User Reviews (52)

  • SeamusMacDuff17 January 2018
    Modernist Twaddle
    Warning: Spoilers
    As a professional review put it, "Very good as long as you have no expectations of historical accuracy." Exactly.

    Queen Victoria should be an interesting enough person that one could craft several seasons of entertainment and information. (Admittedly it might be hard to know how many seasons it would last and cover her extended reign accordingly.) However, this is "Queen Vicki" for the millennial crowd, and as written by a woman has typically strong "girl power" vibe. (Sure she had power, but as a monarch not a feminist.) The focus is on her many angsts, her romantic attachments real or imagined (i.e. Melbourne), and her relationship with a rather wimpy Albert - who in real life she loved so much that she mourned him for 10 years.

    Of course, Victoria has to be the most enlightened of all - even though her reign is synonymous with tightly controlled morals. She doesn't want to be a "broodmare", but in real life had nine children - child-bearing being the priority of any queen. Season two amps up the political correctness. In the opening eps we get to see a black (American?) actor giving them Othello, and a near infatuation with Ada, Countess of Lovelace (for whom the Ada programming language is named) as a female mathematician. (Although the 'calculating machine' was nearly all Charles Babbage's.) And finally a gaay angle between two dandies of the court. Why the "Upstairs Downstairs / Downton Abbey doings of the servants are part of the show is beyond me.

    The costumes are sumptuous, the sets and settings beautiful, and mostly classically trained actors deliver their accented lines impeccably. None of this can compensate for the poor writing or wan themes.
  • tim whelan10 November 2016
    Was not the life of Victoria compelling enough?
    Warning: Spoilers
    Such a disappointment. Beautifully shot and acted - but the scripts? Teenage angst? Mommy and daddy issues? Nobody understands me? Whiney, catty relatives? Was not the life of Victoria compelling enough?

    I like Jenna Coleman. She's the reason I bothered. She is playing a woman for whom an age is named. But the individual scripts would not make the cut of Downton Abbey.

    And then there is historical accuracy.

    In order to gin up some drama they create an entirely fictional love story between Victoria and Lord Melbourne, a man who in fact was 40 years older than the young queen. (The age difference between the actors is 20 years.) The casting of Rufus Sewell is a big part of this canard. The bogus love story is at the heart of the first four episodes. I am troubled by TV/films that take largely historically accurate stories and throw in nonsense. Is not the life of Victoria compelling enough? Maybe the fact that you could walk away believing there was a "thing" between these two historical figures does not trouble the authors. It should.

    To make my point, about two other people from roughly the same period: does it matter that we try to get the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings right?

    At one point, Lord Melbourne tells Victoria that he is thinking of retiring. Its his way of saying, "I'm too old for you." She tells him something like, "You're not old." At 60 he had exceeded life expectancy for men of the period by almost 15 years. Not only his he too old for a teenager, he is lucky to be alive.
  • Paul Evans28 August 2016
    Rather captivating, I loved it. Every inch a Queen.
    Warning: Spoilers
    I have eagerly anticipated this mini series ever since Jenna left Doctor Who and announced she was to play the famous Monarch. Period dramas have been hit and miss of late, we've had Jericho, War and Peace, Doctor Thorne etc, I'll leave you consider which were hits.

    I knew from watching her Doctor Who journey that she'd be an actress capable of leading a drama and doing justice to a huge historical figure, I love her portrayal of Victoria, she has some presence and a definite strength of character. Rufus Sewell I thought was exceptional as Lord Melbourne too, the complex relationship the pair had in real life was explained very well.

    The settings, costumes, and general production values were first rate, the show felt incredibly plush and lavish, I shudder to think of the budget for this series.

