3 days of chaos

I don't really do biopics / real life character studies but director Pablo Larrain is very good at his craft and he did a slice of life style film on Jackie Kennedy which was good so I thought I'd give this film (Princess Diana visiting the royal residence at Sandringham for 3 days over Christmas) a go.

It is really great. Kristen Stewart is fantastic. The writing is solid, the direction masterful. It is described as a fable of a tragedy, but the little tales are so well spun that the viewer can't help but wonder if they are real.

The real location used is a German castle which rekindles lots of 'Last Year at Marienbad'. A suitable parallel for Diana's far flung mental state.

There are also some deeply moving scenes, mostly of Diana with her boys. The Royal family doesn't come off particularly well. Unsurprisingly.

Very good film.

I went to this a few weeks ago and it left me with a different impression.

I liked Jackie from a few years ago, and it was on the strength of that that decided to give this a go.

Biopics, while they have their place, are all too often cynical Oscarbait grabs, and this just feels like Kristen Stewart's.

Although it feels even more cynical than most.

The thing is, this feels like treaded territory, not just with the character of Diana, for example in The Crown (Emma Corrin was very good in that, and naturally over the course of a season of that show and a period of years it reflects, had much more time to explore the character of Diana).

But not just for the character of Diana, it is like a retread for Stewart as an actress also, it feels very much like a rinse and repeat of what she did in Seberg, with precious little to distinguish between her interpretations of those two women in these two films. And because of which it comes across a little lazy going back to the well and double down, so to speak.

Undoubtedly Stewart will probably get nominated, same as Will Smith will be for King Richard, but don't think either are compelling performances. Even with award season penchant for biopics, where actors literally have their characters spelt out and no shortage of footaage and detail to study and perfect.

Taking Renee Zellweger's compelling turn as Judy Garland, where I truly felt as though she had become the character and it didn't feel like an actress playing Judy Garland - it felt like it was Judy Garland. That was a performance that entirely carried a film.

Stewart's turn as the iconic Diana just seems such a cynical grab in comparison.

There are a share of touching moments, the support cast is greatly underutilized, but this is Stewart's movie - everything else is placed second fiddle to and I just didn't feel it stacked up.

Difficult to respond to your individual points really as I haven't seen King Richard, The Crown, Seberg or the Judy Garland one, and I try hard to take zero notice of awards as they have absolutely no bearing on how good or bad films are.

As a standalone film, I though it was really good.

Oh of course, awards are far from a true representation of quality and all too often are utilized for purposes other than a singular performance, piece of work or film in particular, so completely agree with you on that score.

The wonderful thing about movies - and performances or any other aspect for that matter - is, people can get very different perspectives and that there is no universal right or wrong.