Diana (2013) User Reviews (107)

Intimate and touching

[phd_travel · 7/10 · 28 November 2013]

The last few years of Diana's tragic life post separation and divorce is depicted in this biopic. It is fascinating, voyeuristic and quite moving.

Good points: Naomi Watts acts well. She has a satisfactory Diana accent and good imitations of her facial expressions. She captured Diana's essence despite being much more petite in build and having more delicate facial features than Diana. Good effort to recreate famous photographic moments and wardrobe and clothes. Physical resemblance isn't a must. After all Helen Mirren doesn't look like the Queen but she still won an Oscar. So Naomi's portrayal should be nominated at least.

The story highlights Diana's efforts in the campaign against land mines. And it gives her life a meaningful legacy. The hounding of the press and photographers, and her intimate daily life are fascinating to watch. Also the tragedy of her personal isolation and quest for happiness are very moving.

There are some faults. The balance of the screenplay was off when it came to her romantic life. Other TV biopics have shown the disintegration of her marriage but not so much the later relationships. However in this movie too much was spent on the affair with Dr Hasnat Khan. Naveen Andrews wasn't dignified enough for the role of a specialist doctor. He seemed crude and coarse. Quite disturbing to see her in his squalid flat. More screen time on the relationship with Dodi Al Fayed would have helped show contrast and give a more complete picture about her last months. The scenes on the yacht and Ritz Hotel are nicely done and should have been longer.

Overall worth a watch for the perennially fascinating subject matter.

Portraying the Princess of Wales, actress Naomi Watts faces a no-win situation...

[moonspinner55 · 5/10 · 18 October 2015]

Fatigued dramatization of Princess Diana's complicated love life in the final years before her untimely death in a Paris car accident in 1997. Stephen Jeffreys' screenplay (inspired by Kate Snell's book, "Diana: Her Last Love"), asserts that Diana was on the rebound from a broken love affair with a Pakistani heart surgeon when she died, and was using Dodi Fayed (who was killed alongside her) to stir up publicity and perhaps a bit of jealousy. As seen from a distance playing the piano, or filmed from behind getting out of cars or walking down corridors, Naomi Watts bears a passing resemblance to Diana (her coif is the only thing which will evoke memories of the ill-fated Princess, and even this isn't very convincing when seen in close-up). It isn't necessarily Watts' fault--she gives the part a noble try--but no modern actress should be expected to walk in Diana's shoes and pull off a feat of magic (even the real Princess of Wales found the role difficult to play!). Perhaps it's too soon to reenact this sad bit of history. In any case, the attempt is both crass and pointless, with the jet-setting locales and elaborate camera set-ups only adding to the discomforting feeling of wasted money, effort and time. ** from ****

Not as Bad as Most Critics Would Have Us Believe

[l_rawjalaurence · 6/10 · 10 April 2014]

DIANA was almost universally panned on its release in September, and continues to attract negative comments from users. In truth it is not as bad as it was made out to be, even though some of the details seem implausible (would Diana (Naomi Watts) be able to leave Kensington Palace on her nocturnal visits to Hasnat (Naveen Andrews) so easily, without being discovered or hounded by reporters?) Nonetheless Oliver Hirschbiegel's film does a competent job of portraying the sheer loneliness of Diana's existence in Kensington Palace, surrounded by servants but with no one to love her. Although tremendously popular with people and the media alike, she cannot get close to anyone; and when she does, her love-affair is doomed. Watts does not resemble Diana facially, but she does a good job of conveying both the good and not-so- good sides of her character; her desire to help people, her feeling of alienation from all families, and her tendency to manipulate the media to suit her purposes. The film suggests, perhaps controversially, that Diana brought much of the press harassment on herself, especially when she asks a trusted photographer to take snaps of herself and Dodi Fayed (Cas Anvar), with the sole purpose of making Hasnat jealous, and thereby encouraging him to call her again after a long interval. She certainly knows how to portray herself on screen - as seen, for instance, in her celebrated interview with the BBC's Martin Bashir (Prasanna Puwanrajah), where she deliberately adopts a pose for the camera so as to obtain maximum sympathy from viewers. Nonetheless the film does suggest that she was more sinned against than sinning - a victim, perhaps, of the contemporary obsession with fame and celebrity.

Depends on What You're Expecting

[chrisliz57 · 5/10 · 6 October 2013]

I can understand why Diana might be a disappointment for most.

If one is after a detailed portrait of "The Loneliness of the Disaffected Princess" then this film will only partially fulfill.