    Totally engaging, this was first rate viewing 9/10.
  • l_rawjalaurence1 September 2016
    Captivating and Up-to-date Historical Drama
    On the basis of seeing the first episodes of this Masterpiece drama, broadcast in the UK by ITV, I can freely say that I am hooked on to it. Daisy Goodwin's script is both taut and cleverly written, while the performances of the main protagonists are uniformly convincing. I particularly like Jenna Coleman's characterization of the young Queen - so apparently vulnerable yet possessed with an inner strength of will that enables her to resist the repeated blandishments of her self-interest mother the Duchess of Kent (Catherine H. Flemming), who so dearly desires to assume the title of Regent, aided and abetted by her unscrupulous ally Sir John Conroy (Paul Rhys).

    This eight-part drama wears its moral scheme on its sleeve by contrasting the hissable villain the Duke of Cumberland (Peter Firth), with the pragmatic yet goodhearted Lord Melbourne (Rufus Sewell), who admires the Queen yet remains convinced that she has to transform herself from an immature girl into suitably monarchical material, and will try his utmost to achieve that transformation. Sometimes he has to be cruel to be kind, but all in a good cause. In between these two extremes stands the Duke of Wellington (Peter Bowles), and Sir Robert Peel (Nigel Lindsay), both members of the Tory Party (and hence implacably opposed to Melbourne's politics), but interested in maintaining the business of government.

    As with most television costume dramas, the sets and decor are both opulent and historically accurate, supplemented by useful CGI shots where necessary. I especially liked some of the cinematographic effects (by John Lee) - especially the use of aerial shots to suggest the insignificance of humanity when compared to the greater business of running the country.

    And it is this sense of contemporaneity that lifts VICTORIA out of the run-of-the-mill and transforms it into living, breathing drama. We hear a lot about the importance of "duty" - from the Queen as well as her friends and enemies - and we are led to speculate on what that term really signifies. Is it just a catch-all description masking self-interest, or do people really believe in it? In light of recent political upheavals in the United Kingdom, with one Prime Minister resigning (ostensibly out of "duty"), and the opposition party tearing itself asunder with different conceptions of the same term, we wonder just how much VICTORIA is commenting on the present as well as the past, especially in its concern with politics and its relationship to the country's future.

    I am definitely hooked, and await the remaining episodes with eager anticipation.
  • James19 January 2017
    A bit hit and miss, but a very great deal better than no series at all!
    Warning: Spoilers
    In years gone by, we Brits (and presumably others also) watched - rather addictively - such series as "Edward the Seventh" with Timothy West (1975), "Edward and Mrs Simpson" with Edward Fox (1978) and "Lillie" (also 1978) - about Mrs Langtry as Edward VII's lover while Prince of Wales, and hence covering some of the same ground. In each case they seemed to be well-done, featuring a host of stars and apparently looking for all the world like they were presenting the real thing.

    In contrast, I find my adult self continually doubting the authenticity of historical recreations, which at times can seem to look quite lame. Presumably, this is the price one pays for greater knowledge and experience, and perhaps also increasing scepticism with age.

    While part of Queen Victoria's reign was obviously covered in some of the aforementioned series, the doing of the whole thing was presumably considered too challenging an enterprise in the past, but once Jenna Coleman achieved a measure of stardom thanks to Dr Who, a realistic candidate for the starring role was found, and work on a series embarked upon.

    Very visibly, the makers of "Victoria" have tried to out-Downton "Downton Abbey" by throwing in a layer of upstairs-downstairs story lines in the Buckingham Palace household context. These include some real historical figures, though doubtless doing many completely invented things. This at times seems like an awful and cheapening mistake by the makers, but on second thoughts one realises that many a story would have been quite difficult to present without it, and an opportunity for out-of-the-Palace background and social comment is also offered in this way. Fair enough, but the effect is not completely cringe-free!

    More seriously (for the whole "suspend disbelief" thing), I simply ridiculed a scene in Episode 1 when Victoria took the salute with her soldiery in a very hammy-looking pseudo-military uniform, only to check on the Internet and find an early-Victorian sketch in which she is wearing EXACTLY such a uniform!

    Further checks on further implausible-looking content from Episode 1 also revealed that they were actual events! Suitably chastened, but also much more enthusiastic, I turned to Episode 2 with vigour and very much enjoyed the rest of the series, which I recommend, even for those with a purist's interest in history, as well as lovers of drama.

    Of course the viewer (myself included) may at times become over-trusting, as - for example - Prince Albert DID NOT increase his self-confidence and "find a role" by making a telling speech at the (real-life) World Anti-Slavery Conference convened in London in June 1840, fine story though that would have been, and most probably actually in line with the feelings of both Victoria and Albert, who were "progressive" figures in this field as in some others (as the series tends to make clear).

    Other interactions between Victoria or Albert or both and other key figures of the day look more or less forced or phony, but overall there is a sense of the period conveyed here well enough, and many a true story told, in spite of everything. To that extent the series is educational, but it also works in its presentation of the royal couple as real, and quite remarkable people - all credit to Coleman, and to Tom Hughes for the role of Albert. There is even humour here, reminding us that - in her early reign at least - Victoria was sometimes "amused", was a lively enough girl and young woman, and was certainly deeply in love, and quite capable of feeling an appropriate measure of lust for her beau into the bargain. In short, a real and full human being, and a vigorous - and even quite talented - one at that.

    This is all good stuff, well conveyed.

    Prior to Albert's appearance, the Victoria story is entirely dominated (as it seems historically to have been) by Lord Melbourne, and here Rufus Sewell does an extremely good job, dominating a great many of the scenes and conveying a complex, thoughtful, kind and world-weary figure with many a pithy line to utter. Perhaps this version of Melbourne is greater than the real thing, but the performance is very fine in and of itself.

    Peter Bowles's Duke of Wellington offers us little more than a sour and condescending oldish man (Wellington was certainly grouchy, reactionary and opinionated, but surely always evoked more respect than this character does, throughout his life, given his irrevocable status as national hero from India, Waterloo and the effective Peninsular War?).

    However, Nigel Lindsay's Robert Peel is a great deal of fun to watch, and his growing interaction with Hughes's Albert is endearing. But was it really like that? That question again...

    And so back to the original point. Perhaps we expect more these days (and thanks to the Internet we certainly have more access to knowledge - a healthy state of affairs). But does that slightly spoil the work of those with the temerity to make historical series for us, or is this just a necessary process of keeping them on their toes? Ultimately it is hard to say, and the price is an occasional feeling of discomfort/embarrassment watching "Victoria". But not to have attempted the series at all would have been sad, and as it is we have something interesting to watch, if mostly better at the small-scale, more intimate encounters than the large-scale national or state events, which do not always achieve persuasiveness.

    Personally speaking, I shall be more than ready to watch Series 2 when it comes along.
  • emrys-948-23895823 October 2016
    Good, but not that good
    It starts very well. They give a nice insight into an 18yo girl, totally protected and kept from everything except her family, suddenly dropped into the position of Queen of the most powerful country on the planet. Not unexpected, but completely unprepared. The early episodes are very good. Melbourne and Peel are both very well done and the drama does what it should do, it breathes life into history.

    The problems start when Albert appears. Tom Hughes is simply dreadful as Albert, completely unconvincing. Albert was an intense, prickly and stubborn man. Hughes plays him as a sulky toy boy. It is awful. But then Hughes tends to play sulky toy boys so it is hardly a surprise. A better casting would have been Daniel Brühl who played Nikki Lauda in Rush, but there it is. I suspect Hughes was included as eye candy for the ladies, and certainly as a man I found Jenna Coleman very nice to look at, so I don't begrudge them that. The difference is Coleman carried her part well, Hughes was all wrong. By contrast, his brother Earnest is excellent.

