How do you make an engaging film about a queen who lent her name to an era known primarily for stuffiness and repression? By adding a little blood and sex, and hoping for the best. At least, that’s the approach “The Young Victoria” tries, and the result is something akin to a tidy museum exhibit.

“The Young Victoria” opens with a sad and lonely girl who has just discovered she’s the only legitimate heir of the House of Hanover, and the future queen of England. Some viewers will undoubtedly be startled by all the Germans running around Kensington Palace. The English had to go to central Europe for its monarchs, and this convoluted lineage hangs over Victoria, and occasionally makes for rough going as various princes and dukes vie for control of England and its queen.

Though she would later become synonymous with rules and suppression, this Victoria (Emily Blunt) would have you know she’s a rebel.    Her mother, the Duchess of Kent (Miranda Richardson) and her private secretary, Sir John Conroy (Mark Strong) keep Victoria on a tight leash. Conroy keeps her living under “The Kensington System,” a set of rules that doesn’t even allow the young princess to use the stairs without holding someone’s hand.  The incessant stair climbing scenes suggest the system was designed to keep her from an early death, but the Kensington System was truly designed to keep Victoria so weak and coddled that she would depend entirely on Conroy and the Duchess.  They’re a sinister pair, hovering over her shoulder, and trying to force her to sign documents putting them in power.   Victoria resists and once she wins her crown, she’s quick to kick them out of her palace only to fall prey to the Prime Minister, Lord Melbourne (Paul Bettany).  Her reliance on his advice and their frequent carriage rides quickly make her a very unpopular queen.

In the middle of political turmoil and scandal, Victoria is introduced to Albert (Rupert Friend), a handsome German prince who is primed by his uncle Leopold to steal her heart.   In actuality, Victoria was quite close to her uncle, and he acted as a father to her.  It’s unclear why the film chooses to put Albert in a slightly sketchy light, particularly when the film rests on their tender romance.  I suspect the filmmakers wanted to portray them both as young rebels, striking out and loving freely despite all who would control them.  Unfortunately, this isn’t the 1960s but the 1830s so it all comes off a bit false, particularly since we can see the queen is so easily swayed by the charms of men like Melbourne.

The dull history behind “Victoria” prevents the film from really taking off. The real Victoria was a rather weak and inexperienced ruler who had a habit of leaning on others for guidance.   The film tries to change her into a proto-feminist, yet seems uncomfortably aware of her political and personal shortcomings.   However, Blunt plays the part with considerable sparkle. She’s able to balance out the contradictions of fact and wishful fiction, and create a woman who is human, temperamental, and prone to mistakes.

Surrounding Blunt is a variety of performances that manage to breathe some life into this corset piece. Friend’s Albert is a waist-coated heartthrob, trying to hold his own despite being outranked by the woman he loves.  Their love affair is surprisingly romantic and tender, and the film attempts to throw off any misconceptions you may have about Queen Victoria’s sex life. These two heartily enjoy the bedroom and while it stops short of a sex scene, Albert is allowed to tear off her stocking. Monocles may drop, and corset strings may actually burst when he takes an assassin’s bullet for her.  No, he didn’t do this in real life, but the film has to give Albert something to prove he has testicles, particularly when he’s pitted against Strong’s Conroy and Bettany’s Melbourne, both of whom seethe with masculinity and sex. It’s hinted that Lord Conroy has been in bed with everyone, and would enjoy forcing Victoria into a compromising position.  Melbourne seems equally interested and if it wasn’t for the factual record and Friend’s cheekbones, viewers might believe he’ll become Prince Consort.

Overall, “The Young Victoria” is the kind of period piece that makes people shy away from them altogether.  Despite good performances and lush costumes, it’s dry and dreary by necessity and the slice of history presented isn’t particularly interesting or relevant. The politics, revolutions, and culture around Victoria are far more intriguing than the woman herself, and none of that is featured here. If you really longed for a prequel to “Mrs. Brown”, you might eat it up.  But if you’re looking for a royal woman with more life and edge, pick a Tudor or a Windsor biopic instead.