Diana da França

An American historical drama; A story set in 16th century France. It is based loosely on the historical story about King Francis I of France who asks Diane de Poitiers, a French noblewoman and a prominent courtier, to tutor his son, Prince Henri. He becomes the future King Henri II and she becomes his mistress after his arranged marriage to Italian royal, Catherine de' Medici. The film plays out as a procession of people in elaborate, colourful costumes in grande sets and against impressive vistas. It has a stately feel, driven mainly by plot rather than excitement and moving scenes. But, at its core is an interesting tale about true love and the political maneouvering when two royal families collide. Unfortunately, it is let down by a poor script and dialogue which doesn't have enough fire bursts from its slow magma flow. The jousting scenes in the climactic royal tournament were impressive and the film is photographed well, but it feels a bit flat, even from the beginning. Lana Turner impresses though she is a little stiff in what is largely a sympathetic role. Marisa Pavan is impressive as the de Medici Queen. Roger Moore is handsome and easily copes with his character's progress from youth to kingship. The Italian noble Gondi, a villainous de Medici intermediary, is played by Henry Daniell, and is probably the most impressive performance.

If you take this for what it was, Hollywood's take on a real historical event, Diane was an enjoyable movie, as long as you haven't a clue as to what went on then.

They had so much wrong in this story it was rediculious. I mean they even omited Nostradamus, Catherine's protogee, and the one who made the predictions of the kings death and that each of her sons would rule.....for a time. What I would like to know is why they had some squirrely kid predict this? Instead of the truth.

The Lion company - I mean Metro Goldwyn Mayer - was excellent in terms of costume, period, historical movies: the Richard Thorpe's IVANHOE, KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, QUENTIN DURWARD and other films such as KING'S THIEF, DIANE, SCARAMOUCHE...This somptuous historical drama has the benefits of a terrific production design, the trademark of the MGM costume movies. David Miller made this only film of this kind, unlike Richard Thorpe for hom it was a speciality, though Thorpe was a very prolific director, more than David Miller. Lana Turner is so gorgeous that she nearly makes you ignore the rest, besides her beauty. Besides, I am French and I have alwways been amazed by the fact that Hollywood was so dedicated to make films concerning history of France !!! England, yes, but France !!!! And here, Roger Moore is not at all a super but an anti hero.

I think that the year of 1956 was the golden year for Hollywood because of golden films in this time as: somebody up there likes me - Julie and Daine.

This film was a good portrait by acting , writing and directing which presented a history of another countries as:France and Italy which make a theory of globalization beyond the cinema.

Lana Turner was a sweaty girl in the cinema all the time and in different stages , she made a good act in this film by mixing of love and sadness in the story of this film.She transformed from stage to stage in the main points of this character by great experience from her in her history.

Roger Moore was a Jan premiere in this film and he played this role as a first straining in his life and history that he made a grand harmony with Lana Turner which making a math in acting between them and this main point was advantage for film. He made a golden name after this film and he presented a spirit of Robert Taylor, Clark Gable , Tayron Power........ etc. If he completed his steps in Hollywood he will make a diamond name in the international cinema but he preferred returning to his home England to make many films in his country and to serve England with his experience he gained it from Hollywood.

A big costume drama of medieval France was Lana Turner's farewell to MGM with her leading man Roger Moore. One has to remember that this is based on a historical novel so the inaccuracies are to be expected.

The biggest inaccuracy was that young Prince Henry played here by Roger Moore was only 15 when he was introduced to Diane De Poitiers a married noblewoman to a man some 40 years her senior. Young Prince Henry may have needed some tutoring in the fine arts of court etiquette, but it was obvious Diane had some needs as well and Henry did fill them.

Roger Moore fine actor that he is, is not playing a 15 year old. Lana Turner plays the older Diane and she's fine in the role. Marisa Pavan is best in the film as Catherine DeMedici who marries Prince Henry and has a lot of kids among them three boys who become Kings of France, the last Valois kings as it happens. Pavan perfectly fits my conception of Catherine in her younger years. Pedro Armendariz is fine Francis I.

As is well known in 1559 King Henry II of France dies when he's accidentally struck with a lance in the eye. He lingered for a few days but his wound was mortal and he was in agony. The film and no doubt the book it was based on have a lot of intrigue and the idea being this was no accident.

You're not seeing history, you are watching a romance novel. But it was a decent farewell for Lana Turner. And if the story is ever remade today it would be something like Justin Bieber as Henry and Demi Moore as Diane.