IN: Review: THE YOUNG VICTORIA is a elegantly costumed and reproduced bit of history that benefits from some fine settings, solid direction by Jean-Marc Vallee of stalwart Julian Fellowes' version of the youthful lass who was to become England's longest reigning monarch - Victoria. Much of the early portion of the film, that part when Victoria is a child whose ascent to the throne is contested by her mother (Miranda Richardson) and Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) seems to drag and get lost in the multiple costumes and scenery variations. But once Victoria (Emily Blunt) comes of age and is courted by Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) the film blooms. Blunt is a strong actress and finds that delicate line between girlish infatuation and royal dignity that makes her a fine foil for those at court who would seek to control the 'child queen' - including her secretary Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany). But as she matures into her role as queen her eye dwells on the dashing German Prince Albert, and a love affair that has lasted in the memories of everyone is matched by the concept of joining Royalty with concern for the care of her subjects - much due to the sensitivity of Albert. The film takes us to the birth of their first of nine children and then ends with some statements about the influence of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert's effect on the various Royalties throughout Europe! It makes for an evening of beautiful costume drama and allows us to appreciate the growth of two young stars in Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend. A solid if not transporting epic.

Grady Harp
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This movie is a true reflection of the Australian resourcefulness that has been required to make this country what it is over the last 200 years. Not pompous like the British, not Gung-Ho like the Americans. If either of those countries had attempted what this crew did, it would have failed dismally. Either due to ignorance on the British part, or too much faith in superior firepower on the American side. "True" Australians (i.e. non-imports) are the only ones who can excel in modern military conflicts because they have had to improvise most of their adult lives. Just look at examples like Gallipoli; Paschendale; Tobruk; New Guinea and Vietnam.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.

The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.

The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.

I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative