculate detail. The extravagant costumes, lavish locations and beautifully landscaped gardens all make "The Young Victoria" very impressive. I was the most amazed by the thoughtful cinematography. How every person is placed in relation to the background or foreground is well thought out, every scene is well composed. The scene that strikes me the most was when Victoria talks to Melbourne. Melbourne was positioned in the middle of the door frame from Victoria's angle, while from Melbourne's angle Victoria was situated between the space where Melbourne held his arm on his hips.

Story wise, it is far too compressed to be followed and understood by a person without historical knowledge of Queen Victoria. Many events are rushed through or not even explained. I expected a grand scene of the coronation, and disappointingly it only lasted for a few seconds.

Overall, "The Young Victoria" is a good film, and it would have been even better if it was longer, so that events could be properly explained without rush.


Princess Victoria (Emily Blunt) is in line for the throne of England. The present King William (Jim Broadbent) is not well and may not live long. However, Vicky's scheming mother, The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richandson) and her aide, John (Mark Strong) want to force Victoria to sign papers declaring them to be the "regents" until she is older, since she is only 20 years of age. The young lady refuses, despite John slapping her around. It is another sign that Victoria has a strong will and deep love for her country. Yet, when William does pass away, shortly after her 21st birthday, Victoria knows she has a heavy duty before her. First, she must surround herself with the "right" advisers to govern wisely. She chooses handsome Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) who, although an older man, is mentioned as a suitor for Vicky. Which brings us to the young queen's second major decision. Sooner than not, the young queen should select her future mate, as it will bring stability to her life and to those of the kingdom, for an heir must appear in the coming years. Meanwhile, in Germany, some distant relatives of the British royal family are hatching some plans as well. Handsome Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), of the Saxon-Coburg dynasty, is prodded by his father to court the young English royal. Once he arrives at the palace, he is smitten and the feeling seems to be mutual. But, since he is a minor player on the map of royal match-making, can he succeed in winning her heart? This is a lovely film, made even better by a completely winning performance by Emily Blunt as Victoria. Yes, she is beautiful but it is her intelligent reading of the role that scores mightily. Friend, too, does well, as do the other actors, including Broadbent, Richardson, Bettany, Strong (what a repulsive role!), and the rest. Also, the movie is gorgeously shot, costumed, and set, making it a visual treat in every way. If anything is lacking, it is an extra dose of dazzle, as the film seems a bit too straightforward and prosaic, at times, with a somewhat unimaginative edit. However, this is only a minor, minor point of argument in an overall very successful and gorgeous film. In short, young and old, should make time for Young Victoria. It is a most worthy film among 2009 cinematic offerings.


The cinematic interests in the British monarchy continues with The Young Victoria (1837 to 1901), after having seen in recent years, the efforts with Keira Knightley's The Duchess, Cate Blanchett's Elizabeth films, and Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman's take on the Boleyn sisters with The Other Boleyn Girl. More contemporary stories would include Helen Mirren's award winning portrayal of The Queen on the current reign of Queen Elizabeth II at the turn of Princess Diana's death.

Each of the films mentioned featured stunning actresses with acting gravitas (ok, so some may dispute Johansson) or were the flavour of their moment, and each film had a definitive moment in their historical character's legacy that it becomes a no brainer to have those events featured, and in fact Elizabeth had enough to span two films. However, The Young Victoria, as the title already suggests, is a lite-version of the young queen's life, and if you're looking for that definitive event, or the staple political intrigue that plague all royal households and their dealings with shady, self-serving politicians, unfortunately there's nothing of depth here.

That's not to say The Young Victoria is without. Directed by Canadian Jean-Marc Vallee (best known for CRAZY) and written by Julian Fellowes, this film chronicles in very plain terms, ,the life and times of Victoria (Emily Blunt, soon becoming the new It girl) when she was a child, the troubles she faced before Coronation such as the eagerness of her mom The Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her adviser Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) to appoint themselves as joint-Regent to her throne, as already planned for by reigning King William (Jim Broadbent). As if that wasn't enough, the political power play enters the picture with Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany) being a Prime Minister-in-waiting trying to gain the trust of the new Queen, and subtly plants his own trusted allies into positions within the palace. On one hand you'd understand the need for a young, and new Queen to have trusted people in key positions, but on the other, are they really acting in her interests, or in the interests of others?

