An interesting film

Caught it this afternoon.

At the beginning of the movie the film identifies itself as "a fable from a true tragedy." So I'm not sure what, if any, of the movie's events have real-life counterparts. I think the entire story is likely thematically true, but totally fictional in that the events portrayed are the invention of the screenwriter, save perhaps for some very broad factual details.

It is definitely a character-driven piece rather than a plot-driven one. "Fable" I think is a good description, as the film is dripping with symbolism and metaphor, with occasional surrealistic touches.

Kristen Stewart gives a good, engrossing performance, though I felt it was perhaps a bit overdone at times and I'm also not positive how much of the real Diana it reflects. I would say the same of the rest of the royals, and in fact would say that the actors' performances were good but that I saw even less of their real-life counterparts in them than I did in Stewart's Diana.

Apparently, in what has become an exceedingly rare occurrence, the movie was shot on actual film, and you can tell it. The cinematography is often beautiful and has a distinctly different look from today's digital creations, complete with lots of film grain. In fact, there was so much grain that I wondered at times if it was shot on 16mm instead of 35mm. But the house that they shot much of the movie in is amazing and the lighting is incredible.

This is not a mainstream movie. It is distinctly art-house/indie in its stylings and approach. The total budget was $20 million.

It was, at times, slow. And it took me a little while to really get invested in the story. But it's an interesting and well-made movie, and I don't regret seeing it.