Диана: История любви (2013) Online

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.

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

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 went to see this movie almost without any expectations. Granted, in my mind, Naomi Watts's performance in "Mulholland Dr." was exceptional, but that was over ten years ago, so I made a deliberate effort not to compare the roles. I had not seen any reviews and did not know anything about the movie, except its title character. I knew the main outlines of Diana's life and had seen some of her interviews, although I was more familiar with her death. Thus I had no opinion of Diana herself, except that I had heard a little of her famous charity work. With these things in mind I went to the theater. To me the movie was excellent. The atmosphere was enchanting and at times haunting. Watts played Diana like a shape shifter, matching her every move when the character presented herself to the media, while breaking her facade in private. She portrayed tons of difficult emotion that had to convey an aristocratic filter created by the character's upbringing. Diana's life was presented as a complex mixture of personal and public, feelings and constraints, that lead to her being slowly crushed by the outside pressures she could not control. The movie's purpose was obviously apolitical and tried to convey Diana's driving force that was interpreted in the movie as love. It succeeded in this very convincingly. The credit for this goes not only to Watts, but also the director Oliver Hirschbiegel (who, I now notice, directed "Der Untergang", an exceptional film in its own right) and Naveen Andrews, who played his role with credibility and originality. Altogether I found the movie to be on-par with the best biographical dramatizations in film, even coming close to "King's Speech".

Now that I had seen the film, and had been thoroughly impressed by it, imagine my surprise when I tuned in on IMDb. At this moment the score was 4.9. I immediately noticed a pattern. Of all the 2900 voters 446 (15.4 %) had voted 1. In fact the value 1 dominated the chart, being the most frequent vote of all the values. I interpreted this is a symptom of pure ignorance. Obviously the movie is not the worst of all time, like for example "The Room", "Manos: The Hands of Fate" or "Plan 9 from Outer Space". There in fact seems to be an almost organized effort to trash the movie. I do not think this has much to do with the film itself, but is a continuation of the politicization of Diana's life. I would recommend, when reading reviews, to recognize the critics who judge the film based on their own preconceived notions and those who judge the film on its own merits.

My score for "Diana" is between 8 and 9, which rounds it up to 9.

I never read reviews before I watch a film because I want no preconceived ideas of the quality of what I'm watching. I prefer to make those decisions on my own. I can see now that is a very good policy. Reading some of the reviews after having seen Diana I was shocked because I found the film to be a terrific portrayal of Princess Diana by Naomi Watts. Yes, Watts is truly a good actress and also a beautiful woman. Yes, she is much shorter than Diana and, therefore, perhaps not quite as elegant; but she couldn't have done a better job I don't believe.

I think most people were disappointed because Watts did the unthinkable; she didn't bring Diana back from the grave. Diana is STILL dead. She did, however, very nicely portray Diana as a real person with real feelings and much of the film was very surprising if the writers have guessed accurately about the actual conversations which took place between Diana and the supporting cast. I liked the person Diana in the film, whom Watts created, even if that isn't truly the REAL Diana, it's a way I'd like to remember her. We will never really know for sure, will we?

I hardly write reviews but the average rating of this movie forced and compelled me to sign in and write one for this one. I have been waiting for this one since its production days and now that I finally managed to watch it, I am really surprised to see it has been rated so low on average. The film is great and I loved it. Naomi has done a wonderful job especially with her expressions and her accent. She did justice to the character. Nobody other could have done Diana's character in such a magnificent, delicate and magnificent way. It was because of this movie that I was so touched that I watched Diana's interview with BBC once again after so many years. I compared Naomi's impressions of Diana during that very interview and she was just amazing. It's a beautiful film and the cast has done an amazing job. It doesn't happen very often that the admirers and fans of a famous personality can be pleased by someone else by being the same. Naomi did that successfully.