If, however, one is after a simple, easy to watch love story about the affair so well hidden from the public eye in the 18 months prior to her sudden death, then fulfilled you shall be.

The disappointment for me came from the fact Diana's director, Oliver Hirschbiegel, created Downfall, the depiction of Hitler's final days. The film was an Oscar nominee, a deserved reward for its depth. Diana is his first foray into a love story. He talks of his research coming from the 2004 inquiry and The Kate Snell book of the affair. I suggest that the details coming from those sources was light and frothy.

The film is pleasant enough with a shallowness to match a children's wading pool, but as I say, it depends on what you are expecting. Oh, and Naomi Watts is lovely but not quite as beautiful as The Princess we remember!

Diana

[0U · 4 March 2020]

Diana, not making a peep upon its release nor since, is one of those movies that simply exists where neither its content nor the way it was put together, where the techniques used to convey a well-known story, brought about no great insight, revelation or even valid emotional impact that only served to re-enforce the fact there was no reason for it to exist. It seems no matter how much director Oliver Hirschbiegel thought he might bring an interesting point of view to this film his attempts end up being completely ineffective in the fact that a majority of the people interested in the figure of Diana, Princess of Whales likely knew everything this movie would be bringing to the table (or had already read it in Kate Snell's book on which the screenplay was based) and thus found no reason to watch famous people play dress-up and re-hash the events of their beloved Diana while no doubt dramatizing it as much as possible. There was no need for a film though not because we all know how it turns out, but because Diana was such a figure that the public felt like they knew so well, personally even, that it is almost a betrayal to them to see this actress portray a part of the peoples princess they might not have seen before. This is no fault of the writers, filmmakers or actors and obviously is an element they have no control over, but while it may have felt like a valiant effort, a story worth bringing to a feature film the end result is something that points to every reason why it wasn't a good idea. All of that being said, there is indeed an effort put forth here and despite the bad press it received before it was given a chance there is a Naomi Watts performance here that while she no doubt had much higher hopes for it should be recognized as what it is: convincing on what were impossible levels. The same stigma that applied to the movie applies to the person picked to play Diana and the performance they ultimately gave. What Watts is able to do is somehow transcend the barrage of images we've all seen and do what the movie as a whole wasn't able to do and that is make us believe in this material. No, I didn't necessarily enjoy the film or find much of it interesting, but it has its moments and it had enough to show there is a solid biography to be made about Diana, but this just isn't it.

Enjoyed the film, view it as documentary

[tenseimdb · 7/10 · 28 September 2013]

I went to see this film one weekend. I was skeptical about enjoying the film as I prefer to see action and adventure films. It was only because my partner wanted to see it I relented.

I did actually enjoy it. It may not be a great film but there was enough of an interesting story line to grab my attention throughout the film. I am sure a film of this nature may have some unavoidable deviation from how exactly some events played out for real. But then it is often true of most fact based films which try to capture and hold the audience attention by bending the truth to a degree. I treated it as a documentary film and so I felt a tinge of sadness and admiration for the two people who were affected in their real lives. I felt the main actor and actress tried to portray the characters faithfully. This film may not be fantastic but it certainly does not deserve to be poorly ranked. The important thing to realise is this film does not show Diana's whole life and it does not pretend to do so.

A film benefiting from none of the charm of its otherwise talented star and director.

[shawneofthedead · 2/10 · 1 December 2013]

On paper, DIANA had everything going for it: the biopic had lined up one of the finest actresses working today for the title role (Naomi Watts), and paired her with a serious-minded director (Oliver Hirschbiegel) who had turned Adolf Hitler's final days into a gripping, powerful drama (Downfall)... there was even a precedent set by The Iron Lady, which proves that a biopic can be mediocre and/or take liberties with its subject and still provide room to think, feel, and appreciate the pure strength and power of the performances on display. Not so with DIANA, sadly.

Watts plays the tragically doomed people's princess just as her marriage to Prince Charles is properly disintegrating. Left with a husband in name but not in fact, Diana tries to figure out how to redefine herself independently of her estranged Royal Family. The answer, apparently, is to fall in love with heart surgeon Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews), who inspires her to do more and better with the media attention lavished so excessively upon her.

The senseless tragedy of Diana's death in a car accident, hunted down by media to her very end, looms large over the entire film, as well it should - but it's not the only tragedy that befalls it. That dubious honour belongs to Stephen Jeffreys' script, which is full of unrealistic characters and ponderous dialogue. For all of Watts' valiant efforts, there isn't much wit and soul to her Diana. The cunning ingenuity she displays in her battle against the Royal Palace in the first ten minutes of the film fades away rather too quickly, leaving her to be defined almost entirely in terms of a soppy, soapy love story that never really takes flight.

