Spencer (Kristen Stewart as Princess Diana)

Queen of hearts or car crash?

  • Total voters
    6
She is hardly a bad actress and this is the sort of role that gets those accolades. Didn't Natalie Portman also get great reviews and nominations for playing Jackie? Critics love a SUFFERING ICE QUEEN.
 
"Jackie" was incredible (and determinedly uncommercial) so I expect more of the same from this on both counts :disco:
 
I really didn't care for Jackie at all. Painfully slow and it framed everything about her life through a really off-putting male gaze.
 
Sorry, but watching that trailer all I can think of is Siobhan Fahey snarling "you're nothing new". In other words, I can hardly wait.
 
Can I spoil one scene?

The image from the poster of her hunching down in that poofy dress is actually taken from a scene where she’s hunched over with her face in a toilet!

It is BAD FAN FICTION where absolutely EVERYONE is the most miserable human being you could ever imagine.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: COB
Diddy said:
This post has the same energy as @COB ’s pervert looking in the window pic :D post it COBBY love!
Click to expand...
Oh GO ON THEN :D

4cf (1).png
 
Ellie said:
It is BAD FAN FICTION where absolutely EVERYONE is the most miserable human being you could ever imagine.
Click to expand...

So the actual Windsors then :D

Scream at Fergie not even getting a closeup!
 
What year exactly is this supposed to be set? It’s apparently “the early 90s”, but William and Harry are far too old for it to be before Annus Horribilus 1992. Also I don’t think we even had drive thru takeaways at that time.
 
I thought this was ok, great performance but the movie itself wasn’t very engaging. Could have used more conversations cause those were the moments hat it actually clicked.

I also didn’t care for the Ann Boylene stuff.
 
Phoenix said:
I thought this was ok, great performance but the movie itself wasn’t very engaging. Could have used more conversations cause those were the moments hat it actually clicked.

I also didn’t care for the Ann Boylene stuff.
Click to expand...

So it *is* Jackie 2.0 then.
 
Jackie was stronger because there was an event that you understood that the movie revolves around. This is harder.
 
Ellie said:
What year exactly is this supposed to be set? It’s apparently “the early 90s”, but William and Harry are far too old for it to be before Annus Horribilus 1992. Also I don’t think we even had drive thru takeaways at that time.
Click to expand...

It’s 1991 so they were 9 and 7. Seemed right to me.
 
D09AC056-E566-4C24-B8B0-2D1B504F5B18.jpeg



Ah, well they got the outfits wrong. And as you can see she did manage to raise a proper smile rather than looking like she’s about to burst into tears at every given moment.

Plus by all accounts Diana was a good mother, but in this she comes across as terrible.
 
I loved this - Kristen’s performance is astonishingly good but it is a strong film in its own right. It is really a horror and brought a few echoes of The Shining - the long shots through the set, the minimal dialogue and the sense of a descent into something (despair in this instance, rather than madness).

I can’t agree with the comments about the lack of accuracy - it’s not a biopic (and anybody looking for one is going to be disappointed) and nor does it claim to even be a true account of events, so the lack of faithfulness to the outfits of Christmas 1991 or whether the UK did or did not have drive-through takeaway at that point in time seems unimportant. The Naomi Watts film reached for physical and historical accuracy and didn’t end up even vaguely achieving either.

That being said it isn’t flawless - William and Harry do require a degree of suspension of disbelief and there was the odd unfortunate continuity error - the ever changing registration number plate on the Porsche for a start!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top Bottom