I went to see the film 'Diana' this afternoon and can honestly say I thoroughly enjoyed it. The film took me on a very convincing journey into what it must have been like for Diana as she struggled with coming to terms with her own inner conflicts (eg the feeling that she was destined always to be an 'outsider' to whatever family she aspired to belong to) while striving to rebuild a life for herself after separating from Prince Charles and to find the love she so desperately yearned for. The story is by turns happy and sad. I found myself smiling for Diana when things were going well, heartbroken when they weren't. Naomi Watts does an absolutely amazing job of portraying Diana. Her's is undoubtedly the weightiest role in the film and she puts her heart and soul into it with a wonderfully nuanced performance. Naveen Andrews playing the part of Dr Hasnat Khan also deserves much credit. Other actors and actresses played lesser roles, but all were well cast and contributed significantly as members of Diana's remaining 'entourage' (some also in roles as 'confidants'). Cinematography, location photography, interiors, sets, music and directing were all excellent. I've never been much of a 'royalty follower', but having seen this film I feel I know a lot more about Diana, her day to day life, and the last love of her all too short life. Don't be put off by low ratings (or negative reviews) - this is a moving and well made film. Highly recommended. 8/10.

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

This was a beautiful film. I really enjoyed because I had no expectations. For me this is a love story not the greatest but it touched me. Naomi Watts was great as always and you can really feel the chemistry between the actors. People say what was the point of this film ?? the point was to give us a glimpse of Diana s life not the whole story of course. You really get to see it through her eyes. How she struggles with being an official person and what comes with that. I do not think Naomi made a mistake by taking this roll because she did a great job. Yes Naomi has the worst wig ever in this film! but who cares just enjoy the great acting and the love story/Murre Macca

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.

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!

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.

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.

I'll be honest and say that for the most part in my opinion it is a poor film. The beginning made little sense and seemed like there were just putting frames in to fill in not starting the story. The rest of it although it did have some glimmers of honest, hard hitting film-making was generally to a low standard. The ending did bring back my attention as the feeling of shock and gritty, hard hitting feelings of love showed how much people cared for Diana despite her history with both the Royal Family and the press. It was always going to be hard portraying someone as famous as Diana and to be honest; it seemed like Niomi Watts had concentrated too much on the voice rather than the whole package and this did affect the performance. Naveen Andrews was fantastic and it should be noted that he played the character with a lot of feeling and depth.

All in all an interesting night out but really lacking that bit of fizzle that makes you remember a film or make an impact.

All the bad press was so unfair. I really liked this movie and I can only recommend it to everybody who's interested in the topic. Can't be bothered about some factual or historical inaccuracies. Despite the fact that Naomi Watts looks nothing like "Lady Di" ( I was deeply disappointed when she got cast for the role) her performance is good enough to give us resemblance of real Diana, her fragility and insecurities contrasting with attention and power coming with the status of a global icon. Center of the storyline is well hidden, secret relationship so obviously it involves some creative inaccuracy. On other hand there is quite a lot of details inspired with press coverage from that period which brings the feeling of authenticity. Everybody seems to be quick to jump on a wagon of criticism but I think its done well and its interesting and enjoyable to watch.

Naveen Andrews was good; all the rest is total crap. Maybe Diana was,indeed, the clingy, backbone-less creature with nothing to recommend her apart from the imprimatur of royal matrimony; but, oh, well, the real Diana was indeed a basically uneducated, low-achieving young lady bred to breed most profitably. However, I cannot imagine a woman would go as low as the protagonist in the movie - so subservient and dependent. A total waste of 2 hours. It is very unfortunate that the minimum length of review is 10 lines as I don't have anything good to write about this substandard PR drivel. Actually, Naomi Watts creates a much softer version of the Diana; the real Diana used to project an image of a basically disoriented, frigid, not particularly bright pawn, just good for, sort of, reproduction. Q.E.D.

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.

The story of Oliver Hirschbiegel's Diana is a peculiar one and one that has been lambasted and frowned upon from the start. Since its release, Hirschbiegel's film has been the subject of overwhelming critical and audience disgust, even with Naomi Watts' portrayal as Diana, Princess of Wales being at the center of the film.