Any depth of character or charitable intent that she's given is connected to her growing love for Hasnat: a reductive and regrettable approach if ever there was one. It doesn't help that Hasnat is portrayed in so frustrating a way. Andrews is just as hamstrung by the script as Watts, forced to deliver painfully awkward and stilted lines while playing some kind of spoilt man-child who alternates between throwing tantrums and pleading for Diana to understand the inexplicable predicament he believes himself to be in.

Anyone searching for depth and complexity here will be sorely disappointed. DIANA provides few, if any, real insights into a public figure who suffered some of the greatest slings, arrows and presumptions attributable to media speculation and persecution. Rather than clearing away some of those cobwebs and claptrap, this melodramatic biopic adds to them: reducing a complex, troubled human being trapped in extraordinary circumstances to the shallow, unsympathetic female lead in a badly-written, utterly banal romantic drama. If there were a greater tragedy than Diana's untimely death, it's the fact that she's forced to live on in this film.

Take the good with the bad

[breezy29 · 7/10 · 16 October 2013]

I was determined to see this movie whether it was good or bad. I was born in 1993; I was only four years old when Princess Diana died so I never knew a whole lot about Princess Diana other than the fact that she was a Royal, she was involved in charity work and she was loved by the people so when I read the blurb for this movie and realised that it only covered the last two years of her life I figured that I should probably do some research before I saw the movie. I have to say that I really enjoyed the movie. I found myself shocked at how accurate certain details were but also wanting more details in other areas. Dodi Fayed barely says two words in the film which I was disappointed about because he was the last man that Diana was with before she died and the film really didn't give viewers a chance to get to know him at all. I also wanted more detail surrounding her death, especially because of all the conspiracy theories surrounding Diana's death. We don't actually see Diana's death happen in the film, we only see beforehand when she is leaving her hotel in Paris and then the aftermath. These are the only criticisms I have of the film and that is only because I am a curious person and wanted to keep watching it so I could see what happened next.

Although this film has been a huge flop with the critics, Naomi Watts should win an Oscar for her portrayal because she was incredible. Her mannerisms of Diana were impeccable. If you want to be super impressed with this movie, I recommend that you watch Diana's interview on Panorama and Diana's Landmine Program, both of which you can find on Youtube. I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would happily watch it again.

Melodramatic Sludge

[limoncella-641-42235 · 1/10 · 11 October 2013]

Diana is a complete and utter catastrophe.

Instead of taking the most interesting aspects of Princess Diana's life and revolving a sort of character study around them, this movie chose the easy route. It's a romantic film about a rich person who falls in love with another rich person and one of them just so happens to be Princess Diana.

Our title character is played by Naomi Watts, a fine actress with many profound roles under her belt, but sadly she is just no good as Diana. While they certainly got the hair and wardrobe correct, she just can't BE Princess Diana. The character is horribly written, selfish, manipulative and surprisingly stupid with no sense of presence or dynamic sensibility, it really is some of the worst romantic movie writing ever put to screen. Even if Watts had given the best performance of her life, it still wouldn't have made the character a convincing movie heroine.

Romantic interest Hasnat Khan is the only interesting or dynamic character in the whole movie. This is a man who's torn between his heart, his job, his faith and his family, but the horrible screenplay only serves to have him whine endlessly. The actor is really trying to make something work here but the script is just too much of a quagmire of clichés and melodrama.

Director Oliver Hirschbiegel who made the fantastic Downfall back in 2004 achieved the impossible, he made you sympathise with the Nazis. Through intense drama and character building he achieved a real intensity of characters working through strife. But this film is completely missing anything that made Downfall the masterpiece that it is, this movie feels like something made for television.

After viewing Diana I had a thought, perhaps it was impossible to make a convincing biopic about Princess Diana, perhaps it was hubris to ever try. By glossing over everything that made her life so pronounced (her relationship and breakup with Prince Charles, her humanitarian work and eventually the suspicious circumstances around her death) it made the work incredibly dull, but perhaps if they did involve the more risqué occurrences it would have made controversy impossible to avoid.

Soulless and mechanical

[gollywook · 1/10 · 24 September 2013]

Going into this movie, I expected a touching look into the life of Princess Diana, of the things that shaped her from her early school years, through her courtship and marriage to Prince Charles, their divorce and its aftermath, all the way up to that fateful night in Paris on August 31st 1997.