Even this angle of intrigue creeps into her romantic story with Prince Albert (Rupert Friend), where their relationship forms the bulk of the second half of the film, and pretty much everything already included in the trailers. For both, they've been brought up under the influence of others, and told each step of the way exactly what to do. Even their union may seem like a firm registration of an alliance, if not for both lovers recognizing their common need to establish their own grounding, and to do so with the help of each other. Instead of being pawns, there's this constant search and probing of opportunities to break out of stifling, and at times absurd, rules and regulations. Trust also becomes a much valued commodity, and loyalty too can be traded for wanting to set the slate clean.

However, all these themes become but a breeze through the narrative, from childhood to romance, marriage and children. In fact, there's so much fast-forwarding here, especially the last few minutes filled with inter-titles, that it actually leaves the audience wanting for more, and room of course for another movie, which I suspect would probably not see the light of day, but perhaps a television series might pick up on the film's response, and come out with a mini-series or such. It's a pity that all the effort here in ensuring the gorgeous costumes, sets and art direction would be confined to a film that's quite lightweight in theme and brief mention of issues, that they don't really challenge the protagonists in order to allow for some overcoming of character-defining adversary.

With its star-studded cast, one would expect more, but one would be left wanting more instead. Recommended for those who are ever curious about Kings and Queens in the British Monarchy, only as a complement to other more engaging stories available in the other films already mentioned.


It is a tricky thing to play a queen. On the one hand, the actress has to be majestic and imperious, and on the other, she has to show vulnerability in a tough situation as well as the gathering of the courage and resolution to overcome the odds, since almost all movies about queens have that basic plot line.

Emily Blunt is quite radiant as Victoria, but it's not as full a performance as I'd like, no blame to her. I can't help but feel like this is a Mills & Boon novel adaptation compared to a darker, more dramatic movie about another young queen, Elizabeth. Hence Blunt doesn't get to run the gamut of queenly emotions, at least not to the full extent, since she's, y'know, the young Victoria. To see the old Victoria, check out Mrs Brown.

Jean-Marc Vallee is an interesting choice of director for the movie. He last did C.R.A.Z.Y., which was excellent and propelled him to fame. It was quite a different movie but I remember it looking gorgeous and that's probably the main similarity between the two movies. But while Vallee wrote C.R.A.Z.Y., this one was by Julian Fellowes, and though I really enjoyed his Gosford Park, the story for this movie was much less interesting. I soon got lost with all the governmental politics. Maybe it was less engaging because there was no potential beheading of the monarchy. I'm just saying.


Having to have someone hold your hand whenever walk up or down stairs? Having others taste your food before you eat it? Facing an over-bearing mother? These are only a few of the obstacles which the young Victoria has to deal with in this film (there's also the various power struggles going on, as well as attempts on her life). Needless to say, it makes for very fascinating and informative viewing.

I had only previously seen Emily Blunt in The Devil Wears Prada (and little else). As she was in that film, she is once again the standout here. I was extremely impressed with her portrayal of the young Victoria, and thought she handled the role very well. She makes the transition from the young Victoria we meet at the start of the film to the Queen Victoria she becomes later entirely believable. Blunt is perfectly cast in the role, showing all the different sides (from the vulnerable, to the strong, from the young Victoria who makes mistakes to the Queen who takes control). Not enough can be said about Emily Blunt in this role. She's - quite simply - exquisite, commanding your attention every second she's on screen. She keeps you transfixed up to and including the final shot of the film.

Rupert Friend proves to also be well-cast as Victoria's love interest (and eventual husband), Prince Albert. The actors have nice chemistry and you absolutely believe in their developing relationship. They have their disagreements, but you can tell that they are in love. Blunt and Friend are excellent in every scene that they share and keep you interested in what is happening between Victoria and Albert. The other actors in the film are also very good. Paul Bettany as Lord Melbourne, Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, Mark Strong as Sir John Conroy and Jim Broadbent as King William. There is not a single bad performance in this film. The less-focused-upon people are well-portrayed also, given what little screen time they have. Even Victoria's dog (a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel named Dash) is memorable and makes an impact in the film.

