Spencer

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

Film yang bagus!

source: Spencer

This false narrative that these boring poncey films are artistic and deep and portray something meaningful are just as ridiculous as the movies themselves, if anyone watched this and left feeling anything but tortured, bored or insulted then I'd be amazed. The story was about as boring as staring at a wall, there was nothing here that made me think or appreciate the plight of Diana and I was always sympathetic to her, the monarchy are an outdated poor representation of England with no clue what real people are anymore. Did it portray mental health well? Or did it just look childish and temper tantrum's but because it's an adult it's deep mental health issues? I dunno, as someone who suffers with MH I didn't see much in this that was at all nuanced or realistic, just cheap and shallow. The acting is fine, KS was good but what she had to work with was garbage, it's literally a movie that ends in a KFC , it's all just ridiculous. It's always poor rich people, think the world forgets the plight of ordinary folk. Did she have to stay? Anyway after thousands of movies this is in the bottom 1% it's awful but it'll be pushed as a daring artsy deep masterpiece about someone portraying a national icon, instead of a 2 hour drag about a woman being fed up and going to kfc. It fails to get sympathy and in my view fails at everything. Also the music is the worst in the history of film, whoever scored this needs a hearing test, it's abysmal, it's so so irritating and fails to set any mood or atmosphere. Cant honestly stress how bad this is, I get some highbrow films but trying to pass this off as anything other than an awful movie is people desperate to look intelligent.

Mostly disagree with critics: this is technically very good but, as a film, just meh. The film is artsy, which usually means a 50/50 situation to me: very good or very painful and pretentious. This is a bit on the middle. There is a very strong and powerful scene around 40 minutes - and it's an hallucination...- but it's a shame that, after that, this turned to be much less interesting and repetitive until we have Diana visiting her old house (definitely, the highlight of the film, technically and emotionally). It's ok for some time, some meaningful - and totally predictable - conversations, with, unfortunately, no subtlety at all. It has an interesting score and is well directed, but...it should be so much more than these two hours of the same. Can anyone tell me that this would be any different if it was a 60 minutes film? There is no arc, there is no grow, nothing new, the characters end exactly like they started, most - except Diana and Maggie played very well by Sally Hawkins - totally unidimensional, like MCU villains. I liked the suffocating elements that we saw before in films like Birdman or Shiva Baby, but I think the tone is an issue here, as we keep the same and the same mood for the entire 2 hours (except the KFC trip). Even more surprisingly, I don't think KStew performance is really Oscar worthy (but she will probably win). Don't get me wrong: she does a good job. I just think I would enjoy it much more if I didn't know the real Diana. I never, never, never saw Diana here. I always saw Stewart trying to act like Diana. Some of the things she does are obviously very well taken from Diana - like inclining her head to the side when she speaks or some eye movements - as expected, she can also play very well with what is emotionally requested (even if not as convincing as Jessica Chastain or Tessa Thompson in other films this year, I felt more like someone acting than a real person here). I just didn't feel her character that close to the real Diana, with some clear exaggerations (why always whispering? Diana had a sweet and calm voice but she was not whispering all the time...also forget that "perfect accent" that some are talking about). In short, I think this is as good as weak: there are beautiful technical elements, Stewart acting is strong (even if it worked much better if it was about a fictional character), you can feel the tension and anxiety growing up, but...I can't avoid to think of this as an Oscar-bait (not in the way of appealing to mainstream audiences, but critics and connoisseurs - who play a big part nowadays) and disappointing, as it thinks it has a lot to say but it just keeps playing with the same elements over and over again, being completely one-note, repetitive and even patronising (do we really need all that expository dialogue to explain the same over and over again?).

Such a let down, the film has the cast, sets and budget to really document a recent period of history that had the whole country captivated but wastes it all making an awful arty type film. Also so much of the film would just not have happened in real life, is not even a slight exaggeration, it's just plain ridiculous. As for the annoying mood music that is played over and over during the film, it is probably the closest I have ever been to walking out of a film just because of irritating music. The film would have been a lot better if they just hadn't used it! A decent film on this subject matter could have been a real hit, let's hope for the future.

From the very first words on screen ('A fable from a true tragedy'), Spencer announces that it will not be a typical biography and keeps its word. It's a mix of thriller and artistic horror that uses Diana's true story to depict something more. Pablo Larraín achieves this effect with the excellent use of space (narrow corridors and tight rooms filmed in a way to emphasize the claustrophobic impression) and by giving the whole movie a surreal atmosphere - dream is mixed with reality, reality with delusion. The cast help with building an eerie atmosphere, especially the fantastic Timothy Spall, in the role of Major Gregory, who moves through the Windsor mansion almost like a ghost. The key theme of the film is the clash of two worlds - the royal family and its suffocating traditions, with the lonely Diana, who desperately tries not to surrender to them, to escape the deadly stagnation of the past, towards freedom and finding herself. The real star here, however, is, as always excellent, Kristen Stewart. Not everyone believed that she would be able to play an icon like Diana, but she did it flawlessly. She captured her essence, replenishing it with own energy, which helped creat a flesh-and-blood figure, not a cheap imitation. Stewart perfectly shows the complexity of her character - the fragile mental stability (she's talking with a ghost and jacket), mood changes, spontaneity suppressed by the royal family, but also energy, rebellion and motherly love for children. Claire Mathon follows her everywhere, chasing Diana through corridors, lawns, empty rooms and an abandoned houses. There are also close-ups characteristic of this cinematographer, and the whole picture is beautifully complemented by Johnny Greenwood's music. But what impresses most is Stewart absolute authenticity, the spontaneity that emanates from her especially during scenes with her sons or sequences on the beach. This skill brings life into a shackled Diana and creates a role worthy of all praise that she collects.