Instead, I got a shallow and unengaging love story set during the last two years of Princess Diana's life.

The movie centers around the budding relationship between the Princess of Wales, as portrayed by Naomi Watts, and Pakistani heart surgeon Dr. Hasnat Khan, played by Naveen Andrews.

Disappointingly, the love story feels perfunctory and unbelievable, and I suspect one of the many reasons for this is the obvious lack of chemistry between Watts and Andrews characters. Other big contributing factors are the platitude-laden conversations, clichéd choice of music, choppy editing and just downright awful directing. If I were director Oliver Hirschbiegel, I would feel pretty embarrassed right now.

As for the acting, I feel that Naomi Watts makes a good effort but has been badly miscast, and sadly falls short of capturing the air of Princess Diana who carried with her an odd mix of dignified, trembling vulnerability and scorned, calculated vengeance. Instead, in the movie, she comes off as a nutty stalker, chasing down a man who does not seem to harbour any particular interest in her - sexual, romantic or otherwise. A better casting choice would, in my opinion, have been Laura Dern (assuming she could have pulled off the accent) or perhaps someone entirely unknown.

As for Naveen Andrews, whether the robotic stone-faced brick wall persona is in fact that of real-life Dr Khan can only be speculated. I do not, however, feel that Andrews invested much emotional effort into the role, but his portrayal might very well be attributed to a poor script or bad directing.

All in all, huge disappointment. Would not recommend this to anyone, except maybe to film students wanting to know what all-around filmmaking failure looks like.

Why one should ignore the media...

[sabz-984-446344 · 9/10 · 22 September 2013]

Entering the cinema auditorium with a pre-conceived pessimistic judgment on the film yet determined to watch it anyways, I can only say that I am glad that I had not allowed for media and critic opinion to dissuade me from watching "Diana." The film does not portray Diana in a bad way at all. If anything, it reiterates the absolute disgusting habits our press have had in terms of absolute disregard and disrespect for people's privacy. You feel a certain connection with Diana throughout the film, and see her for the "normal person" she was deep down. Naomi Watts' performance was spectacular, and she certainly did Diana justice. Although the film is most certainly disliked by many - i.e: the media, Islamophobes and daily mail readers... It is disliked for the mere fact that the film provides an insight into things that make certain people very uncomfortable, such as the prospect of the Princess of Wales marrying to a Pakistani Muslim, and the fact that Diana was actually a human being, with feelings, and with a difficult life.

So all I can say is, ignore the media, and make judgements for yourself. Perhaps after watching the film, you would rate it as highly as I have, or perhaps you may walk out half way through... Regardless, it's a fantastic film with a beautiful portrayal of the 'People's Princess'... Be warned: Take some Kleenex with you...The ending... is rather emotional

One of the most beautiful movies

[rnb_log · 7/10 · 4 November 2013]

Let's allow us enjoy the MOVIE, not the history. In this way, we'll see "Diana" as a fiction, not even as a fiction inspired by actual facts or people. Because I was tired - at the way out from the movie - by the same annoying and so predictable lines: (Naomi) is not Diana. She has different looks. But what about the boys? (meaning the two princes). Where were they? Well, stop. Nobody cares (or should care) about appearances. Naomi embodies the essence of a truly vulnerable, overly exposed woman. A woman living a story that could not be verified. This is not a documentary. And this is not a bad TV production (I've seen some of them, too). This is the kind of movie that irritates both "fans" and detractors of the public persona that was Diana of Windsor: everybody feels cheated. Diana is portrayed nor good or bad. Naomi's Diana is just a silent scream, incredibly strong, incredibly soft, with the main actress in total control of her character - mentally & physically. Watts feels the nuances of a disturbed soul, and we, as viewers, are not witnessing the mainly cheap process of achieving the mannerism of a public person as we all knew her. Instead we can breath within the story, sometimes forgetting that is not necessarily SHE who's trying to find the healing love, but us. And yes, is not a story about the great love, is just a story about how you can still love after you had your great love

Diana

[jboothmillard · 3/10 · 3 August 2015]

