Well, well, well... We want to update history eh? And this with an actress like Isabelle Adjani, and an appearance of Gerard Depardieu as Nostradamus of all things.
And indeed of all things sinks like the Titanic.
Despite the "eternal" beauty(?) of Adjani and the "grumpy old man" style that is familiar with Depardieu, this has nothing to add or detract from the real Diane de Poitiers, except maybe the constant stillness that lingers in every corner of this mini-series.
Adjani may be highly considered in France, but let's face it, an actress of the likes of Jeanne Moreau she is not.
She constantly looks stunned in every scene she is in. Emotions, real emotions that is, seem to be far away from her. Even in the most heart rendering scenes, she seems made out of ice.
All the rest of the cast is mediocre to say the least, and I would also say, rather acting by the numbers, as if they were involved in a kind of docudrama, or worse, still being rehearsing for the great day...
I remember the 1956 version of this. Shorter and much more to the point, although more set as a romantic story between "Diane", played by Lana Turner (alas as a blonde, rather than a natural brunette as Diane was), and "Henry II", played by the late Roger Moore, as well as having the great Pedro Armendariz as King Francis of France.
That movie was well worth watching.
Indeed, if only for the photography, settings and costumes alone, even this new rehash could be fascinating, but all this does not compensate for the slow paced acting.
Let's face it, there is little action in it, and when there is, it's either a constant riding event, or a joust in slow motion.
Other than that, highly boring.
Those who know the story of the real Diane de Poitiers and her relations with both Catherine de' Medici and Henry II are better served reading a good biography about her, rather than watching this poorly concocted historic pastiche.
Granted, some attempts at historic accuracy are being made in this one, but still, for those not familiar with France's story during the Renaissance may get easily confused because there are only very scarce references on where a particular event is actually taking place.
The main setting is usually set at Castle of Chambord, in the Loire Valley, which is actually correct, since François Ier loved the location and preferred it to the overcrowded and smelly City of Paris, but all the rest remains a guess work.
As I said, in my view it is an overstretched account of the period, and although the author went into the Holy Inquisition regarding Diane, supposing that she was either a witch (due to her striking and constant beauty) or simply a supporter of the Huguenots (at that, considered a major threat to the Catholic church and a heretic), it doesn't add anything to the actual life of this lady.
And again, Isabelle, being Isabelle remains the Iron Lady, but don't confuse her with Margaret Thatcher. By Iron lady, I mean stale faced and emotionless, as if all this were not indeed a matter of life and death.
If this is what Adjani thought of Diane, in portraying her, she probably didn't understand who the Countess was, or for that matter didn't seem to even care.
It is amazing that such an actress(?), who actually managed to show deep emotions in another historic movie like "Queen Margot" back in the '90s, was not able to at least mimic the same here.
True, Diane de Poitiers was indeed a strong woman, but not to the point of being lacking emotions, especially not in her private life.
So, why, oh why, did they have to film this shallow effort of a biopic mini-series?
Well, it appears that French Television is about to launch an entire new series in this format, depicting the strong women in history.
If that's the case, they should have chosen more wisely and hired a much better actress to portray Diane.
I only hope they did not build this around the "glamour" that Isabelle Adjani represents, since that's all she is - a glamour woman, and by now, a dolled up aging one.
She might be very suitable in fashion magazines, and in various ads about beauty products and perfumes, but let's face it, beauty alone doesn't make a Queen.
I was rather disappointed, since I expected something by far more enticing and indeed, emotionally moving, but the only thing I could perhaps appreciate was the tension among some characters due to the lingering Inquisition weighing heavily over their heads.
All the rest is a waste of time, including the brief appearances of Gerard Depardieu as Michel de Nostradame, which by the way, I doubt ever met Diane. At that time, the only one who actually consulted Nostradamus and actively supported him was indeed Catherine de' Medici.
So, can I recommend it? If you like to pass the time guessing who is who during Francis' reign, go ahead and take pleasure in it, but if you, like me, have already read about the entire period and know something about true history and true biographies, you might end up dozing off in apathy.
But maybe you like that sort of thing, just being curious at how bad or good this new thing is.
So brace yourselves, since I watched it in the original French language, and if it was that bad in French, then imagine it when dubbed in English.
If ever and if possible, and still interested in doing so (it goes without saying), watch it in its original version with subtitles.
I can safely say to have wasted 210min. Of my precious time on this, but hey, I wanted to see if it was any good. I stand corrected, and really... it was that bad.
