Rating: 
Summary: not engaging
Review: you know i watched a little bit of this on SCIFI the other day and was quite unimpressed. yes the costuming was impressive, but man, it was just not engaging. i didn't care for what the characters had to say. Duke Leto did not look like a duke at all, hunched over and speaking softly. terrible casting in this film. Paul Attreides looked like he was always in a sour mood. i must say that i did wish that the older version had more of the political games found in the book, but i find it a far better version of the story as it engages you in the world Frank Herbert created for us.
Rating:
Summary: Horribly Disappointing
Review: When I first heard that another Dune movie was being made, i was so happy. I wanted to see such an awesome book put into picture, even though i knew it really couldn't compare to the book. But this movie/miniseries was just horrible. The sets were bad, the backdrops didnt blend at all with the real set. The only set i really liked was the interior of the palace. The costumes were ridiculus to the point of laughable. Like Thufir wearing a purple chinese take-out box on his head! And the casting was poorly done too. Paul was stupid, his mother was too wooden, and many of Pauls mentors and such were too old and clumsy. Take for example the training fight between gurney and paul..it looked as though gurney was drunk and uncoordinated. The only people i thought played their parts relatively well were Dr. Kynes, and Duke Leto. The others were just too obviously SF channel cheesy. The ornithopters looked stupid, nothing else to them, just stupid. And did anyone else notice the computer screen in the Duke's thopther? It looked like my ancient Tandy 1000! One thing i did like was the sandworm..the first time i saw the worm rear up out of the sand to devour the harvester i was just like, wow. Another thing that sorta left you in the dust was the whole thing of Paul being the Kwisatz Haderach(or however u spell it).. they never even mentioned that, they just showed fremen staring at him in the street saying Muad'Dib. Pauls whole mystique as a god or what not was completely lost in this movie. For example, they showed him dreaming and then he wakes up and he's like, mom you made me a freak. Well, where did that come from? I mean, everybody dreams weird stuff. Anyways, i thought that this movie was a terrible waste of time, and if i hadn't read the books before, this mini-series would definately make me stay away from reading them. The director tried i suppose, but came up very short.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent rendition!
Review: I enjoyed this rendition of the novel much more than the original movie. It had much less of the gore and grotesqueness found in the first movie. The changes between the two films were just enough to keep those who have seen the original on their toes. About the only change between the two versions that I did not really care for was the depiction of the navigators, this version made them seem more demonic than anything.
Rating: 
Summary: Mmm, mmm, yummy for my tummy
Review: I myself am a reader of the Dune series. But since there are so many fanatical readers who will search and destroy any movies of the series because it cannot be "captured in a movie" I will assume you know nothing about Dune, or read the book and wanna see the movie. If you are a fanatical fan, please move on.This 5 hour DVD offers what I call the best movie version of Dune yet. The short films all sucked, as all can agree, but the Lynch film can be debated. The movie itself gets deep into the story that created the miniseries, and it has entertaining battles and a good, constant plot going on to keep a viewer wanting to know what will happen. If you want a nice long movie tied up in plots and not a "the hero will always win because he is right and the bad guy is wrong" than this DVD is a must have. Plus the extra features are a nice thing to see after the five hours you spend watching this. Be warned, if you watch this on a weekday you'll have to resist watching it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Dune Dumbed Down
Review: This is Dune at the dinner party; all glitzy and chintzy and hopelessly soulless. Like hitting the assistant with the arrow instead of the apple, this version of Dune misses its mark fatally with too frequent talking head scenes, laughably kooky krazy klothes, restrained (inexperienced) acting, so-so CGI, no energy or *Oomph* whatsoever and dialog right up there with Saturday morning cartoons. The sandworms were cool. Fans who've actually read the series will gape, appalled, at the liberal use of added "fluff" scenes and moronic dialog to replace events and concepts that are "too difficult for the television audience to understand." This is the kind of patronization that keeps television productions in general out of the big leagues in the public perception. Well, at least the sandworms were cool. Herbert isn't rolling in his grave. He's coming back to life to strangle the writers of this God awful miniseries. Did I mention how cool the sandworms were?
Rating:
Summary: Compromise is always difficult to bring off
Review: Having read the entire series of Herbert's "Dune" novels, and having seen both film adaptations, here are a few thoughtful comments. Inasmuch as both films are based on a pre-existant literary work, common sense dictates that any evaluation of an adapation must procede from an understanding of the source material. Many of the reviews I've read here strike me as utterly arrogant and illiterate for their casual dismissal of any involvement with the source material. Other people are more concerned with packaging and "chatchkes" than with substance. So it goes, I guess. Real criticism must spring from other roots. Herbert's novels are complex literary vehicles. It is probably not possible to take any work of literature and transpose it to another medium without losing much in the translation. Such a transposition must, therefore, find ways of portraying its sources without doing violence to them. Both of the Dune movies demonstrate this problem quite clearly, but each has its own character and succeeds in its own terms. Whatever went on behind the scenes with David Lynch's film, the end result was a highly stylized condensation of the novel. "Condensation" is the key word - for Lynch evidently tried to give the broad outline of the narrative - rather than the details. What his production might miss in terms of technological sophistication is made up with its solid core group of actors. Many object to the Baron Harkonnen characterization in Lynch's film. But, go back and read the book. VB (Vladimir Harkonnen, not the computer language, or myabe both!) is a rather a disgusting fellow. Take the film for what it is - and don't criticize it for what it isn't. Now comes the mini-series - and we have a curious reversal. With one's own inner intuition about the visual/dramatic content from a)the book, and b) the first movie, the second movie strikes one as much more complete - at least insofar as representing the events and structure of Herbert's narrative. Visually much more stunning than the earlier film, and much more complete in its exposition of the situations, it is also more than twice as long. Those who can not think in long stretches complain that the action moves too slowly. Sorry, friends, complex situations can not be rammed down your brain to a hip-hop back beat. If anything, this film was too short for me. So many scenes invite comparison - but, remember the source that material came first. Curiously, the acting overall struck me as serviceable, but rather leaden - one almost has the impression of ensemble performance without direction. It's hard to be completely objective about this given the "other" film and one's own personal preferances. So it goes. The musical scores for both films were atrocious and, professionally speaking, were serious handicaps to both films. Can you imagine what Bernard Herrmann or Alex North would have done with such films? So, in the end we have a draw. Each film, without question, has things to recommend it. Neither is entirely satisfactory. For the rest: read the novel(s). Enjoy Lynch's rather gothic treatment-as-summary, but also enjoy the mini-series for its greater depth and detail. Ultimately, the best version will be seen in the theater of your mind. Go make some popcorn and get to work!
