Spencer

When I first heard that Kristen Stewart was cast as Princess Diana, I was sceptical I must admit.. The American does a great job though in picturing one of the most loved British people of all time.

I dont want to spoil anything, I just say that sure...we all knew the gossip, the conspiracies, the theories about Diana and her death, but still, almost 25 years later, this movie still brings aspects to the story, that are fresh, new and provocative. It was a bit more psychedelic than expected and I enjoyed that movie much more than I thought I would and it surely will not be liked by the royals, especially Prince Charles, he wont be amused with his depiction!

This is not a traditional biopic, far from it. In fact it all takes place over a three day period during the 1991 version of the annual Royal Family's Christmas at Sandringham Estate. About 10 years after Charles and Diana were married and about six years before Diana would die in the car crash in Paris. It is more of a fictionalized dramatization of what it must have been like for Diana, a caged animal yearning to be free, but confined to the customs and rules of the Royal Family.

There is a conversation in the middle of the movie, Charles explaining to Diana, each member of the Royal Family is two people, the one that reporters and photographers see and the real one. But Diana was unable to fit that mold.

Fine portrayals by all involved, my wife and I enjoyed it at home on DVD from our public library.

The film is good. Ignore the 1 star reviewers who hate Kristen based on one film she did over a decade ago. She is a terrific actress, and her repertoire of under the radar films proves it.

She's near perfectly been cast in "Spencer", and the film is just as gripping and successful (if not more) than "Jackie".

I had a mixed reaction to "Spencer," Pablo Larrain's film about three days in the life of Princess Diana as she's trapped in Windsor over the Christmas holiday with a family who doesn't want her and who she hates. On the one hand, I liked Larrain's decision to give the film a horror movie vibe, as if the demons plaguing Diana are literally real. There have been so many versions of this story, on screen and in print, that what's the point of doing yet another if you're not going to do something daring with it?

But the movie is a bit much to take. It's oppressive, which fits the subject matter, so I get that. But it's also very one note, and worst, it doesn't make Diana come alive as a person or character. You have to bring a lot of knowledge of Diana's story to this movie for it to completely make it worthwhile. Otherwise, you're just stuck with a very bizarre woman wandering around a big house in nice clothes for two hours. You can empathize with her, because she's clearly a very troubled woman going through a crisis, but that doesn't mean you necessarily want to spend time with her.

Kristen Stewart was just nominated for a Best Actress Academy Award at the time I'm writing this comment, and her performance is good I guess. I think she gives the performance Larrain wants her to give. But it's a very weird performance, and extremely hard to warm to.

Sally Hawkins has a smallish role as the only member of the household staff who Diana can deal with, and as always, she carries the movie off with her and made me want it to just be about her instead.

Grade: B.

6/10 - I really wanted to fall in love with this film, but found it lacking in a lot of the heart it needed to convey this story with the sympathy and genuineness necessary in the story of such a layered and pained woman.