But for you to be the judge of it. If you like taking risks, please, go ahead and tell me if I am wrong.
And indeed of all things sinks like the Titanic.
Despite the "eternal" beauty(?) of Adjani and the "grumpy old man" style that is familiar with Depardieu, this has nothing to add or detract from the real Diane de Poitiers, except maybe the constant stillness that lingers in every corner of this mini-series.
Adjani may be highly considered in France, but let's face it, an actress of the likes of Jeanne Moreau she is not.
She constantly looks stunned in every scene she is in. Emotions, real emotions that is, seem to be far away from her. Even in the most heart rendering scenes, she seems made out of ice.
All the rest of the cast is mediocre to say the least, and I would also say, rather acting by the numbers, as if they were involved in a kind of docudrama, or worse, still being rehearsing for the great day...
I remember the 1956 version of this. Shorter and much more to the point, although more set as a romantic story between "Diane", played by Lana Turner (alas as a blonde, rather than a natural brunette as Diane was), and "Henry II", played by the late Roger Moore, as well as having the great Pedro Armendariz as King Francis of France.
That movie was well worth watching.
Indeed, if only for the photography, settings and costumes alone, even this new rehash could be fascinating, but all this does not compensate for the slow paced acting.
Let's face it, there is little action in it, and when there is, it's either a constant riding event, or a joust in slow motion.
Other than that, highly boring.
Those who know the story of the real Diane de Poitiers and her relations with both Catherine de' Medici and Henry II are better served reading a good biography about her, rather than watching this poorly concocted historic pastiche.
Granted, some attempts at historic accuracy are being made in this one, but still, for those not familiar with France's story during the Renaissance may get easily confused because there are only very scarce references on where a particular event is actually taking place.
The main setting is usually set at Castle of Chambord, in the Loire Valley, which is actually correct, since François Ier loved the location and preferred it to the overcrowded and smelly City of Paris, but all the rest remains a guess work.
As I said, in my view it is an overstretched account of the period, and although the author went into the Holy Inquisition regarding Diane, supposing that she was either a witch (due to her striking and constant beauty) or simply a supporter of the Huguenots (at that, considered a major threat to the Catholic church and a heretic), it doesn't add anything to the actual life of this lady.
And again, Isabelle, being Isabelle remains the Iron Lady, but don't confuse her with Margaret Thatcher. By Iron lady, I mean stale faced and emotionless, as if all this were not indeed a matter of life and death.
If this is what Adjani thought of Diane, in portraying her, she probably didn't understand who the Countess was, or for that matter didn't seem to even care.
It is amazing that such an actress(?), who actually managed to show deep emotions in another historic movie like "Queen Margot" back in the '90s, was not able to at least mimic the same here.
True, Diane de Poitiers was indeed a strong woman, but not to the point of being lacking emotions, especially not in her private life.
So, why, oh why, did they have to film this shallow effort of a biopic mini-series?
Well, it appears that French Television is about to launch an entire new series in this format, depicting the strong women in history.
If that's the case, they should have chosen more wisely and hired a much better actress to portray Diane.
I only hope they did not build this around the "glamour" that Isabelle Adjani represents, since that's all she is - a glamour woman, and by now, a dolled up aging one.
She might be very suitable in fashion magazines, and in various ads about beauty products and perfumes, but let's face it, beauty alone doesn't make a Queen.
I was rather disappointed, since I expected something by far more enticing and indeed, emotionally moving, but the only thing I could perhaps appreciate was the tension among some characters due to the lingering Inquisition weighing heavily over their heads.
All the rest is a waste of time, including the brief appearances of Gerard Depardieu as Michel de Nostradame, which by the way, I doubt ever met Diane. At that time, the only one who actually consulted Nostradamus and actively supported him was indeed Catherine de' Medici.
So, can I recommend it? If you like to pass the time guessing who is who during Francis' reign, go ahead and take pleasure in it, but if you, like me, have already read about the entire period and know something about true history and true biographies, you might end up dozing off in apathy.
But maybe you like that sort of thing, just being curious at how bad or good this new thing is.
So brace yourselves, since I watched it in the original French language, and if it was that bad in French, then imagine it when dubbed in English.
If ever and if possible, and still interested in doing so (it goes without saying), watch it in its original version with subtitles.
I can safely say to have wasted 210min. Of my precious time on this, but hey, I wanted to see if it was any good. I stand corrected, and really... it was that bad.
But for you to be the judge of it. If you like taking risks, please, go ahead and tell me if I am wrong.