Rating: 
Summary: Not Bad
Review: When I heard about the original "Dune" movie, I was highly skeptical. The story is too intricate, with too many interwoven plots and subplots ("a feint within a feint within a feint") to be done any justice in a movie. After seeing the "Shogun" miniseries, I knew that this was the format that fit a "Dune". A miniseries on the small screen could have been infinitely better than anything on the wide screen. After seeing the "Dune" miniseries, I knew I was right. While some of the alien nature of "Dune" was absent from the miniseries, that was present in the movie, there was more time to develop the story, with all of its interwoven plots and subplots ("a feint within a feint within a feint"). The special effects were good, if not spectacular, and the settings/scenery were well-done. William Hurt, who is usually very good, was way too low-key. He needed lots of caffeine, but was fed decaf. If this is ever to be done correctly, make a (non-mini) series out of it and do all the "Dune" books. It could run for years and, if done well, would be worth it.
Rating:
Summary: A poor effort to portray a great book
Review: Really very weak. Nearly all of the acting is really bad - the quality one expects in a soap opera. The only performance that stands out is Ian McNeice as the Baron. Many of the actors have thick accents that make the dialogue difficult to follow. Many of them mumble their lines, in a misguided and failed attempt to make what they're saying seem portentous. With the exception of McNeice, most of the actors seem to have badly missed the proper interpretation of their character - I suppose that is the fault of the Director. Nobody appears to have read the book. The fighting sequences (with the exception of the final knife fight between Muad'Dib and Feyd) are poorly done. Fremen society is portrayed in a way that makes them seem like a bunch of salad-eating new-agers, rather than the proud, fierce warrior culture of the book. The costume design is odd, and appears to have been heavily influenced by the Italian renaissance. The stillsuits don't look like they'd do what they're supposed to do. On the positive side, the set design is really outstanding. Some of the long shots are very obviously backdrops, such as the city of Arrakeen, but for the most part the sets are very impressive. The worms are pretty good. There are a few interesting special effects. David Lynch's version of Dune is far better. If you're looking for one to buy, that's the one to get.
Rating:
Summary: Mesmerizing
Review: I watched a rented copy of this and couldn't stop until it was done! Bear in mind, I started watching at 1 a.m. and had to get to work the next day. But, I just kept wanting more, wanting to soak in the detail and the depth of the production. Yeah, there's lots of niggling about what COULD have been better. Everybody knows "good art" when they see it, and can be a critic, right? My observations are based on having read and reread the book countless times, having dreamed of what the movie would be like since I was a teen, having seen the "Sting" version of the film ("abridged" is the most polite term I can use for that, as it dashed my childhood hopes), and having read every other Dune book in the series excepting the new Dune 'House' prequels. This movie is faithful to the script and even the irritating things about the characters are pretty true to interpretation about them derived from the book. Paul is a talented, well-trained, inexperienced boy at the beginning and comes across that way. By the end of the book he's become a god - not an easy transition to make for an actor in a 3.5 hr movie! But it comes across well. The sets and effects are splendid. The sandworms are SOOOOOO much more like what I expected after reading the books. Beast Rabban is exactly as you'd expect; Feyd is pretty close to right on target; the Guild and their navigators are pretty good...I could go on. Suffice it to say that after having my level of critique raised exponentially by the first movie [very dissappointing] I started this think at 1 a.m. on a worknight and didn't stop it until 4:30. I hope you find it as engrossing, but DO pick a better time to begin watching it!
Rating:
Summary: Something About Cheesy
Review: Dune generates a lot of interest--witness the hundreds of reviews written about this SF Channel version and Lynch's early 80's film. I really liked the Lynch film, even though it's been dubbed a 'guilty pleasure' by Premiere magazine. The plot was not difficult for me to understand, even though I had not read the book first. What's wrong with this version?--though much more accesible to viewers, there's a cheesy quality (not always visible) that suddenly rears its ugly head, reaches out and bites the watcher. The women's clothes, for example, are jarring, distracting, often ugly and just plain cheesy. And stop the hat madness! William Hurt is a major disappointment (catch his helicopter rescue lingo--not sure if he's in Top Gun or straight out of WWII)and Jessica is bland and unconvincing as a drop-dead gorgeous witch (catch Francesca Annis in the Lynch film to see a woman who could cause a Duke to eschew marriage with another noble House). Paul Atreides does well enough, as does the Harkonnen Duke, but overall the casting of this mini-series can't compare to the film's. I'd call it well-meaning and often entertaining, but watch the quirky Lynch film to experience the mystery and wonder of Dune.
|
