The Young Victoria

8 Comments

1. John Cobb

   September 27, 2010 at 8:23 am

   Review by John Cobb for Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)
   Rating:
   Wonderful depiction of the events leading to a pivotal battle of the Civil War, the battle of Gettysburg, with a focus on 3 key individuals: Confederate General Robert E. Lee (played brilliantly by Martin Sheen), Lee’s second, Lt. General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger), and Union Col Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels).Truly classic storytelling beautifully presented. Each key event is intelligently and gently depicted leaving little of the battles, the personalities, and the actions to be misunderstood. I felt much closer to the unfortunate events that were our Civil War than I ever imagined. I don’t consider myself ignorant as a rule, but to tell the truth I never envisioned that the battles were basically fought hand-to-hand, face-to-face, long lines of fighting men falling, almost randomly, on both sides.This movie, along with John Frankenheimer’s “Andersonville” jump-started a serious interest for me in these historical docudramas, and the Civil War in particular. Thank you Mr. Frankenheimer, and Mr. Ronald Maxwell (director of “Gettysburg”).

   Reply
2. Anonymous

   September 27, 2010 at 7:45 am

   Review by for Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)
   Rating:
   July 1,2,3 of 1863 were pivotal days in our country’s history. “Gettysburg” does an admirable job of summing up the actions and emotions of this battle in about 4 hours. This is the best Civil War movie that you are ever going to see. Why is it so good? Here are a number of reasons:ONE: The Acting…There is a good amount of solid actors playing key roles in this movie. Sam Elliot, Martin Sheen, Jeff Daniels, and Tom Berenger are the big names. They are supported by other very good actors. They play their parts with proper accents and believability.TWO: Balance…Some Civil War movies almost make the South seem like the bad guys (“Glory” comes to mind). No matter what part of the country you are from, as you watch “Gettysburg” you feel for the fighters on both sides. You understand the tough choices they had to make as this movie spends even time in both army camps. In a normal movie, I would have expected the Pickett’s Charge scene to be a story of the Northerner’s great stand. In this movie, both the South and the North are given their due during this key assault. THREE: Personal Stories…This movie isn’t just about the nuts & bolts of the battle (who was stationed here, who charged there etc…), but it also does a phenomonal job of telling the stories mostly of the key officers in this battle: Buford, Stuart, Chamberlain, Lee, and Longstreet. One part that was especially done well was the struggle between two close friends, Armistead (CSA) and Hancock (USA).FOUR: Soundtrack…Very appropriate and beautiful music during different parts of the battle. I could go on, but I think this highlights the strengths of this great movie. It’s one that’s well worth watching.