    It also gets increasingly soapy after Albert arrives on the scene, culminating in a final episode that is little more than an extended advert for the 2nd series. It gets quite bad. It is known that Albert was not that keen on Victoria and accepted her proposal because it was his duty to do so. He fell in love her, very much so, but after they were married. That won't do at all for a soap (it would be OK the other way around), so he has to be besotted from the start. It's hard to see the Prince Albert we are given by Hughes falling in love with anyone except himself, so it's all very false.
  • destinyawest18 September 2016
    Amazing show.
    I was so looking forward to watching Victoria and I have not been disappointed. Having a keen interest in English history, especially of the Royal Family, I am obsessed with this series. I has been anxiously awaiting each new episode. Costuming is perfection, and the actors are are superb. I could not think of anyone better to play Queen Victoria. If you love period drama and English history, you will be enthralled by Victoria. I wish there was more shows like this on television. A definite must for fans of this genre. The betrayal of Lord M and Victoria's relationship may be elaborated a bit, but the basis of this show is worth the watch.
  • alex-27813 September 2017
    Historical Events Blending with Modern Dramatic Licence
    I have to say that this series is very well made and draws the viewer in with a range of sub-plots that are orchestrated around the significant events of Victoria's life. This gives each episode a dramatic effect which keeps the viewer engaged. In many respects if you have watched Downton Abbey you will recognise that much the same framework is used with just the characters have changed.
  • Flip Schultz25 February 2017
    Marvelous production
    Jenna Coleman's acting is worth an award. Camera work by John Lee is extraordinary (the right eye for detail), music is extremely well suited, the costumes are exquisite. It's a feast for the eye and while looking at it you just tend to forget the quibbles about it's historical mistakes.
  • qianqikoh16510 September 2016
    Great show
    Warning: Spoilers
    Victoria is an excellent show. Granted, the CGI in the film is rubbish, but the costumes and the set are marvelous. Even though Jenna Coleman does not resemble Queen Victoria at all, I feel that she portrays Queen Victoria beautifully. I love it when she tells others that she will not be pressurized into doing anything she does not want. Her comebacks are amazing when anyone belittles her. Every feminist should watch this. The romance between Queen Victoria and Lord Melbourne, though untrue as there was no evidence suggesting a relationship other than a platonic one, is extremely entertaining. Rufus Sewell, though too handsome to be Lord Melbourne, is so charming and smoldering. Their on screen chemistry is so good that I really do not want Albert to come into the story to ruin things between Queen Vic and Lord M. I say, to hell with historical accuracy!
  • rhcm-0347319 February 2017
    What the Absence of Writing Talent Looks Like
    I concur with most of the negative reviews here, while allowing for the fact that great screenwriters should and do take liberties with historical material. The art is in making compelling and revealing stories from those liberties. There are marvelous tales hidden in the history of Victoria and Albert, but it requires hard work to bring them to life.

    We have the unusual opportunity to compare Victoria, which is written be someone I can only the think of as a soap-opera hack -- whose TV credits consist of a string of reality TV series -- with the work of Peter Morgan and his incredibly brilliant work on The Crown -- as well as the equal brilliance of Julian Fellowes, whose Downton Abbey is cited so often in these reviews. The Brits are fantastic at period TV production, and their skills have sustained Masterpiece Theater in the US for decades. Yet without writing with the sophistication, wisdom and experience of seasoned screenwriters like these two, whose writing builds character, sustains tension, and reveals meaningful subtleties, all of the costumes and fine cinematography are but a pretty coat of paint over an empty shell. A tawdry illusion that may pass the time of viewers who don't know better, but fails utterly to truly engage both the brain and the heart. Daisy... go back to these superior writers and polish your craft before you inflict us with more of this vapid fluff!
  • eddielondongent1 September 2016
    Great idea - great performance but...
    As in other reviews I would praise the performance of Jenna Coleman. However, this is a chance missed by ITV. The script rattles along at a good pace but the dialogue is GCSE standard. Scene's opening with lines like "We must discuss my position as Queen Mother" or "can I help, as Queen, could I intervene" are just trite and the script is littered with them. The CGI is a little wonky, but on the whole it is an engaging piece of TV. Not up there with the best historical TV drama, but fair to middling. So It gets a 6 from me. Just PLEASE ITV don't let Daisy script her own ideas anymore. Get someone in to polish that dialogue!
  • ldavis-229 January 2018
    ericozu hits it out of the park
    Warning: Spoilers
    I'm writing this is because of the characters of Paget and Drummond. Yes, there actually was an Alfred Paget and an Edward Drummond, but NO, neither man identified as homosexual. In fact, the real Drummond (whose family owned Drummonds, banker to Victoria's grandfather, King George III) was 23 years OLDER than the real Paget, and died three years BEFORE Paget came to court as Victoria's equerry in 1846! In short, there is no evidence that Paget and Drummond ever met! That they are presented here as hunky 20-somethings with the hots for each other for no other reason than to push an agenda is a vile insult to them and to their families!