I saw the dreadful Nicole Kidman as princess Grace Kelly biographical film Grace of Monaco, a year before there came this biographical film about probably the British nation's, if not one of the world's, most famous princesses, directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel (Downfall, The Invasion). Basically this film tells the story of the last two years in the life of Diana, Princess of Wales (Razzie nominated Naomi Watts), beginning with the events following her divorce from Prince Charles, including the infamous Panorama interview with Martin Bashir (Prasanna Puwanarajah). Following this, Diana is visiting a hospital, where she meets Pakistani heart surgeon Dr. Hasnat Khan (Lost's Naveen Andrews), he is questionably calm towards her as they spend time together, and it builds into a relationship where both have developed loving feelings for each other. Diana knows that any relationship would cause a media storm, so she and Hasnat keep their love a secret, in the meantime Diana goes to Angola to campaign against the use of land mines, and she travels to Australia, Pakistan, New York, Bosnia, Italy and ultimately Paris, France to get involved in causes, it also shows her changes in fashion. Hasnat cannot take the pressures of their hidden relationship any longer, and he objects to Diana's celebrity status stopping them having a private life, so her desires for a life with him are ended when he breaks their relationship, Diana is heartbroken. In an attempt to make Hasnat jealous Diana starts dating Egyptian Dodi Fayed (Cas Anvar), son of billionaire and Harrods Department Store owner Mohamed Al-Fayed, and for a while it seems to work. But on 31st August 1997 tragedy occurs, Diana is last seen (on camera) inside a lift, before getting in Fayed's car, after being chased by reporters the car crashes in the Pont Alma Tunnel, in Paris, France, Diana, Fayed and the driver are killed (this is unseen), Hasnat is devastated to hear the news, all he can in the end is place a bunch of flowers where many well wishers have. Also starring Douglas Hodge as Paul Burrell, Geraldine James as Oonagh Shanley-Toffolo, Charles Edwards as Patrick Jephson, Juliet Stevenson as Sonia, Daniel Pirrie as Jason Fraser, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's Michael Byrne as Christiaan Barnard, Laurence Belcher as Prince William, Harry Holland as Prince Harry and Art Malik as Samundar. Watts may be British (I assumed she was either Australian or American), and she does have a relatively good likeness to the real Diana, "the most famous woman in the world", but all she does is do daft mannerisms, be overly nice, act naive in certain situations and put on some tears for sympathy. The bigger problem however is how the film is played out, it is like a mushy and predictable romantic drama with a forbidden love, the "people's princess" is made to look like a simple-minded blonde, it has the most terrible script, especially during the lovey dovey scenes, a fluffy and ultimately awful historical romance. Adequate!

weak romance

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 25 August 2014]

It's the last 2 years in the life of Princess Diana (Naomi Watts). She's separated and meets Pakistani heart surgeon Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews). They fall in love in a secret affair. She would finalize the divorce. The open secret of the love affair would be front page news and he would break up with her. They would get back together but it would not last.

The romance doesn't come off right away. It's supposed to be love at first sight. However it's a weak start. Naveen is playing very cold and the relationship has very little heat. It does build up to a more reasonable romance but this is more of a tragedy. And it doesn't rise up to be a good tragedy. It's more of a beautifully shoot Lifetime movie. It doesn't help that there are some cheesy lines thrown in. I don't like to argue over accuracy about this movie. I doubt it's important enough to warrant the absolute truth. Naomi Watts gallantly tries to keep this from being a complete waste of time.

Watch it and judge for yourself. I liked the film a lot

[Gordon-11 · 7 October 2013]

This film tells the love life of Princess Diana the few years before her tragic death.

Making a film about such a famous and adored person is not easy, and "Diana" did a great job. "Diana" only tells a small but turbulent segment of her life, portraying her as a woman with a lot of love to give but unloved in return. Naomi Watts did a good job at a posh British accent, but she just doesn't look like Princess Diana. And her head is tilted far to often. Otherwise, she did a good job in portraying a woman torn between bliss and emotional turmoil.

The love story between Princess Diana and the heart surgeon is sweet, but not overly sweet. They still experience the bitter arguments like real couples do, which makes their relationship believable. The mention of Princess Diana's humanitarian work is great as well, it reminds people that Princess Diana was in fact a person with so much love to give, and cared about the world.

I liked the film a lot. Maybe it's because Princess Diana held and still occupies a special place in many people's hearts. Maybe people watch this thinking it was a biopic of Princess Diana. Her status as a member of the Royal Family serves only as the backdrop, and hence people get disappointed. People should really watch this film and judge for yourselves.