   Reply
3. M. Veiluva

   September 27, 2010 at 7:13 am

   Review by M. Veiluva for Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)
   Rating:
   “Gettysburg” is perhaps the best attempt by any film to capture a single battle from beginning to end. It is not a movie for everyone since there is no artificially-embedded love story (as in. “Pearl Harbor”), and in fact, there are no women in this movie at all. It sets out to depict the largest battle ever fought on the American continent. Its success is the product of the deliberate choice of the director to respect the source material, namely one of the finest historical war novels ever written, “The Killer Angels”, by Michael Shaara. Gettysburg is a battle of superlatives. It was the largest and bloodiest encounter battle of the Civil War, adding up the three days between July 1 and July 3, 1863, and it tore the heart out of the Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.. It is also the most controversial battle, generating more than its share of debates over decisions and tactics. Was Lee off his game at Gettysburg, as Shaara suggests? Or, as other historians argue, was the battle lost by “Old Pete” Longstreet’s case of the “slows” on July 2 (the attack on Devil’s Den and Little Round Top) and July 3 (Pickett’s Charge)? Longstreet’s postwar memoirs lay the blame for Pickett`s Charge squarely at Lee’s feet, but since Longstreet joined the Republican party after the war, many Southerners are quick to blame him for Lee’s defeat.Shaara’s book, and therefore the film, makes choices in this debate. Shaara sides with Longstreet (aptly played by Tom Beringer), who is depicted as a thoughtful, reluctant warrior who vocally opposes the sanguinary frontal assaults launched by Lee on July 2nd and July 3rd . (For a different perspective, I highly recommend Noah Trudeau’s latest book, “Gettysburg: A Testing of Courage.”)It is a delight to see the musty daguerreotypes of Civil War leaders come to life as living, breathing characters. For the Confederates, Tom Berringer’s Longstreet is tops, followed by Confederate generals “Lo” Armistead (Richard Jordan) and Stephen Lang `s amazing George Pickett, a stunning contrast to Lang’s later alabaster imitation of Christ as Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson in “Gods and Generals.” These are interesting, complex people, and “Gettysburg” even manages a sense of humor. The debate on Darwin between Pickett and Armistead is funny, concluding with Pickett defying any Southern gentleman to openly claim that “Robert E. Lee is descended from an ape.” On the Union side, there is Jeff Daniels as the bookish hero Joshua Chamberlain, Sam Elliott as the hard-bitten cavalry general Buford, and Brian Mallon’s pugnacious General Winfield Scott Hancock. Some die-hard grognards have complained that “Gettysburg” glosses over details of the battle. But Shaara, and the film, were right to concentrate on the highlights: the initial skirmish and ultimate Union rout on July 1, the confused battle for Devil’s Den, the Peach Orchard, and the against-all-odds defense of Little Round Top on July 2 by Joshua Chamberlain’s (Jeff Daniels) 20th Maine; and, of course, Pickett’s Charge. Massive volumes have been written about just one day of the three day battle, and any film which tried to cover it all would be a ponderous bore.The few speeches in the movie are necessary, I suppose, to explain the larger motives for the war. Jeff Daniels’ Chamberlain has to give the obligatory Abolitionist speech, and Armistead trys to explain the Southern “Cause” to the English camp follower Freemantle just before Pickett’s Charge. The few speeches in `Gettysburg” hint at the malignancy that emerges full flower in “Gods and Generals” (written by a different Shaara) in which the camera’s pause on any character become the excuse for a five to ten minutes of pious blather. The flaws of the film are few. One major flaw is Martin Sheen’s portrayal of Robert E. Lee as an unblinking somnambulist, whose approach to strategy is by mumbling “it is God’s will” as officers rush up with dispatches. Robert Duvall’s more animated Lee is the only (and I mean only improvement) that “Gods and Generals” has on “Gettysburg.” Sheen’s wide-eyed robot Lee is hard to square with the historical brilliance of Lee at Second Bull Run and Chancellorsville, and contemporary accounts of Lee as a witty conversationalist, a battlefield gambler, and with an eye for the ladies. Ted Turner’s use of thousands of amateur reenactors to stage the battle is both a blessing and a curse, but mostly a blessing. Let’s face it – the authentically-decked out and equipped amateur soldiers look far more like the real thing than the standard Spanish rent-an-army employed in similar epics such as “Waterloo.” However, I suspect that the troops in the movie, particularly on the Southern side, are cleaner, neater, better fed and older (lots of retired folks are reenactors) than the actual participants in the battles. (A common observation of the time was that you could smell Lee’s troops approaching before you would see them). The other problem with reenactors is they object to having their limbs and heads blown off, or torsos reduced to bloody pulp by cannon balls. This is not “Private Ryan” or “Band of Brothers” – these soldiers, even when blasted by cannon, die clean deaths, and do not convey the historical eyewitness accounts of the horror, not to mention thousands of corpses set out in the hot July sun. But these are very minor quibbles. This is as good a re-enactment using real people as you can expect.I recommend “Gettysburg” for historical movie fans, and do not forget the wonderful Ken Burns’ documentary, “The Civil War.”

   Reply
4. E. Orgon

   September 27, 2010 at 6:20 am

   Review by E. Orgon for Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)
   Rating:
   Many other reviewers have written about the movie Gettysburg itself, so I thought I would comment on the DVD itself.I have an extensive DVD collection, and if you have experienced what I have, among them are the great quality transfers and some real dogs. Gettysburg might well be THE finest transfer I’ve seen. The video (I play it on a widescreen HDTV) and audio are outstanding. I must emphasize that the video delivers unbelievable clarity, perhaps the best I’ve seen. Clearly, the careful attention to detail and loving recreations that were the foundation for the original movie have been carried to the DVD with that same committment. It is refreshing to see a studio that REALLY cares about its product.As an aside, I should also mention I am an amateur Civil War historian focused on the battle of Gettysburg and of course find the film an outstanding, albeit limited, short history of the battle. This DVD will expand other people’s knowledge if they avail themselves of the feature length commentary, especially the portions by James McPherson from Princeton U. His narrative not only amplifies details of what the movie shows, but also puts a broader perspective on it, such as other important engagements at Gettysburg such as Culp’s Hill, the Wheatfield, and others.Bottom line: GET THIS DVD.