For whatever reason, people either weren't in the mood for a film that makes an attempt to detail the final years of Princess Diana's life following her divorce from Prince Charles. Whether it's the fault of the film or a disinterested public is up for debate, but I found Diana to be an intriguing and surprisingly romantic account of Princess Diana's two key relationships during her later life.

I had a unique experience with Princess Diana's death when I was little. Being she died in a car accident, according to my mother, whenever we would ride in the car, I'd act as if I were protecting Princess Diana and shielding her from the cameras of the paparazzi. I was around four-years-old at the time I began doing it, for the record, and was just beginning to watch the news and possessed the ability to digest the breaking stories of the day. Other such events were the Beltway sniper attacks and September 11, 2001.

With that being said, I was anxious to see "Diana" for the sole purpose that I have such a strange connection and memory of the events of her death. However, writer Stephen Jeffreys narrows his focus here to the last two years of Princess Diana's life, where her disdain for the paparazzi grew larger as she relished her privacy, and was juggling relationships between a heart surgeon and another man.

The heart surgeon was Dr. Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews) and the other man is Dodi Fayed (Cas Anvar), whom Princess Diana died with in the car accident in 1997. The film follows the relationships she held with these two men, examining what each could give her and couldn't give her. Included in the film most pervasively are scenes involving Diana intimately talking with one of the two men over dinner or casual conversation, fixating the project mostly on the closed- door events of the characters rather than the ones we saw publicly.

Some of the film's best scenes come when Hirschbiegel decides to emphasize the routine and relatively unremarkable happenings of Princess Diana's life such as preparing a simple, homemade dinner for her and Dr. Khan as they discuss living their life in the limelight and the urgency of needing a private, somewhat reclusive relationship.

Princess Diana's need for privacy is a frequent theme in the film, and lends itself to an unfortunately underexplored theme of a princess trying to escape the obligations that are photoshoots and constant media coverage. In that respect, it's easy to see some of the harsh criticism for the film given the larger range of ideas that could've been explored, including Princess Diana's humanitarian efforts along with other actions that made her a massively loved figure.

Naomi Watts gives a carefully-orchestrated performance as the Princess of Wales; one that isn't too direct nor one that isn't too humble and subtle. She finds the middle- ground here and just enough to take her character out of the blinding spotlight to make her a human being with a desire for privacy that many of us can have an easy time connecting with and understanding. Furthermore, Andrews and Anvar loan themselves to equally- impressive performances thanks to the low- key acting instruments they play.

Hirschbiegel's Diana occasionally suffers from an indescribably watery quality that makes a bit too bland and a bit too long at times, sort of deluding the film's overall impact. As stated, it's also a bit harder to sit through this film, which focuses on the relationships between Princess Diana and two others due to the fact that (a) there are more interesting stories on its core subject and (b) has a tendency to unfold similar to an episode of TMZ. However, the picture finds ways to be equal parts romantic as well as intriguing, capturing one of the classiest and unique royal figures in history.

Starring: Naomi Watts, Naveen Andrews, and Cas Anvar. Directed by: Oliver Hirschbiegel.

Well, this is the movie story where you don't have need for marks, other comments, critics.. All you need is her name - Diana. If you loved her, her life and personality, her soul and kind words, then you will find a beautiful and tragic story in this film, story of this great lady ever, movie worth seeing. I found very nice and very suitable performance of Naomi Watts, and if you remember some of Diana's little moves or way she speaks or head posture, then you will see how good Naomi was. Yes, she was that good. And in some moments she look just like Diana. Beside Naomi great performance, other great was Naveen Andrews's performance in this movie. You can feel love, authority and tradition in his role in this movie. 10/10 without thinking because words of Diana must live!

This drama film stars Naomi Watts and Naveen Andrews. It's supposed to be a biopic about Diana, Princess of Wales. The problem is that it only covers 1996 and 1997 and centres on her relationship with Pakistani heart surgeon Hasnat Khan. There's very little about the rest of her life or the other people in her life. It doesn't show the fatal crash. Watts' acting is good, but she's limited by a bad script.

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 ****