Although the movie does tend to skip more than a few aspects of Victoria's life - especially at the end - and instead *tells* us what happened (with her and Albert) on screen, what matters the most is what we actually *see*. This is, after all, a film about 'The Young Victoria' (not 'The Middle-Aged Victoria', nor 'The Old Victoria'). While there are some embellishments made on history with this film, it remains focused on what it sets out to do - which is tell us the story of how the young princess rose to power.

The movie looks amazing, the costumes Emily Blunt wears are visually stunning and the music only adds to the film, never detracts from it. It's exceptionally shot and, unlike a lot of films these days, this movie is actually a good length, as it doesn't run on so long that you lose interest or feel that it's needlessly being drawn out.

It goes without saying that what makes this film so great is Emily Blunt. She's in fine form here, turning in another excellent performance and elevating this film above what it might have been, had another actress been cast in this rather important/historic role. This is one finely-crafted film, with excellent performances that should definitely be seen. If you have an appreciation for a fascinating look at a woman who was extremely significant in history, this is a must-see.


One of those beautifully intense movies that draws us so intimately far in, it ends much to soon! Than were left looking at the screen like, "No they didn't!", lol. Good performances all around! The acting is marvelous with Emily Blunt simply outstanding! I knew she would give a solid, convincing performance catching young Victoria's regality, temper, and vulnerability through out the entire movie. Also, the production is outstanding in every way: style, substance and sensitivity. A remarkable glimpse at a remarkable time in Britian's history told via a very personal and touching biography of the school age princess until her reign as Queen, later marrying Prince Albert, than ending with the birth of their first of nine children. It had a well written screenplay and flawless editing. Rupert Friend as the ever so patient and compassionate young Prince Albert vying to win the young Queen's attention, than securing her love, before Lord Melbourne(Paul Bettany), was engrossing to watch. Just as engrossing was the relationship between the teenage Victoria and her mother, which was fury at times, as with her mother and King William (whom also disliked her mother). The acting and scenes were captivating, highly emotional.

I would recommend this to anyone interested in the historical and political situation existing in that era, and indeed, anyone who loves a compelling true romance story


What more can be said? I have not been this fascinated with a young actress since Cate Blanchett burst upon the scene over ten years ago. And although both Blanchett and Blunt have played Queens now( seems to be the benchmark for up and coming actresses), the roles are complete polar opposites.

Simply put if you are looking for high passion, compelling drama, and Machiavellian intrigue, this is not the movie for you. This isn't to say that the script or direction was bad, its just that the subject of the film did not lead too dramatic a life when compared to other notable royals like Elizabeth I, Anne Boylen, Henry VIII, Henry V, Henry II and Elainor of Acquitane. These are people whose lives were the stuff such as good soap operas are made of and whose policies and decisions altered the course of British ,and in most cases, world history. Victoria, in contrast, ascended the throne without incident, she quasi-governed a nation that was fast becoming a global power due to industrialization and the rise of the Navy, her State had a stable government led by competent and dynamic politicians, and she married young had a harmonious family life. The facts of her life are not the Sturm und Drag such as powerful dramas are made of.

The heart of the film, aside from the attempt to dramatize her stultifying upbringing and the machinations surrounding her throne, is the story of the one thing that was truly shocking and surprising about her reign- a love story. Marriage made for financial or political reasons is with reason not necessarily the place to look for world shaking passion, yet Victoria will always be remembered in history as being sort of a Patron Saint marital fidelity, happiness and ideal family life. Thus, central to the film is the budding love of Victoria and her Prince Albert. I was very taken with Rupert Friend's characterization of Albert whom he portrayed as a kind, patient, somewhat earnest and maybe a touch naive young man, looking to" do good in the world and help". In short, he is a good man with a good heart, not the most dynamic figure to base a drama around, but as that is not the point of the story, that does not matter. The heart of the character shines through thanks to Friend's understated yet earnest performance.

