Deanna
There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.
Unhelpful Yoda
Well I wasn't expecting much of this film anyway but it was very disappointing I'm not sure why Naomi Watts was chosen to play the role of Diana because in my opinion she is nothing like her. As far as the actual film is concerned, I didn't like how it focused so much on the relationship between Diana and Hasnat Khan. It also seemed to focus mostly on the most photographic parts of Diana's life like the landmine visit, the clothes auction that William suggested and of course the infamous photos of her on Dodi's Liner before her death. In my opinion it's just portraying what everyone already has seen but Naomi Watts adds nothing to it. There was only one Diana and no one can replace her. I can totally understand the negative reviews. Some people's lives are just better left alone.
Allguns Allguns
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.
vesnam27
Despite the film receiving negative reviews in the media, I actually thought it was quite good. The message I got from the film that those who were closest to Diana, had let her down. I felt very sad for her. She wasn't perfect but she was very good at using her strength of building relationships with people, to her advantage. I think Naomi Watts portrayed her very respectfully and I was glad that the film didn't have scenes of Diana overeating or throwing herself down the stairs.Overall, the film was not as bad as what I had anticipated. It was a story about a real person.
jreyna91
I had high expectations for this film. I actually stopped watching halfway through because I found it boring. It didn't pull me in like I expected it too.Some points are interesting and thought provoking, but overall non engaging. There was something about Diana and Hasnat that seemed off, like the chemistry wasn't fully there. It was also extremely slow moving, which was why I stopped halfway through. Also was not that impressed with Naomi Watts' performance. Especially when she's in Africa tending the sick children, all she did was ask what was wrong with them, frowned, and then moved onto the next kid. I'm sure Princess Diana probably did more than that and I wished they had shown that.
