What makes it different from others?

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Watch something else. There are very few redeeming qualities to this film.

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Copyright 1956 by Loew's Inc. A Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer picture. New York opening at Loew's State: 12 January 1956. U.S. release: 6 January 1956. U.K. release: 30 July 1956. Australian release: 15 March 1956. 9,868 feet. 110 minutes.SYNOPSIS: Diane de Poitiers was the French courtesan who became the mistress of King Henri II of France and virtually supplanted his wife, Catherine de Medici, as the power behind the throne. Writers have alternatively described her as "the most cultivated woman of the French Renaissance" and as "a sixteenth-century silken tramp." In the M-G-M film loosely based on her life, we first see Diane as she appears at the court of Francis I to plead for the life of her husband, Count de Breze, who has been falsely accused of plotting against the King. She succeeds in having him spared but at the same time alienates the affection of her husband.COMMENT: Rozsa works harder than anyone to make "Diane" a success, supplying one of his most romantic themes and a full-bodied orchestral score full of medieval color and atmosphere. Yes, it's the music that ensures the script at times is quite moving — not the performances. In fact, they are all generally poor, amateurish and quite unconvincing. It says much for the general level of acting that it's Marisa Pavan who is by far the most believable of the principals. Turner and Moore are particularly inept and surprisingly Pedro Armendariz is only a notch or two less woeful. Some of the support players are almost equally hopeless. Fortunately Henry Daniell gets more than one chance to be scheming and villainous, whilst Sir Cedric Hardwicke (in a small role) contrives to be memorably spooky. Of course both Daniell and Hardwicke have the benefit of their stage-trained voices to out-maneuver the rest of the cast. All the same so far as acting goes, the honors belong firmly to Miss Pavan, who is never more compelling than in her final confrontation scene with Turner.The script is recycled high-school history, the dialogue often unintentionally risible. But the movie is dressed out with attractive costumes and sets. There's even a bit of action to spice all the stage-like talk. Director Miller often fills his CinemaScope screen to dramatic advantage. But as said at the beginning, it's the music that makes "Diane" a must-see.

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.

Lana Turner is Diane. Well, who is she? As this film says, she was a courtesan in good with the court of King Francis I. Pedro Armendáriz plays a very convincing King Francis I, who has agreed with the de Medicis that their daughter shall marry into their family. But complications arise. Lana plays Diane with conviction, but this film really belongs to Marisa Pavan as Catherine de Medici. This was probably Pavan's finest hour, as she fleshes Catherine out into a very passionate and misunderstood person. To watch Pavan, as Catherine de Medici experiences what she feels is an injustice to her sensibilities and an insult to her as a woman and a Queen is simply something to behold. Roger Moore is good as Prince Henri but manages to be overshadowed by Pavan's acting chops and Lana's loveliness. As usual, Henry Daniell is on hand with his duplicitous nature. All in all, if you get a chance to see Diane, the film, watch it. It is one of Lana's better films in her later years. And, while it may take some liberties with some of the facts, you'll see Diane vs. Catherine de Medici.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** As is the usual case with the historical films MGM did at this time,the production values and effects can't be beat.Costumes,sets,props,make-up,staging,sound,and camera work are first-rate.From a technical point of view,it couldn't have been better.Any studio would be proud to present this movie.Not having read the original novel,I don't feel qualified to venture an opinion as to it's fidelity.I do feel moved,however,to point out certain historical inaccuracies:1.)It was Diane's FATHER,not her husband,who was convicted of treason,and received the capital sentence.2.)Diane DID tender the ultimate inhospitality in return for the death sentance being commuted.3.)She was never Henri's mistress UNTIL after The death of Francis.4.)Francis,instead of having defeated the Duke of Burgundy,was actually captured by him,and held captive for 2 years.These inaccuracies aside,this film is still highly enjoyable,within certain parameters.Let's take a look at these;1.)Lana is playing the same character that she portrayed in "Three Musketeers",and "The Prodigal",with one difference-in those she showed an EVIL heroine,and in this she's a GOOD heroine.2.)Pedro,as Francis,gives a historically accurate portrait-arrogant,tyrannical,autocratic,lecherous,commanding.Still,he's playing the same role as in "From Russia With Love."3.)Moore,as Henri,is also right on the money,from a historical perspective.If he had lived long enough,he would have been the same as Francis.Not the same as doing Bond,but nothing that any capable,well-trained actor couldn't have done.4.)I don't know enough about the actress doing Catherine to judge her performance,but she does a good job.The rest of the cast does a splendid job in their parts.Still,it's nothing that we haven't seen each one of them do in at least 4 other perod dramas,swashbucklers,and costume-dramas.They do it well,but it's nothing new.Enjoy it as repraisals of things done previously.HISTORICAL NOTE:When Diane's father was on the scaffold,facing the executioner,the herald appeared,and announced that the sentence had been commuted to life imprisonment.He was aware of the price she had paid,and praised her actions in language that can't be used in mixed company.A year later,he was released,and restored to his estates and titles.He then spent the rest of his life going around France,complaining to anyone who would listen,and crabbing that his daughter had purchased his life at the cost of her own virtue.MORAL:THERE"S REALLY NO PLEASING SOME PEOPLE,NOW,IS THERE?