As for the Queen, well..Emily Blunt is sublime. Her beauty cannot be denied, but she is more than something pretty to look at; her face is like quicksilver because of her expressiveness. The slightest arch of the eyebrow, glance of the eye or slight wry smile delivers so much. Again, this is not a bombastic performance of heavy speeches and impassioned pleas, its not that kind of movie. But what Ms. Blunt does do with the role is show the simple humanity of the character with potent subtlety.

For example, we see the joie de vivre that has been kept in check by Victoria's mother ( Miranda Richardson) and her scheming adviser/lover Conroy expressed in the simple things like Victoria trying to sketch her dog. We see her delight and fascination upon first meeting Albert by her eyes being continually drawn to him. We see her nervous and overwhelmed when addressing Parliament upon her Ascension. And my favorite scene of all in the film- we see her nervous, happy, and hopeful as she steels herself to do what really most women never have to do in their life- ask the man she loves to marry her, a proposition so ridiculous for those times( and some would say now) that Victoria bursts out in nervous laughter before she can even say "marry me". Again, this is not a movie for over the top larger than life expressions, but more a study in the subtleties of a character and making the little things say so much.

So, overall, I judge the film by what it is and what it tried to do and as such I give it a 7. I felt that some of the politics could be better explained and that some very fine actors were wasted with little do and little character development, namely Miranda Richardson as the Duchess of Kent, and the characters of Conroy and Lord Peal. Again, the film need not have spent a large amount of time on those characters, but a little more exposition would have helped to explain the political environment. Also I would have loved to have seen more of the adjustment to married life between Victoria and Albert, but that may be just my greed for more scenes between Friend and Blunt.

In summary, don't view this film in terms of a historical drama but for what it really is, a love story between two characters that happen to be historical figures. I give this film a solid 7 for wonderful lead performances, brilliant costumes and scenery and the magnificent Victoria of Emily Blunt. And anyone who has any shred of romance left in them, you will be touched by the end of this movie. God save the Queen.


Overall, I thought it a very nice movie - I hate to use the word 'nice' as it's rather dry but it was very beautiful to look at and the central performances by Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt were very strong. What I liked most was that despite the gleaming aesthetics of the costumes and the settings, all gilded and shiny, this aspect never took over the heart of the film which was good, strong writing (thank you Julian Fellowes :D); nothing too flamboyant or saturated with pomp, i.e not sensationalised greatly (when Victoria is dragged out of bed to be informed she is now Queen, well you couldn't get a less glamorous hand over of the crown). It was paced gently and every line in the film held its worth.

Undoubtedly the portrayal of the love between Victoria and Albert, though somewhat fairytale-ish on the face it, was in fact a slow burning candle and Friend and Blunt did well to show how effortlessly these two people 'fitted' together despite the union being initially arranged (my fave bit was when they come home after hunting and Victoria simply hugs her new husband from behind; so much said without any words, that's what film is all about). Blunt held her own beautifully as well, she has a face that demands your attention and I can't not mention the costumes that she wears - every one simply gorgeous. If I was Blunt I would have trouble parting with any of them! The rest of the ensemble cast all played their roles well, Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide being a highlight.

The only qualm I have, is that it lacked a sense of urgency, or an event that could have made the movie a little more exciting? (It was rather tame) I don't know, I wanted 'something' to happen that would have Victoria draw out some strength and prove her worth a little more. When she and Albert argued, I loved it, I could have done with some more pivotal dramatic moments, though that may be just me.

Lastly, at the risk of sounding all patriotic, it did renew a sort of pride and awe in the crown and what it takes to be in such a position, especially in one so young. This may be in part to the fact that this film's snap shot of Victoria's young life is immediately apt to what I have been writing for one character of mine in 'The Sword & The Scion' but nevertheless, it did flag up those feelings (for those following my book, can you guess what character Victoria so aptly reflects?) It might have been in part to the film displaying how ridiculous the government were back in those times as they didn't seem to give two hoots about the poor and dispossessed of the nation, which only in turns renews appreciation that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were so active in this domestic domain. It made the government appear rather useless - nothing much has changed then I suppose.

