Diana (2013)

I love this movie so much

Best movie ever!

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

I'm sure I read somewhere Jack Nicholson talking about how only some actors can 'carry' a movie, by which I understand they can grab the viewer's interest and maintain it throughout, and that they have the quality to invest the material with that indefinable movie 'magic'. Well, Naomi Watts can certainly carry a movie. And in this one she does so brilliantly, with poise, sensitivity, commitment and flair. What a difficult role for her to take on. It would be difficult for anyone. And I'm not sure I can think of anyone else who could have told this story and told it so well. But give Watts a role that is worthy of her talents and she will deliver and more. The film is beautiful, moving, with a great supporting cast and authentic locations. Not normally my cup of tea I guess, but I was impressed. And I will definitely watch it again. Don't be put off by the rating this film currently seems to hold, because it is worth so much more.

I expected the film to offer new and meaningful insights into Diana's life which give clues to her lasting and immense worldwide popularity. This film does not live up to such expectations. It gives neither credit for Diana's combats and action nor does it do justice to her character and personality. The plot is uninteresting, boring and trivially pathetic. The story is about the last two years of Diana's life. What a strange choice! Despite the star-studded cast, the film is unmitigated disaster, strongly influenced by the worst kind of Hollywood sentimentality. Who cares about Diana's romance with Hasnat Khan? Her lifelong love was Charles, not Hasnat Khan. All Diana's romances pale in comparison with her love for Charles. The story of Diana's marriage and divorce is worth a Greek tragedy. Only an author of Shakespeare's caliber would be able to write a script whose drama, complexity and psychological intensity satisfy a discerning viewer. Apart from the drawbacks of the plot, the film fails with other respects. From the opening scene, this film must be remembered for its poor acting, miscasting and lack of understanding of Diana's role in the dramatic changes that have affected the relationship between royalties and people. Ironically, Elisabeth's reign can be divided into Diana's and after-Diana's periods. Physically, Naomi Watts does not bear any comparison with Diana. She's neither tall nor strikingly beautiful like Diana. Naomi Watts' portrayal of Diana is flat. She brings really nothing to the part. Diana's sex-appeal and enigmatic beauty have stuck in the collective memory, hence high expectations for her portrayal. The director should have chosen an unknown and talented actress with beauty and charm equaling Diana's. Casting the right actress for the part of Diana is a challenge. Diana is difficult to portray because of her charisma, aristocratic background, tragic experiences and psychological problems. Putting on sad looks à la Diana is not enough to generate interest in audience. If I had not known anything about Diana but had only seen this film, I would never feel for this character, nor would I be shaken to tears by her premature death. In short, after watching a few scenes with Naomi Watts as Diana, I dropped out and switched off the TV (the film was shown on French TV on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of Diana's death). I would recommend the film to sentimental people enjoying love stories and not thinking much of Diana. The film butchers Diana's memory and heritage. People seeking depth and fresh insights into Diana's life should not watch it at any rate.

There are many challenges in producing a Biopic. The visual aspect, the audience already knows the characters, the impossibility of recreating at details every moment of one's life, and try to summarize it in a 90-180 minutes movie, the responsibility of keep up with one's legacy. The list to not even try to produce a biopic goes on and on and on and on.Hirschbiegel's "Diana" was heavily criticized by specialized press for not keeping up with Lady Diana's legacy. Or many of those critics just wanted to see more of all the scandals, or even a little more of the humanitarian Diana, more of a political movie. They wanted more than the simple love story in which stars, just by chance, one of the most influential woman in the 20th century.When Lady Diana died in August of 1997, I was a three year old in Brazil, which is to say that I don't really know how I reacted to the news, but I don't think I suffered it at all. In fact, Lady Di hardly lived in my imagination in my two decades of life, except to think how "exotic" or "unique" was her wedding dress (that thought was courtesy of many TV-Specials about Royal Marriage, as a preparation to Prince William's and Lady Katherine's marriage in 2011).So as a layman in the subject, Diana was a very interesting movie. It shows a troubled woman who have a hard time living by the crown's rules, who wants to make the difference in the world and make it a better and peaceful place, and somehow finds love in the arms of the only person in the world who don't care about her.By far the thing that I mostly enjoy about the movie was Naomi Watts. As in John Ridley's "All Is By My Side", Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln", Richard Glatzer's and Wash Westmoreland's "The Last of Robin Hood", David Fincher's "The Social Network" and Anne Fontaine's "Coco Avant Chanel", I was only able to see the protagonist as the character and not as the actor performing it. The image that I have of Lady Di, Abe Lincoln, Coco Chanel, Hendrix and Errol Flynn are the image of their characters in the biopic, being a romanticized version or an accurate representation of reality."Diana" have their share of cute but non-believable moments between Lady Di and Dr. Khan, even if those moments actually happened in real life. They lived a romance, but not IN a romance is what I mean. And those silly little moments that do not look anything like real life upset me a little bit. Feels like cheating in a test. On the other hand, there are moments with other Lady Di. The humanitarian Diana isn't very developed in scene, but you can feel it deeply and real, not just as a propaganda for fame, but as real care for the world and the situation. Some bits of the self deprecating Lady Diana also feels organic and real, with a couple exceptions of course.As a romantic drama, "Diana" is a good choice. Beautiful shots, a cool story and all that a good romance needs, once it is an adaptation of Kate Snell's book, "Diana: Her Last Love". As a biopic, it won't fulfill expectations, if you look for a historical piece. Is an introduction to the subject "Lady Diana", a good one I think, but it calls for supporting material if you wanna go deeper in the history.

Quite simply the worst film I've ever seen, acting is awful from pretty much everyone,Whoever gave this a rating of 7/8/9/10 have clearly no idea about films, it's laughable! Watching this 'film' was torture, I can only assume that the good reviews were from the people marketing the film. Nobody should be subjected to this painful adaptation of such an important women and my only surprise was that the film only got one award 'worst actress' this should have won, worst everything!! Should also mention that the film was filmed like a bad documentary, this is definitely up there with 'dude where's my car' please do not go near this film, two hours of your life you will never get back.