Spencer

It's December 1991. The British royal family is gathering to spend Christmas at a royal estate. The abandoned Spencer estate is nearby. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is driving herself and arrives late. She finds herself more and more isolated. Major Alistar Gregory (Timothy Spall) leads the staff to impose order upon her.

There seems to be a lot of praise for Kristen Stewart's work in this. I can certainly see what she's doing and she's doing a lot of it. Sometimes, people say that an actor disappears into the role. In this one, I never lose sight that this is Kristen Stewart. She is doing her standard jittery demure acting. It always looks like her and her movements. A lot of this rides on her performance and I like it less than most. Timothy Spall is performing through his deliberate gritting teeth. Again, I get the work but I would like less singular mannerisms. As for the story, it hits the broad elements of the situation. I do like the mental health aspect although there is no way to know the truth. This is sensationalized. It would help if the performances are more toned down and normalized especially Kristen. She needs to do less of her jittery demure.

This does feel like an interesting spin on the typical royal period piece. Having the royal family as Diana's horror was a unique framing device, but you really feel like you're getting hit over the head with Diana's trauma for 2 hours.

Even as someone who has watched The Crown, you have to bring in a LOT of prior knowledge about this story to understand everything going on. It's heavy on symbolism and not the most subtle, but Stewart's performance is worthy of the hype and is the main thing to watch here.

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".

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.