BLOG on films and books: http://sempergratis.blogspot.com


I always have a bit of distrust before watching the British period films because I usually find on them insipid and boring screenplays (such as the ones of, for example, Vanity Fair or The Other Boleyn Girl), but with a magnificent production design, European landscapes and those thick British accents which make the movies to suggest artistic value which they do not really have.Fortunately, the excellent film The Young Victoria does not fall on that situation, and it deserves an enthusiastic recommendation because of its fascinating story, the excellent performances from Emily Blunt, Paul Bettany and Jim Broadbent, and the costumes and locations which unexpectedly make the movie pretty rich to the view.And I say "unexpectedly" because I usually do not pay too much attention to those details.

"Victorian era" was (in my humble opinion) one of the key points in contemporary civilization, and not only on the social aspect, but also in the scientific, artistic and cultural ones.But I honestly did not know about the origins from that era very much, and maybe because of that I enjoyed this simplification of the political and economic events which prepared the landing of modern era so much.I also liked the way in which Queen Victoria is portrayed, which is as a young and intelligent monarch whose decisions were not always good, but they were at least inspired by good intentions.I also found the depiction of the romance between Victoria and Prince Albert very interesting because it is equally interested in the combination of intellects as well as in the emotions it evokes.The only fail I found on this movie is that screenwriter Julian Fellowes used some clichés of the romantic cinema on the love story, something which feels a bit out of place on his screenplay.

I liked The Young Victoria very much, and I really took a very nice surprise with it.I hope more period films follow the example of this movie: the costumes and the landscapes should work as the support of an interesting story, and not as the replacement of it.


The Young Victoria is a beautiful film and has presented Queen Victoria in a different light to what everyone thinks about her. The films wipes away the "I am not amused" impression of Queen Victoria and shows she was a cheerful young woman.

As I love history, particularly Victorian history, you can imagine my reaction when i first saw this film advertised, i was so so so excited and counted down the days until it came to the cinemas. I was a little worried that it wouldn't be historically accurate, but it was and I loved it. I found out new facts about Queen Victoria that didn't know before and it interested me greatly.

Queen Victoria in many lights was one of our all time greatest Monarchs, and this film paints a picture of her real personality and what her life was like. She was treated so badly by her mothers adviser Sir John Conroy, because he wanted Britain to have a regency. This was what inspired Victoria to be a fantastic Queen, which she was! The romance between her and Albert was so deep and this was very well done by Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend, who were both brilliant! The Young Victoria is a heart felt love story but at the same time a great look into a major part of British History...I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!! 10/10 ... no doubt!


Enjoyed the movie very much. Certainly will leave the audience wanting to know more, and there is truly a lot more historically to find out!

Did the production team fall to the temptation of over dramatization, particularly of the shooting event? There is a ton of interesting accurate material hinted at? Prince Albert's contribution to UK and the monarchy warrants a movie on it's own but granted that was apparently not part of the intention here.

The costumes and sets are especially good but am I alone in thinking that this production (which judging by the length of titles at the end was certainly not a cheap one) wanted badly for a British Court historical etiquette expert beyond the Duchess of York? i.e. Did Princess Victoria really stuff an entire truffle/rissole(?) into her mouth while speaking to the Prime Minister in the company of His Majesty with her mouth full?

'Could never really felt that sympathetic to Victoriain this movie, or indeed in her shoes at all. Yet loved the casting of the principals, whose acting was convincing, so did the script really allow us to really get to know them well? I always felt like a totally detached, uninformed outside observer, much more so than with "Mrs. Brown" or even "The Queen". Yet to be honest I still could not take my eyes off the screen, except that is for some of the more avant-garde camera techniques which were distracting from time to time.


