Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Karyn This film has some flaws - hyperbole, some moments of B-movie-ness and overstating the importance or relevance of events in the 1930's, but other than that, it's amazing.It is very well put-together - it presents all the inconsistencies of the case in an easy- to-follow, fluid narrative, all while poking holes in the official story from every angle. It is very well researched and has the benefit of time and hindsight to reveal things that were unknown, covered up, delayed or not presented into evidence. It was not released in the UK, and the recommended "87 cuts" (that it would need to be certified for release in the UK) would've made it into an incoherent music video rather than a documentary.If you're a conspiracy theorist - watch it. This is just amazing.If you are not a conspiracy theorist but don't always believe everything the government says (Richard Dearlove, head of the British Secret Intelligence Service: "We have never killed anybody in the last 50 years"), it's a great watch because it's filled with shady stuff.If you believe every single word the government says and have never doubted anything and will never doubt anything, this film is a great work of fiction. It's a fun story to watch.All in all, highly entertaining.

eightball13 Us Brits are shocked when we watch documentaries depicting life in places such as North Korea but maybe we should start looking closer to home for authorities covering up the truth.I am not a great believer in conspiracy theories but found this documentary to be quite shocking and persuasive when arguing its case.Although not possible to view in the UK, various websites stream it and I definitely recommend you hunt it down. Well worth a watch.The only contraction it seems to make is its constant reference to the fact that the media viewed it as Diana's death despite two other people in the car suffering the same fate. In summary it refers to the accident as the death of Diana and Dodi without mentioning the driver whose name had been unfairly dragged through the dirt by the media.

Marijuanaut "Keith Allen's film exposes the in-plain-sight cover up of what happened to Diana in Paris in 1997 and her cold, heartless and disgusting treatment by this cold, heartless and disgusting family – including the way that the judge at the excuse-for-an-inquest ordered royal correspondence with Diana from people like Prince Philip to be censored before being made public. Does this remind anyone of how the judge at the excuse-for-an-inquiry into North Wales child abuse ordered that famous political names could not be mentioned by the victims?The film exposes the pathetic irrelevance of the mainstream media which is just an arm of the same Establishment which it is alleged to be 'reporting' – with a few honorary exceptions scattered here and there. This is the BBC's 'royal correspondent', Nicholas Witchell, one of the most pompous people I have ever met, depicted in the film fast asleep more than once while inquest evidence was being heard. Unlawful Killing is the incredibly important and highly revealing 'inquest of the inquest' that reveals overwhelming evidence of a massive Establishment cover up in the UK and France and this is why it has not been seen in the UK but can be watched now on an overseas website. Keith Allen said around the time of the royal wedding in 2011, when Diana's son, William, married Kate Middleton:'Why is the film being premiered next week at Cannes, three years after the inquest ended? Because British lawyers insisted on 87 cuts before any UK release could be contemplated. So rather than butcher the film, or risk legal action, we're showing it in France, then the US, and everywhere except the UK. Pity, because at a time when the mindless sugar rush of the royal wedding has been sending British Republicans into a diabetic coma, it could act as a welcome antidote.'Mohamed Al Fayed is no angelic being of sweetness and light either, but the point of this film is to show how what happened to Diana was systematically covered up by the alleged inquest into the death of her and Dodi Fayed. From this comes a simple question: why would there be a cover up if there was not something highly significant to cover up? A clinical psychologist describes Prince Philip in the film as a man devoid of guilt, empathy and love – precisely the character traits of the royal and 'elite' bloodlines worldwide that I have been exposing for nearly a quarter of a century. The royal family as a whole are described as 'gangsters in tiaras'. Even this is mild compared with their sick and sordid past and present."http://vimeo.com/55630108

luanimmachado I'm also looking for more information about this movie.I hope to be able to watch it soon...Not that I need to watch the movie to believe in it's theory...actually I don't understand how people can believe in the accident story...I've found this review on Amazon website, where, it seams, the DVD will be available."Good enough for Mark Lane, good enough for me. It's impressive that Mohammed Al Fayed is the sponsor. And that it's banned. It only presents the evidence, but that in itself is sufficiently damning to get it banned. John Hankey BushKilledJFK.com"There is also a website but there is not much to see there, and a page on facebook where people is also asking about the release.