Diana like Marilyn Monroe

[privadaobacoco · 6/10 · 25 September 2013]

Diana beautiful, elegant and very, very sexy more than in real life... the history : she easily recovers the divorce, falling in love with Pakistani heart surgeon Dr. Hasnat Khan. warning to readers - a little spoiler down

We see a Diana who essays the role of victim in front of the mirror before the interviews. A glamorous Diana, who does everything for love and not tolerate rejection. It's a princess "gets everything she wants" A Diana that calls journalists to be photographed for revenge. A Diana a bit stupid, that do not know what jazz is, and never goes to bar at nigth. But simultaneous one Diana that travels around the world, feel the need to nurture others. She has a kind of grudge against the mother. And dies trying to make jealous Dr. Hasnat Khan. In summary, a captivating, crazy, curious, unbridled Diana ... we can say a kind of Marilyn Monroe Monarchy. Vote 6 only for the personality of Diana.

Two hours I'll never get back.

[aniskowron · 4/10 · 28 October 2013]

Unbelievably disappointing. I enjoyed Khan more than Diana and thought her hair, make up and ill fitting clothing took away from the character completely. To overlook her stylish hair cuts and the way she carried herself in my mind was a huge flaw in this film. BAD wigs just don't cut it with me and if you want to spend this kind of money get it right or don't do it at all. In fact that's what I thought of the whole movie, you shouldn't have bothered. Naomi is no Diana and nobody ever will be. Leave well alone. A documentary somewhere down the line may be a better way to go. No wonder Dr. Khan wouldn't see it, I wouldn't either.

Slow, a bit surprising but missed chance

[PadmeAgnes · 6/10 · 10 March 2014]

"Diana", gives a view of the princess of Wales' last 2 years of her life when she tries to find a way out of her failed marriage and gives her famous TV interview. Diana is lonely, hopes for real love and one day she meets the heart surgeon Hasnat Khan.

Many documentaries and related movies like "the Queen", have shown that "the People's Princess" was a clever person with different sides. This movie is no exception yet there were a few surprising moments, like the Dodi affair. Unfortunately, good causes like the anti land mine campaign felt like loose ends in the overall story. The main fail of this movie was not-showing how she was involved and her influence. They only hint here and there. Missed chance because that would have been an interesting, "new" perspective.

Silence and single-shot filming, can lead to intimacy but made it slow and bored me here. I did't believe some scenes: no servants at her house, no guard while she's in the park, travel without anyone knowing. Nice point: I liked the palace guard dialogs. Naomi Watts occasionally found a Diana look but most of the time she didn't. She failed to make me believe how unhappy and strong the character was. Naveen Andrews lacked passion but was believable with the same integrity as in Bride & Prejudice.

Most of the time I rate 7 or above. The 6 rate is due to lack of depth and connection with the characters. Maybe I expected too much and maybe if I watch it again, I feel more but I doubt that it changes my opinion this time.

Not one of the year's worst, but one of the year's most disappointing- Diana deserved much better

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 17 April 2014]

This did have the potential to be good. The subject matter was an interesting one, Naomi Watts is a very good actress, Naveen Andrews was great on LOST and while Downfall needs a re-watch I seem to remember that it did show a director with some talent in Oliver Hirschbiegel. Despite this potential, personally Diana was disappointing, and not just as a biopic or a story based on Diana's life but as a film in general. In fact you don't even need to know much about Diana or the Royal Family to see how much Diana fails outside of historical value. The lovely scenery and interiors(Diana's fashions are nice too), Naveen Andrews' appealing performance- though in an underwritten and not very likable role- and the moving ending did save the film somewhat, other than that Diana for me didn't work. Naomi Watts does a valiant job in the difficult title role and gets the mannerisms down pat and has charisma, but her performance did seem mannerisms-heavy and I never felt that Watts quite disappeared into the role. It's not her fault though as she doesn't have much material of note to work with. Diana as a character is very underwritten and also comes across as doe-eyed and shallow, in fact none of the characters are written well at all which was why other talented actors like Douglas Hodge, Geraldine James and Juliet Stevenson(Stevenson's sincere performance was the most memorable of the supporting cast) were criminally underused. The story was an interesting subject, on film though it never engages. Iconic scenes are there but are little more than "slide shows" compared to everything else, and some like Diana's controversial interview came across as one-sided and skimmed over.

