Entertainment One | Release Date: November 1, 2013
3.7
USER SCORE
Generally unfavorable reviews based on 41 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
8
Mixed:
12
Negative:
21
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
ThegodfathersonNov 1, 2013
German director Oliver Hirschbiegel has made a puzzling contribution to the oeuvre of films about Diana, the late Princess of Wales. His new film, simply titled Diana, is very narrowly focused. Set during the last two years of Diana’s life,German director Oliver Hirschbiegel has made a puzzling contribution to the oeuvre of films about Diana, the late Princess of Wales. His new film, simply titled Diana, is very narrowly focused. Set during the last two years of Diana’s life, the picture highlights Diana’s (Naomi Watts) relationship with a London-based Pakistani heart surgeon, Dr. Hasnat Khan (Naveen Andrews). Hirschbiegel directed 2004’s critically acclaimed Downfall, so this misstep is both surprising and disappointing. The picture plays like a made-for-TV movie (appropriate perhaps for Lifetime), and does nothing to make the viewer remember Diana with any fondness or respect. In Hirschbiegel’s depiction, in fact, Diana comes across as nothing more than a mopey, love-starved teenager. She tries to immerse herself in her new boyfriend’s interests, buying a copy of Gray’s Anatomy and listening to jazz albums (jazz is his favorite). She cooks for him (if microwaving the pasta your assistant prepares in advance counts as cooking) and sneaks around so she can see him, donning a long black wig so she can dance in discos to “West End Girls” with him and sit by his side in groovy jazz clubs. She gossips idly to her acupuncturist friend about him, and even sneaks into his apartment after a fight to make it up to him by cleaning his entire apartment. These scenes are no doubt meant to convey the lengths Diana will go to for her crush (the Princess of Wales vacuuming and washing dirty dishes? Really?), but, instead, they just make her seem prosaic and sort of desperate; they are an odd contrast to the scenes of her engaged in her more serious charity work (landmine victims, HIV funding), which are presented almost as side elements to the main love interest plot, which seems backwards. Andrews fares better as Dr. Khan; in fact, between the two characters, in this picture, he comes across as the more interesting of the two. Whereas Diana has an almost unfathomable life of wealth and privilege, Dr. Kahn is earning a Ph.D. and spends long hours at the hospital, performing technically difficult and life-saving surgeries. He’s aware that a life with Diana would mean he would be so in the public eye that he could no longer pursue his passion. On top of that, his Pakistani family refuses to give their blessing to a union with Diana; not only is she not Pakistani and not a Muslim, but they, too, do not want to be unwittingly thrust into the public spotlight. Andrews conveys Hasnat’s conflicted feelings well; he’s alternately charmed by Diana and frustrated by her, and he really is the one with the major dilemma give up his life’s work for romance with a princess, at the cost of his family’s approval? You really can’t blame the guy when he expresses reservations to Diana. Naomi Watts’s portrayal of Diana doesn’t help matters much, either; for one thing, she bears virtually no resemblance to the Princess, so whenever she’s face front on screen, it’s a distraction. It’s hard to engage in the story when all you can think is, “here’s Naomi Watts pretending to be Diana.” The filmmakers must have realized this problem, too, as for almost the first quarter of the film, Watts is shot either from the back (with good posture and the right hair cut, any tall, slim, blonde woman can be taken for Diana from behind) or from a profile view. Watts imbues Diana with a wounded, coquettish manner that, instead of eliciting empathy, just makes her seem sort of insipid and vacuous. You want to tell her to forget about the doctor and just concentrate on her humanitarian work, which she enjoyed, was good at, and which earned her the love and respect of her country. According to this film, though, such inner rewards weren’t enough for Diana; like a girl not asked to the prom, all she really wanted was the cute boy she liked so, so much. Writer Stephen Jeffreys also doesn’t help matters much; his screenplay calls for an inordinate amount of time to be spent on Diana and Hasnat looking into each other’s eyes as soulful French music plays on the soundtrack. And Watts and Andrews are both saddled with clunky, heavy-handed dialog: “You don’t perform the operation; the operation performs you,” is one gem Hasnat condescendingly drops on Diana to describe his work. Diana, meanwhile often seems to be reading lines out of a Harlequin novel, lamenting how she’ll never be happy, and flirtatiously asking her cardiac surgeon boyfriend deep questions like, “Can hearts actually break?” When we walked out of the film, my friend asked me “Who do you think this film is for?” It’s a good question. If you know nothing about Diana, this film seems like a poor introduction; you walk out of it thinking less of, not more of her, which I’m sure was not the filmmakers’ intent, but is the unfortunate result of a weak script and a central one-note performance. Even if you are a huge fan and follower of the royals, Diana’s story has been covered so extensively that this stupid movie sucks. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
3
ErickFernandesNov 1, 2013
The most disappointing movie of the year. Hirschbiegel was so unhappy as director. Naomi Watts is one of the best actresses of the moment, but the terrible development of the script doesn't allowed her show all her talent. Besides that, inThe most disappointing movie of the year. Hirschbiegel was so unhappy as director. Naomi Watts is one of the best actresses of the moment, but the terrible development of the script doesn't allowed her show all her talent. Besides that, in absolutely unbelievable that someone take a perfect character (Di) with a great story of life and make a so stupid movie. Naomi, I stil love you...your Oscar is coming. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
MovieGoer14Nov 7, 2013
Diana is a terrible film I agree, but Naomi Watts is outstanding in this film, even though it is terribly edited, dull, long and uninteresting, I totally forgot that I am watching someone taking the roll of Princess Diana, it all seemed to meDiana is a terrible film I agree, but Naomi Watts is outstanding in this film, even though it is terribly edited, dull, long and uninteresting, I totally forgot that I am watching someone taking the roll of Princess Diana, it all seemed to me that it is a real secret footage from her life, and the editing helped to forget it is a film, because you can't figure out it is a new day or is it the same, although it gets better, but believe it is footage from her life before she died, sometimes it seemed interesting but most of the time it is silly and forgettable. I won't bother to watch Diana again, it is terrible, boring, film but seems so real. Totally a film to skip. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
majorcoxNov 2, 2013
ifb4tgrijehbregerhwhrewhuhberigewrgweiguuerwhbgbgbgbggbgbgbgbgbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
KadeemluvmusicNov 4, 2013
It's very hard to biopic the late Princess of Wales, but Naomi Watts tried her best to become Princess Diana. Unfortunately, this is not the biopic we were hoping to see. I simply missed Diana very much ever since the funeral broadcast aroundIt's very hard to biopic the late Princess of Wales, but Naomi Watts tried her best to become Princess Diana. Unfortunately, this is not the biopic we were hoping to see. I simply missed Diana very much ever since the funeral broadcast around the world on national TV. But Hollywood is not yet ready for a Princess Diana biopic. As much as disappointing as it looks, Diana (along with Jennifer Hudson in "Winnie Mandela" and Ashton Kutcher in "Jobs") is one of the worst but weird-looking biopics of 2013. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
DCEdmondsNov 13, 2014
"Diana" 10 Scale Rating: 2.0 (Awful) ...