    While there is a "point" to making Paget and Drummond hunky 20-somethings with the hots for each other, there is NO point in vilifying Victoria's and Albert's uncle, Leopold. The real Leopold was a tremendous help to his niece and nephew. Here, he is a scheming scumbag who undermines Victoria at every turn, then, because he can, hints to Albert that he is Albert's father. There is no evidence Leopold's relationship with Albert's mother was anything but platonic, and there is no point in making him the heavy.

    The real Victoria and Albert were progressive-conservatives, determined to drag the United Kingdom kicking and screaming into the 19th century. But here, they are SO put upon! Neither takes any interest in the issues or the welfare of the people unless forced to; it's a wonder either notices that they have children, much less, give them the time of day!

    But the real crime "Victoria" commits is that it is - as ericozu notes - shallow, boring, silly, poorly written, and annoying. And if you're looking for anything remotely-resembling historical accuracy, look elsewhere!
  • gfinister13 May 2017
    Beautiful scenery, but lacks excitement
    The cinematography is wonderful. The clothes are beautiful. The set where it all takes place is breathtaking. The major casts are all good looking. There's a lot of hype about this movie, but it all stops there. What were the writers thinking? Where's the excitement in this movie? How dare the critics compare this to Poldark, which is filled with excitement. It was hard to keep my eyes open it was so boring.
  • angelakm10 February 2017
    Great but too many bads
    Wonderful cast and scenery! The production is lavish and the actual story-line so poor it's straight out of a harlequin romance! If you like trash you will love this inaccurate portrayal of a woman who earned the right for her true story to be told. If you love beautiful period costumes and great houses just turn down the sound. It unbearable to listen to the tripe and untruths

    I've seen half of the series only, but appalled with the story-line and misrepresentation of Victoria's alliance with the Prime Minister who was 40 years her senior. There is no proof they were linked by any more than a mentor relationship. There are other inaccuracies and I expect a whole slew in the next 4 episodes.