This is on my top list of all-time favourite films! It is a fantastic and insightful film. It was Historically interesting and great to watch! I thought the acting from Emily Blunt was fantastic and Rupert Friend was a fantastic Albert, the best actor was chosen for Albert. The costumes were gorgeous and the settings and scenes such as the opera house, were amazing and detailed. I just loved it, all of it! I loved the childhood scenes were she's getting 'bullied' by John Conroy. And where her mother says she has to walk stairs with an adult. One again the writers have done it! They produced this fantastic script!

It thoroughly deserves the awards they got. (Oscar and BAFTA wining Sandy Powell, for costume design. A BAFTA for best make-up and hair, an Oscar in Best Achievement in Art Direction, Best Achievement in Costume Design, Best Achievement in Makeup. Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards for Best costume design, also nominated for best actress Emily Blunt. CDG for Excellence in Costume Design for Film - Period. Hampton's International Film Awards for an Audience Award for Best Narrative Film. PFCS for Best Costume design.Sudbury Cinefest, doesn't say what for. VFCC for Best Actress, Emily Blunt.) Overall 10 wins and 11 nominations! That pretty good! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0962736/awards Have a look yourself, its really interesting! Personally Rupert Friend should have got an award.


I saw this on the big screen and was encapsulated with it. The period of Queen Victoria's younger years are a mystery and this is a perfect description of how a young girl was thrusted into one of the highest roles in the world.

The script is perfect, the acting is amazing, the history and attention to detail is out of this world. Emily Blunt is perfect as Victoria. Funny how her mother is played by Elizabeth the 1st and William IV is played by Prince Albert! (Think Blackadder).

This portrayal of Victoria shows that she was a rebellious young woman once - I'm sure she would have been on Jeremey Kyle Show if it had been around then: "My mother and her boyfriend are trying to steal my life".

A Perfect piece of a major part of British and Commonwealth history.


It is Queen Victoria's misfortune to be defined as an historical figure according to her relationships with men.Shortly after she succeeded to the throne she came under the influence of her Prime Minister Lord Melbourne to the extent that she became known as "Mrs Melbourne".After the death of her beloved husband,Albert,she was referred to as "The Widow at Windsor",and years later,a long friendship with her Scottish ghillie John Brown earned her the nickname "Mrs Brown".Such is the price women paid in a patriarchal society. The reality is somewhat different and "Young Victoria" goes some way towards putting the record straight,depicting the queen as an intelligent and independent young woman conscious of the inequities in her society and at her court. Courts have always been hotbeds of seething jealousy,plotting and counter-plotting,naked ambition and sometimes,outright murder. As an 18 year old innocent,Victoria ascended to her uncle's throne,thus initiating a positive orgy of intrigue and a power-struggle between Prime minister Lord Melbourne and his rival Sir Robert Peel. Lord Melbourne cuts a dash in the Old Public School Man kind of way with his finely-honed cynicism and his well-polished gems of advice. Hardly surprising then that the young queen finds herself in awe of him,and even perhaps a little in love,an awe that he ruthlessly exploits,drawing a fine line between attempted seduction and attempted sedition as he forces his policies through against Victoria's better judgement. Into the arena rides Prince Albert,on a mission from King Leopold of Belgium,keen on political rapprochement between Great Britain and the rest of Europe. At first a reluctant suitor,he soon falls in love with the English queen and palliates the influence of the politicians and courtiers. "The Young Victoria" is a beautifully photographed,brilliantly-scored and very sumptuous movie.I note that it has been criticised in some quarters for this sumptuousness as if a movie about 19th century English Royalty should somehow have shown the Empress of India and her family living in rags in a filthy workhouse........I don't think so. I must single out the remarkable Miss Emily Blunt whose beauty reminded me of the young Princess Margaret's.Hers is obviously the pivotal role, and she has absolutely no trouble in dominating the film despite strong performances from Mr Jim Broadbent,Miss Miranda Richardson and Miss Harriet Walter,all immeasurably more experienced. The music is suitably regal and forms a cohesive part of the whole movie without being in any way obtrusive. The fact that Britan flourished more under its two great queens,Elizabeth the First and Victoria,than at any other time is a matter Feminists might like to make more of,but,I suspect,like Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher really powerful women make them feel uncomfortable.If you can work out why there might be a Ph.D . in it.