User reviews

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.

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 ****

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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 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.

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

Like many other people I am fascinated by the British Royal Family. Well, that is a big problem! Too many people are interested in them. Any human being would snap. She probably did, and thus all those men. Why Charles was permitted and she was not? Well, he is a son and she is not a daughter.

She did so much good. She went where other Royals would not. I hope she died of an accident and not by an MI6 operation, as many claim. She deserved so much good in her life, the good she gave.

Take this film with a reserve, for we all are not so sure why and what is happening inside Royal family. Only Royal biographers and historians can tell us.

Anyways, if you are interested in British Royal Family this is a film for you, otherwise you can skip it.

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.

A biographical movie of princess Diana. It tells the story of her last two years of life, especially the romance side. A better movie than I anticipated. I think Jessica Chastain would have been also a good choice to play the role princess Diana, anyway Naomi Watts excelled in her opportunity. The movie did not fail because of the cast, characters and performances, the thing is I really don't know why, different people say different reason, but I enjoyed it. This real incident was happened when I was a little kid, I did not know the whole story then till I watch it now.

''There's about 5 billion people on this planet who can say they love me! But is there one who can stay with me?''

After all Diana was also a human like everybody else and I did not find anything wrong with her romantic affair in her final days. In fact, as a cinematic it chronicles on the sufficient amount of limited characters. Lots of the big names were just left out. That's great because the movie had all the time to concentrate on the particular relationship. Except that I waited for the end tragedy scene which never came. I assumed, that could have been the highlight of the movie, which might have brought the tears. So I believe it is a great let down, the movie did not have the car crash scene. Especially the real reason behind it remains fishy and mystery. Naveen Andrews was great, but he was no way near to Hasnat Khan in appearance.

There might be some flaws in the movie, because in the biopics people often complain about many things. Those who observed all this incident closely at that time when it happened may recognize errors. But I feel modification sometimes need while transforming a real life to cinematic. Like any romantic movie it can be enjoyed by everyone who love biography. I did and liked it, certainly not a class movie like it should have been.

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

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 honestly don't understand the overwhelming criticism that this film is receiving. The film is by no means perfect. The first half of the film is, frankly, boring. As we focus on the love affair between Diana and Hasnat, we miss the bigger picture, and you could easily mistake the couple for a pair from a so-so Nicholas Sparks novel. However, the second half of the film has a lot more going for it, as the fame of the princess begins to destroy her relationships, her family and, ultimately, herself.

With a steady - if not watertight - performance from Watts, perhaps the reason for the intense negative press towards this biopic shouldn't come as much of a surprise. After all, they are the antagonists here.

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!

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.