    This show was wildly popular in GB and a second series is being made, but I won't be watching. I like my historical women to be the strong women they were, not the simpering child Victoria has been reduced to. Additionally, I like the facts to be presented, not the made up version of a novelist.
  • ericozu20 December 2016
    fairly bad
    I can't really emphasize enough how shallow, boring, silly, poorly written and annoying this show is. They can dress up these actors in colorful velvets and gold buttons, and stuff them into lushly carpeted castles all they want, but this will not make up for a lack of vision, message, theme, and perspicacity. Victoria complains a lot, yes she does. She's bored and put upon, annoyed by being pregnant, by her nagging mother, by puppy love, and other such trifles, and dramatic music comes along to make her boring boredom supposedly seem dramatic and important. But nothing important ever really happens. These characters hang about. The days go by. They complain. Politicians drop by to bother them about insubstantial minutia that never resonates or ties together into an interesting plot. Victoria doesn't think or talk about all that much...doesn't DO all that much. She and Albert love each other but it's hard to see why. The actor playing Albert always seems ready to drift into a nap mid-sentence. The actor playing Peel is particularly miscast. Victoria and Melbourne are played well enough but they are hobbled by the shallowness of what is asked of them. Finally, the "B-stories" are a particular slap in the face to the viewer. Taking their cue from Upstairs and Downton the writers made a feeble and slapdash effort to get us interested in a cook and a maid servant - to no avail. They might as well be singing, "la la la, we're here to say something, until the main characters return to the screen... la la la." The main characters are not much better. It's really hard to care about them and it is easy to forget that they supposedly represent such important symbols/figures of an age. They might just be some boring people living in a house if someone didn't take a shot at them once in a while. No spoiler here. We know from history books that Queen V lived to a ripe old age. However, someone should have put this costume clunker out of it's misery.
  • cosmax1015 February 2017
    Just for Fun
    I am enjoying the show as a period piece and not for its historical accuracy. I am not sure what the future episodes will reveal, but hopefully not Victoria as a loving devoted mother, which she was not. Reading her journals and letters, and especially letters to her adult children over the years reveals a woman who hated being pregnant, did not like babies at all, and considered one of her son's unfortunate because he was an ugly baby. She thought babies resembled frogs. She despised and was revolted by breastfeeding, which probably is not uncommon back then, and rarely spent any time with her young children and preferred to spend most of her time with Albert of whom she was devoted to and passionate about privately, but in her letters she blamed men for many of women's woes. They both desperately wanted to create a loving and warm family, which unfortunately, they failed to do for the most part. I feel the actors are doing the best they can with the script and you are never going to portray the accuracy of a period and relationships between people when you are not their to witness it. You can only go by accounts, and documents written in their hand, but that does not truly reveal who they really are either.
  • trimmerb12344 September 2016
    Upstairs Downstairs at "Buck House"
    Distinguished writer and historian of Victorian England A.N. Wilson is associated with the production but it seems difficult to imagine him accepting the distortions to history the production applies. It is as much about tone as about fact. The film "Mrs Brown" seemed to hit all right notes in all the different places - upstairs, downstairs, conversations between courtiers - and their very different tone when directly addressing Victoria. All providing the context for their shock and horror at Brown's extreme familiarity with her.

    It would be wrong to say this production has a tin-ear for how people spoke - it's instead the clear intention to provide a commercial soap, pressing many modish buttons. Jenna Coleman's beauty, while helping the ratings also seriously distorts history. Suitors for Victoria's hand, knew that they were making a play for the most powerful and prestigious woman then in the world, they were the men who would be King. That she was short, dumpy and no beauty dissuaded none of them from their professions of devotion - as watching courtiers - and staff - would have observed and discussed. While Victoria was determined, wilful, direct and came to quickly occupy her status as a monarch,she did I think share with every respectable young lady a belief that she should speak politely to elders of comparable status and this production seems entirely modern in ignoring this absolute obligation.

    Leopold was Victoria's much loved and respected uncle with whom, from their letters, was fond, frank when necessary but diplomatic - exactly as one might expect. In this production he (played by Alex Jennings) is blunt and crude in attempting to publicly dictate to Victoria a suitable financial arrangement for Albert. The screenplay cuts out an important figure - Baron Stockmar, Leopold's personal physician who was first Leopolds emissary on behalf of Albert then after their marriage, became at Leopold's request, adviser to the couple.Thus Leopold could remain the fond uncle and leave any uncomfortable topics to Stockmar to raise - on lines pre-agreed with Leopold.

    Rufus Sewell (Melbourne) was brilliant in The Woodlanders. Here he seems woefully miscast. Sewell is 47 years old and appears and sounds younger whereas Melbourne was 58 at the time. Sewell comes across as an older brother, not a father-figure-counsellor. Melbourne was an accomplished major public figure, orator, womaniser and old charmer, immensely skilled in all the play-acting skills diplomacy, in arenas from international to drawing-room to playing the gallant to a young girl, required. Rufus Sewell does not remotely resemble such a figure

    Lavish, colourful, entertaining but throughout, historically, overwhelming soap gets into the audiences eyes - and up this reviewers nose.
  • terebioeticayfilo30 January 2017
    At least, I feel that way. I usually like UK series very much; for example, War & Peace (2016) was a great adaptation, with a good script, excellent portrait of the time and quite good actors. I think there are two main traditions in that country: one seems to come from Shakespeare and has produced the best in theater and TV story telling, no matter if it was political (State of play), police gender (Morse, various DCI, Happy Valley, Line of duty recently), or social (Shameless, Hit and Miss) -won't deny I'm a Paul Abbot fan- and another one that is about social history, romance and book adaptations, with quite good representatives (Cranford, The Forsyte Saga or even Upstairs and Downton Abbey). Sometimes the first one is not so good, but still have something worthy, or maybe I have been very lucky choosing what to watch. But the second one has come from John Glasworthy, Jane Austen and so on to Barbara Cartland and Jean Plaidy/Victoria Holt. This has been happening lately with TV series from which I expected more, like Poldark and, now, Victoria. Such a good opportunity to make a historical and interesting biopic about XIXth century England and a landmark queen spoiled with clichés, bad -really bad- script, and a lot of cloying relationships that should have been interesting, like Victoria and Melbourne. And is difficult to blame the actors, since even Rufus Sewell looks ridiculous in it. Everything is so simple and predictable that becomes boring. It's customary to say here that it's OK: this kind of series has it's audience. But i truly believe that a better one historical romance could have been done, and the same audience would have been better served. Maybe I wouldn't have been so disappointed if the IMDb rating have not been so high. I wonder why this series have as many stars as War& Peace. Maybe next time I should wait for 10.000 people to rate, or perhaps I should stay away from historical and romance series until the eager to find a new Downton success is over. Downton was smart made in UK Disney for adults; Victoria is flat Barbara Cartland Queen history for teenagers just that year that they fall in love with love. I hope such a character will find some day a good script with a good cast and deeper insight of the era.
  • mikeh-5404416 January 2017
    Even a comic-book version would be better!
    Most of the history dumbed-down to incomprehensible. Characters like Cumberland are... simply evil with no understanding of "why?" .... a son of George iii and a king in his own right. Rufus Sewell spent two hours looking lost and seemed to wonder if he could just jump ahead to 1848 and die. Jenna Coleman managed to keep the same expression on her face through the entire episode...probably bored with the whole thing. was pretty...

    Good grief...give the writers more to work with than the odd fiver and a take-away Indian curry