   Reply
5. Mike Powers

   September 27, 2010 at 6:13 am

   Review by Mike Powers for Gettysburg (Widescreen Edition)
   Rating:
   “Gettysburg” is one of my all-time favorite war films! It re-creates the Civil War’s battle of Gettysburg with superb acting, an excellent screenplay, a hauntingly beautiful musical score, and some of the most authentic and stirring battle scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie. Based upon Michael Shaara’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel “The Killer Angels,” this film follows the principal characters, and chronicles the main events, which occurred at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania from July 1-3, 1863. The events depicted in the film are notable for their historical accuracy. Some of the most exciting battle scenes in the film are General John Buford’s engagement with the Confederates on the high ground north of Gettysburg on July 1; the defense of Little Round Top by Colonel Joshua Chamberlain’s 20th Maine on the following day; and, of course, Pickett’s Charge on the final day of the battle. The battle scenes contain plenty of smoke and fire, but are also very tastefully done with a minimum of blood and gore.The acting in “Gettysburg” is excellent throughout. Jeff Daniels , who portrays Chamberlain, probably gives the best overall performance, but Martin Sheen (Robert E. Lee), Tom Berenger (Gen. James Longstreet), Sam Eliot (Buford,) Stephen Lang (Gen. George Pickett), and Kevin Conway (Sergeant Kilrain) also give performances which are outstanding for their realism, grittiness, and historical accuracy. Special mention must also go to the late Richard Jordan, whose portrayal of Confederate General Louis Armistead was consistently eloquent and moving.”Gettysburg” is a long movie; it runs to just over four hours. Still, it held me spellbound from start to finish, mainly due to its dramatic intensity and realistic battle scenes. I highly recommend this outstanding film not only to Civil War enthusiasts, but for anyone who loves a sumptuously produced and well acted war film.

   Reply
6. Mama on the Go

   September 27, 2010 at 4:59 am

   Review by Mama on the Go for The Young Victoria
   Rating:
   I thoroughly enjoyed this film! Emily Blunt gave a stunning performance as Victoria, but Rupert Friend totally steals the show as Albert, in many ways a much more challenging role, I think. Albert was a complex, private person and his relationship with Victoria is all the more interesting, because while he dutifully pursued marriage with Victoria as his destined “career”, he did not expect to fall in love or to be loved in their marriage. Friend does a marvelous job of portraying a very reserved, rational man suprised by his own powerful feelings, and of showing Albert’s very dry but keen sense of humor. Many biographers/historians have suggested that Albert did not love Victoria as she did him, but I think this has much more to do with Albert’s reserved, Germanic public persona than any historical reality, as is amply demonstrated in his letters and Victoria’s journals. Friend does a marvelous job of revealing an Albert who loved Victoria deeply and was willing to make great sacrifices for her, but who also had the strength to stand up to her strong will and fiery temper, and not be pushed around. Both actors obviously did their homework on Victoria and Albert and I think very much captured the essence of their personalities. I also very much enjoyed Jim Broadbent and Harriet Walter’s marvelous, feisty performances as King William and Queen Adelaide.

   One aspect of the film I found a bit jarring was the portrayal of Victoria’s relationship with King Leopold and Baron Stockmar as being rather distant and hostile. While Victoria was quite determined to live her own life and not be a pawn in their (or anyone else’s) political schemes, she actually had a very affectionate relationship with her uncle Leopold both before and after her marriage, and Stockmar was a lifelong friend and confidant of both Victoria and Albert and helped them through many of their early marital difficulties. Their manipulative attitude toward Albert and their obsessive focus on grooming him for marriage to Victoria was historically accurate, and Rupert Friend’s portrayal of the young Albert’s attitude toward their “training” is one of the funniest parts of the film.