That was the effect a lot of the film had, it is dominated by the romance of Diana and Hasnat while Diana's family other than in some iconic moments the film captures or in reference we learn little of, Dodi Fayad is introduced far too late and the Royal Family are almost completely side lined. Worse, the romance is not written well at all, despite the commendable efforts of the two leads you have a hard time investing emotionally in either Diana or Hasnat. The storytelling on the most part is too skimmed over with no real substance, has too many scenes that have little or no meaning or relevance, is often repetitive especially the falling into bed even after an argument, and parts are paced tediously. As clumsy some of the exposition is, the worst of the dialogue is in the romance, the first half of Diana is incredibly awkward in its writing, the sort you'd hear on a first date when you don't know what to say with the pauses and all. It gets a tad better in the second half but is still stilted and half-baked. In short, the writing in Diana in personal opinion was dire. Hirschbiegel's directing is little improvement either, very little flair and the scenes focused on the romance are given little sympathy or momentum. No matter how good the scenery and interiors are they are not matched by the photography which was reminiscent of a Lifetime movie, think of 2011's William and Kate except not quite as badly edited or shot. Some shots had a dizzying effect and others a pedestrian effect or in artsy style(a style that I have no negative bias at all towards, quite the contrary) that looked very out of place within the film. The music was at best forgettable, which was the feeling Diana as a film overall had. In conclusion, not a complete disaster but very disappointing. It tried to be careful not to offend but instead it was awkwardly written, underdeveloped and dull as a result, and actually to me how Diana was written would be insulting to many people. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Great Person, Great Story, Bad movie

[mayyursudarsan · 6/10 · 20 January 2020]

One could make a heart wrenching, beautiful movie out of this more beautiful person. But the director fails at every turn, choppy editing, choppy screenplay, choppy acting, choppy casting (except Naomi), This could've been one of the best biopics ever but shame it was this.

A colossal disappointment, just a total mess of what could have been a masterpiece

[Robert_duder · 1/10 · 9 February 2014]

I suppose I had decent expectations for Diana. I thought Naomi Watts could be brilliant in the role and certainly a woman like Princess Diana has an incredible story to be told. They could have focused on any point in her public life from her marriage to Charles right through to her untimely, horrifying and forever remembered death. This particular film goes halfway between all that and decides to focus primarily on a fling she had after Prince Charles, the most lacklustre and pointless story to possibly tell. To be honest, I was lost. I knew nothing about this man she had a relationship with and they portrayed both of them with such little regard to character or personality that I was bored to tears. I literally forced my way through it hoping that there would be something redeemable...there wasn't. This was the most forgettable portrayal of a cultural icon I have ever seen and it was forgettable while I was watching it, not just after. They casually throw in her philanthropic work, pointless forced scenes of her work with land-mine awareness and third world country. The emotional scenes were reduced to melodramatic ridiculous teen-lust cryfests that made this the most bizarre biopic I have ever seen.

I really thought Naomi Watts would be brilliant casting for Princess Diana. She certainly looks the part and she is a terrific actress. The script is deplorable and wrecks havoc on any potential performance Watts could give. She looks and sounds bored until her ridiculous emotional breakdowns over her heart surgeon which they portray her as being nearly obsessive over. Princess Diana is a beloved figure regardless of her flaws and they did nothing to capture that and sadly neither did Watts. Naveen Andrews of Lost fame plays her lover. I've never heard of the man and I actually think Andrews did an okay job, just barely adequate given how bad the script was. I can't speak to the chemistry between Watts and Andrews because there was none...literally. It was like watching brother and sister only not even family chemistry existed. If this was a passionate affair, none of that was there. He was bleak and boring too and then he would shot melodramatically for five minutes and then back to bleak and boring. As a Lost fan I think Andrews is talented and its unfortunate this will do nothing to further his career. There is no one else worth mentioning...no one. People come and go and I couldn't even tell you who they were I was so bored to utter tears.

How dare whoever came up with this idea put Oliver Hirschbiegel in charge of this project. The guy comes from SCIENCE FICTION FILMS AND TV and not even good versions. We are talking about a B-director at best and I can't imagine he had any interest in doing this and his boredom translates perfectly onto this piece of mess. Just to make sure the nail was thoroughly in this coffin, screenwriter Stephen Jeffrey's has a whopping two credits to his name including this dud. It would appear to me that no one cared enough about this project and that is honestly just a HUGE shame. They missed some massive potential here and under professional talent with experience, this could have swept the Oscars and instead deserves to sweep the Razzies. Don't bother...not even out of morbid curiosity. This is a travesty. I didn't want to believe the negative reviews...but they're all true. A deserving 1/10 for this.

Took me by surprise - decent film!

[alwynhuk · 8/10 · 25 September 2013]

This film took me by surprise due to all the negativity surrounding it. It actually turned out to be a decent film that I enjoyed. I've always loved Naomi Watts and she pulls of a great performance. So she doesn't look exactly like Diana - what actress does? Diana was very unique looking and Naomi is definitely the right person for the role.