    Just terrible
  • h-kitchener13 February 2018
    Another typical British revision of history and nonsense
    It seems that most British historical movies nowadays have to be not only historically inaccurate to a great degree but must include the obligatory pederast or similar. It's frustrating for those who actually know something about the period and insulting when you realize how the series creators are attempting to change the historical record. This could have been a much better researched and accurate representation of one of Great Britain's great monarchs andose the era she lived in, but it is but a sad catering to those with little knowledge of history.
  • vanapa97 September 2016
    Basic Theater Expertly Crafted and I'm Also Hooked !
    What's more entertaining than being transported back into history and being RIGHT THERE with young Queen Victoria, Lord Melvin and all the other super compelling characters in play ?? OK..besides that... and that !! Jenna Coleman must be superb to make this mini-series work. And, yes, as stated..this show WORKS! Let's give it up for Ms. Coleman. And Lord Melvin must also be just as compelling. And indeed, Rufus Sewell is impeccably cast and as always, turns in an outstanding performance. Of course the costumes and cinematography and sets must also be right on, and of course-they are brilliant! The only obstacle in the way of a 10 of 10 rating, is the rather too familiar , basic theater plot and script. However, this seemingly necessary evil is overshadowed by the cast, costumes, sets, cinematography etc. One makes slight notice of the too familiar villains and good guys and intrigues but, still remain steadfast and mesmerized by the unfolding drama. You, me and everyone firmly in little lady Vic's corner!! I can not wait for the next installments. No, I mean I REALLy can not wait! Thus, I'm forming my own ensemble-including Victoria's dog Dash. I must first find a suitable replacement for Ms. about YOU ?? {call me....}
  • jolymac19 January 2017
    After viewing first episode....
    Warning: Spoilers
    For people who haven't read the book or watched the series, this may have a few spoilers. I read the book in a day and really enjoyed it and I've read a few biographies of Queen Victoria so I was really looking forward to the series. I am enjoying the parts that actually focus on Queen Victoria. Jenna Coleman and Rufus Sewell are quite good in their roles. The servants attempts to find ways to profit from their positions are sneaky and amusing. Cumberland and Conroy are despicable as they should be. What I do not like about the series is the addition of the 'former prostitute turned dresser' story line. It isn't in the books and seems to come out of nowhere. Then the head chef recognizes Skerrett from a 'nunnery' and, I've only seen the first episode, but I'm assuming there's going to be some kind of blackmail attempt in the future. I'm not sure why they thought this story line was necessary. I think it distracts from the real story.
  • nelleke-9738723 January 2017
    Victoria well played!
    As a director of stage, not involved with any of this, I'm very impressed by Victoria the movie. Because somehow the wall between theater and movie is gone when you get involved with this story and cast. Of course because the girl who plays Victoria is very convincing, (although it could be any queen any time, any place..which I like very much) and of course also because of Lord M. played by the always very intense playing Rufus Sewell. Of course there is also a movement of telling these stories as realistic as one can imagine, like The Crown or like we in Holland have..same sort of such series. I think them less interesting because it is not as well played, to complicated to survive time, and it never can be reality, because we are NOW. So I do love the more timeless stories, where the tension and communication between the personages is most worked out! Of course Victoria is also very beautifully made,on amazing locations. I'm a great fan of British television costume drama..
  • wwwocls-7275919 February 2017
    Degenerated into a frivolous chick flick
    Warning: Spoilers
    "Victoria" is a magnificently filmed production that is as beautiful as it gets to look it. Sadly, that's about all it is. As perfect as our little supermodel Jenna Coleman, Victoria is a show without warts, without grit, without soul. Essentially, it's like a romantic English 19th century novel. The young, inexperienced girl is mentored by an older man until he leaves the story, setting the stage for the dashing young prince to sweep our heroine off her feet. In today's storytelling, she also has to be fiercely independent and she and her young suitor need to take on the world and win keeping all the crusty, ugly, older characters and their real world problems out of the limelight. It doesn't help that the worst acted performance is our female lead. Jenna Coleman plays Victoria as the every woman, a gorgeous, archetypal representation of what every woman wants and eventually gets. Her performance is without shades or quirks or anything remotely intriguing. In fact, she's consistently out acted in every scene shes's in, whether it be with the brooding and sensitive Tom Hughes or with any of the infinitely stronger supporting character actors that pop in and out of her presence like humans on a string. Just when the "upstairs" part of our story needs to get more conflict oriented, we end up with a useless, unconnected and completely unengaging "downstairs" relationship between a gallant, chivalrous chef and one of Victoria's ladies. He romances her and gives her chocolate, a perfect chick flick convention that women will find irresistible. While this goes on, all our upstairs portion can offer in the way of conflict is Albert not fitting in and feeling inadequate. That's pretty much it. In summary, looks glorious (everything is always perfectly centered) with plenty of candles and romance (almost everyone gets a love interest) but lacks any grit or real conflict. With the "locomotive" episode (the biggest takeaway being that Victoria can ride trains, too), the production lost me. "Victoria" really needed to be a story focused on imaginary characters in an imaginary world, not ones based on real historical figures, because what it really is is a beautifully romantic fairy tale aimed directly and almost solely at women. Elizabeth R it is not (by a long shot.)
An error has occured. Please try again.