   I highly recommend Stanley Weintraub’s biographies of both Victoria and Albert for those wanting the real historical background for the film. Sarah Ferguson’s book Victoria and Albert: Life at Osborne House is also a well-researched and beautifully illustrated book about their marriage and family life.

   There is a bit of minor chronological rearrangement to cram about 5 years of historical material into less than 2 hours, for which I think Julian Fellowes can be easily forgiven, and some slight embellishment of real events for dramatic effect (eg Prince Albert did attempt to shield Victoria in the assassination attempt but was not actually shot, Albert was not present at Victoria’s coronation) but I didn’t find it detracted from the story. Much of the script is actually verbatim historical record (King William’s drunken outburst at the banquet, Conroy’s attempt to force Victoria to sign an order making him Regent) and Fellowes included these bits unaltered, to his credit–they are fabulously dramatic, just as they are.

   Costuming is gorgeous and well-researched, the film is a visual treat. A real must-see!

   Reply
7. Mel Belle

   September 27, 2010 at 4:10 am

   Review by Mel Belle for The Young Victoria
   Rating:
   I recently got to see this film on an airplane as I was flying back to the US from England, rather ironically. I thought I’d enjoy another look at some of the English locations I had fallen in love with so recently, and it worked lke a charm. Stunning cinematography

   Emily Blunt was superb as a young Queen Victoria. I know to the history buffs, the historical accuracy is not to be found, but truthfully isn’t everything conjecture? To get reality, you’d have to have been there.

   I found it delightful to watch, and it is has further urged me to do more research on Victoria and Albert myself. I found this fresh take on their relationship compelling, and any film that makes me want to dig my heels in and do some reading, gets a positive vote from me.

   Well done.

   Reply
8. Anonymous

   September 27, 2010 at 3:24 am

   Review by Anonymous for The Young Victoria
   Rating:
   Well, I came to this one rather dreading it. National critics had given it something of a bashing. But it is super!

   Young Victoria was the only surviving issue of several sons of George III (“Farmer George”). Two of her uncles, George IV (who made Brighton Pavilion) and his brother William IV (known as the “Sailor King” and “Silly Billy”), preceded her as monarch. Unfortunately for Victoria, her father, the Duke of Kent, died very early and her mother, the Duchess, fell under the spell of – not to put too fine a point on it – a conman in the shape of (later knighted as “Sir”) John Conroy. Sensing the prospect of power, the two of them raised poor Victoria in a repressive background at Kensington Palace, dubbing their tyrannical regime “The Kensington System.”

   This is where the film starts. I loved it. Victoria is played with emotional literacy and verve by Emily Blunt. Miranda Richardson is restrained and blinkered as the Duchess and Mark Strong makes a villainous Conroy, slapping Victoria as she refuses to sign a document making him Regent.

   Several of the other actors are so good that their identity in the cast list came as a PLEASANT SURPRISE (hence the title of this review). Jim Broadbent is great as crusty old William IV, asking God to let him hang on until May, when Victoria comes of age. (Thankfully, she did – and banished Conroy from her Court on her accession.) Michael Maloney puts in good work as Sir Robert Peel who Victoria clashes with politically. Paul Bettany is fabulous, if somewhat too young, as Lord Melbourne, Victoria’s adviser and crush.

   But the honours go to the dashing Rupert Friend, wonderful as Prince Albert. Albert – German and Royal and not popular with Parliament – is utterly rehabilitated in this film. It’s a beautiful love story in a historical setting. The romance is made all the more poignant by the knowledge that Albert died after he and Victoria had ruled for 20 years. She mourned him for the rest of her life. On the morning afer their wedding night, he lies motionless in bed, almost a precursor of his death, as she passionately surveys him.

   The loveliness of romance is underpinned by solid history and politics. The production values are superb, the research admirable, the storytelling gripping.

   So what if it’s revisionist in some respects? I won’t be pedantic. But if you see it and like it, carry on to Christopher Hibbert’s superb Queen Victoria: A Personal History and the somewhat less marvellous Becoming Queen (a bit novelettish for me). There’s also a nice older TV version, Victoria & Albert with a cast including Diana Rigg.

   Definitely one to enjoy.

   Reply