The Good: Naomi Watts, who is usually excellent, tried really hard to make this work. The Bad: Sadly, Watts looked nothing like Diana and these days that is unacceptable in film. On top of that,
"Diana" 10 Scale Rating: 2.0 (Awful) ...

The Good: Naomi Watts, who is usually excellent, tried really hard to make this work.

The Bad: Sadly, Watts looked nothing like Diana and these days that is unacceptable in film. On top of that, the film is just a mess. It is very tacky, at times slow, and comes across as a film made for cable television. While I never understood the obsession with Diana, surely she deserved better than this?
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
MattBrady99Mar 10, 2015
I think this movie is lost and when and I mean the movie has no idea what it whats to be. because this movie is the worst movies of the year, just Wow It is pretty shocking how a movie like this is made?. Naomi Watts is not the worst part ofI think this movie is lost and when and I mean the movie has no idea what it whats to be. because this movie is the worst movies of the year, just Wow It is pretty shocking how a movie like this is made?. Naomi Watts is not the worst part of this movie but I think she is a miss cast and the writing in the movie is really awkward, this movie is worst-er then Movie 43 and I can't believe Diana is worst-er then movie 43. So yeah skip this movie because this movie is boring, really dull. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
KristyK105Dec 3, 2015
So I was grocery shopping one day at the Gelsons in Calabasas a couple years ago when I passed by there like redbox but not rental/buy movie kiosk ... I was browsing the movies when I came across the movie Diana ... Hmmm, I don't rememberSo I was grocery shopping one day at the Gelsons in Calabasas a couple years ago when I passed by there like redbox but not rental/buy movie kiosk ... I was browsing the movies when I came across the movie Diana ... Hmmm, I don't remember this movie like at all and I'm super interested in Princess Diana and her whole story ... So I bought it not knowing it would make me question everything I thought I knew because in my world her love affair was with her bodyguard NOT a heart surgeon with the same name. Watching it I was also shocked as to his appearance while her bodyguard was foreign he was never like that, the movie also had situations that didn't fit the whole he was a heart surgeon profession.
That's why I rated this movie a 3, because it's full of false information, maybe in someone's world he was a heart surgeon ... Or maybe he was a doctor of conjoined twins, who became a bodyguard to the one he saved and won Diana's heart and after taking their deaths are living with the twin he and her saved together ... See anyone can make up a story where's your fact checker b/c didn't u know it's not nice to lie.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews