Victoria & Albert (2001)
Facts
| Directed by | John Erman |
| Cast | Victoria Hamilton, Jonathan Firth, James Callis, Diana Rigg, Patrick Malahide, Roger Hammond, Nigel Hawthorne, Alec McCowen, Jonathan Pryce, Gary Raymond, David Suchet, Dudley Sutton, Peter Ustinov, Penelope Wilton and John Wood |
| Theatrical Release | October 20, 2001 |
| DVD Release | October 30, 2001 |
| Running Time | 200 minutes |
| MPAA Rating | NR (Not Rated) |
| UPC Code | 733961703443 |
| Buy this item | $34.99 at Amazon.com As of Sep 5 2:13 EDT (details) 2 DVD, A&E Home Video, Usually ships in 24 hours, Box set, Color, DVD-Video, Full Screen, NTSC Languages: English (Original Language - Dolby Digital 2.0 Stereo), Spanish (Published) Or 40 new from $13.19, 26 used from $10.69 |
About Victoria & Albert
Victoria is barely 18 when her uncle King William IV dies. She is introduced by the family adviser to a young German prince called Albert, and in spite of their initial indifference to one another and a great deal of political opposition, they fall in love. Marriage brings its own problems, however, and as Victoria, grows from an inexperienced young woman into a shrewd and powerful monarch Albert struggles to find a role for himself in both the family and the nation.
The relationship between Victoria and Albert was a remarkable one and this film, while occasionally erring on the side of sentiment, brings that relationship to life. The young leads are charming, but it is the supporting cast of British acting stalwarts--including Nigel Hawthorne, David Suchet, and Diana Rigg--who make Victoria and Albert truly worth watching. --Simon Leake Amazon.com
Website Links
- Movie Review Query Engine - Directory of movie reviews.
- IMDb - Features plot summaries, reviews, cast lists, and theatre schedules.
- Art.com - Search for Victoria & Albert posters.
Similar Movies
User Reviews
Average user review:| It had it's moments ... but |
As many others have noted, the historical inaccuracies are glaring -- to add to those already mentioned --
Victoria was wearing mourning for her dead uncle (the late King) at her first meetings with her council and parliament.
Neither her relationship nor Albert's relationship with their children was accurate, he was much more loving, she was much more remote.
Alice was nearly 19 (and looked a bit older than that) when Albert died -- the actress playing her looked about 14.
Victoria too could have stood a bit more 'padding' in her costumes by 1861. Having given birth to 9 children by then, she was far from svelte!
Victoria blamed Bertie for his father's death. She could barely stand to be in the same room with him for many months afterwards. The touching scene with the two of them and Alice is balderdash.
Recognizing the limited timeframe, they certainly could have deleted some of the more extraneous scenes and found room for anecdotes that DID enhance the actual story being told -- Vicky's marriage, and the time Albert spent with her preparing for it -- the actual death of her mother [we saw the last visit, but never her reaction] -- The Lady Flora scandal early in her reign.
Historical issues aside ... it was ok. Reasonably well acted by most, attractive costumes, good production values. As someone who is very familiar with the era and the personalities being portrayed, I did find much of the heavy, plodding 'exposition-dialogue' to be pretty tedius. "As you know Victoria, when your cousin Charlotte, son of George IV died in childbirth and King William and Queen Adelaide also had no surviving children, there was no heir to the throne, so, having been widowed myself after the birth of your half sister Feodora and half-brother Carl, I married your father in order to produce an heir." [Ok... so that's an exageration, but some of it comes darn close...]
Really disappointing ... April 25, 2008
| Fairy tale Love Story you want to believe. |
| Again, sheer disappointment |
Interestingly, A&E's "Emma" (fiction) and "Jane Eyre" (fiction), which I have and love, both offer sub-titles, but the important historical stories do not. That doesn't make sense, in my book. A & E and BBC both create marvelous productions, and I could weep when I discover that I, and millions more like me, are denied enjoyment of them for lack of sub-titles. The powers-that-be in both of those institutions, whoever the folks are who make the decisions, need to perhaps seek the advice of the elderly members of their families and get their viewpoints, in order to understand.
I don't know if anyone who sees this "review" has any "pull" with the powers-that-be, but if so, please get the word out. And can we have some comments from others who will voice their opinions about the lack of sub-titles?
By the way, I visited a young friend (abt 45-ish) one day who has normal hearing, and she put on a DVD. I asked her to activate the sub-titles, which she did, and at the end of the movie, she said, "Well!! I got parts of the dialogue that I had missed before without the sub-titles!!" January 3, 2008
| A WONDERFUL LOVE STORY! |
Rent before you buy, but if you love English history and want a good movie to watch over & over BUY this one. I did! December 19, 2007
| Splashy production favors romance over accuracy |
These are quibbles. Mostly I was disappointed because whoever wrote the script seemed settle for a series of romantic vignettes, linked together by an outdoor shot ("Windsor Castle, Ten Years Later --- 1861," for example). Victoria & Albert struggle with the conflict of their duties & their feelings. Victoria & Albert squabble. Then Victoria & Albert hold hands & profess their love for each other. Really really schmaltzy music begins to play. Cue the next outdoor transitional shot with a subtitle. Repeat several times over the next few hours. There was no sense of coherent narrative.
As many other reviewers have mentioned, historical accuracy is sacrificed early & often. No need to go into specifics as it has been covered before --- suffice it to say, the producers apparently reached a fork in the road --- one could try to be reasonable accurate in telling the story, or one could appeal to the masses & churn out a schmaltzy love story with two appealing leading players (the real Victoria & Albert weren't nearly this sympathetic). Obviously a lot of people loved the choice the producers made, so who am I to criticize?
My favorite part of this production? Peter Ustinov's turn as the aging William IV --- but sadly, he is pushing up daisies before the first hour is finished. After that, I found myself wishing that Albert would just hurry up and die, so we could get this over with. February 21, 2007
More reviews at Amazon.com ...