Naveeen Andrews also pulled a strong performance and the film had good pacing and never got dull. The film was respectable to Diana and I liked how they ended the film.

Please do not judge the film before seeing it. The British press were never going to praise this film. Well done Naomi.. you should be proud of this film.

I enjoyed it so much I bought it *Spoiler* May reveal plot

[caubiz · 7/10 · 13 August 2017]

Diana is a love story that focuses on the last two years of Princess Diana's life and her relationship with Hasnat Khan. This film received a thrashing from film goers and critics alike and yet remains a popular rental despite these reviews. As of this writing, the film cost approximately $15 million to make and made $21.7 million. So not as much of a clunker at the box office as we are led to believe by the public vitriol concerning this film. Considering that the screenings were limited, it made it's money back -- and a bit more.

Is it that we miss Diana so much that we would watch anything Diana? Or is it that it does not live up to our own personal "icons" of Diana that displeases us so? It is often lambasted for the "negative space" around it - or what it isn't. We are furious that the filmmakers did not tell the story we wanted them to tell. Lost in this is the fact that it is based on a book by Kate Snell, "Diana: Her Last Love." The film's focus was narrow -- and very focused on the emotional part of the story.

To me I saw a woman who is experiencing her first real love with a worthy partner and someone who never took advantage of her as all her other relationships did. It treats its subject respectfully so it hints at Diana's obsessiveness, but does not dawdle there. It highlights her willfulness but doesn't make a best friend of it. The children are shown only at a distance and the romantic scenes are modest. This is a film about an intimate, one on one, connection she had with Hasnat Khan and the tension that existed between them who, recognizing a soul mate in each other, are trying to figure out how to make it "work" with the limitations of different cultures, fame, professional dedication, and each other's strong personalities. And in that sense it does succeed. One can only guess at how frustrating this dilemma - of meeting a soul mate, with these kinds of challenges, must have been for both of them. Yet the bond was strong - both of their lives were deeply rooted in healing and helping others - and it was Diana's longest lasting relationship of all her paramours.

The movie does a good job of highlighting their story and some of the private moments they shared. Naomi Watts does a great job playing the Princess as does Naveen Andrews who plays Hasnat Khan. The writing for the most part is very good. This is a vignette, not a novel, and it leaves us rooting for and wondering about what could their future have been had Princess Diana lived.

A thorough waste of 2 hours zzzzzzzz

[PaPaPappageno · 2/10 · 25 September 2013]

I was surprised that the film focused so narrowly on the one affair. I had expected this to tell more of her story including the marriage problems that led to the separation in the first place. The film makers bottle out of even the slightest criticism of the royal establishment, despite this being, some may say, a root cause of Diana's problems in the first place. I guess it is no surprise that the film avoids tackling the controversies surrounding the fatal crash.

Although the film offers some sympathy for Diana, particularly over her treatment by the paparazzi and over her frequent separation from her boys, these moments are few and far between and there is no consideration of the treatment she received from her husband. For much of the film Diana is portrayed as a naive and desperate stalker.

Ms Watts, usually an accomplished actress, seems to have had too little reference material (surprising given the time Diana spent hounded by cameras) to work from, the result being a very tiresome overuse of only a few mannerisms and speech characteristics.

The script and the cinematography are both clumsy and more reminiscent of a 1980's TV movie. The one bright spot however might be the acting of Naveen Andrews who at least brings some presence to the screen.

In summary, this was a missed opportunity, so much more could have been said about the life of Diana, and this film fails her completely. I believe the producers were not seeking to make a critically acclaimed film but only to achieve a good return at the box office using the Diana "Brand" .... shameful!

A visual gossip column

[cinematic_aficionado · 23 September 2013]

As it was the case with Hitchcock earlier this year, my main issue with this move was its title. 'Diana' says nothing to me. Who was she, where did she come from, what formed her views and attitudes? However, had the film been called "The last 2 years of Diana" it would have been a wholly different story and it would have done the movie some justice.

Overall, it had the look and feel of a gossip magazine conveyed on the big screen focusing largely who she were with, sleeping, etc. Whilst it became obvious that the Pakistani heart surgeon gave her happiness, it was not enough somehow. She wanted to be loved, he could not live with the publicity that came along with so it appears that Lady Di was doomed to not find love. The only interesting twist this movie introduced was that the whole Dodi affair only took place to make Hasnat jealous.

So, whilst much of it been lost between visual gossip and an unfortunate title, one will be allowed to feel sympathy for the ill-fated princess.