Rating: 
Summary: Which Version is Better???
Review: The battle rages... Not the one in the movie, the one over which "Dune" is THE version to watch: the David Lynch 1984 version or the 2000 made- for-TV version. If you are unfamiliar with the story, it's far too detailed to go into here, but I can tell you that it's really less of a science fiction story and more of a political/coming-of- age/love/prophecy/war/action story all rolled into one. The reason Herbert's novel was (and is) such a hit is that all these elements are present and done well. It spoke to a lot of people when it came out in the 1960's and still does today. It's a very powerful story that, let's face it, is almost impossible to successfully put onscreen. But let's take a look anyway... The 2000 version has several advantages over the Lynch version: It is much more comprehensive in scope, there is a much clearer distinction of which planet we're looking at and what is happening there, and the film just plain looks good. The sets and costumes are first rate, and most of the special effects work convincingly. Even though the producers went to a lot of trouble to get a wide variety of actors, they really never settle in or have chemistry as an ensemble. Several people have mentioned William Hurt's "sleepwalking" performance. Actually he's not in much of the film. Probably the filmmakers needed a successful, proven name to carry the film and bring in an audience beyond those who typically watch the Sci-Fi Channel, where it was first shown. After all is said and done, the best way to experience Dune is in print. It is a fascinating book (even if you don't like science fiction) that will pull you into the worlds of Dune and its characters. Get the book, dive in and enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Another Dud Dune Movie...
Review: Alot of people slammed the original Lynch movie of Dune because it absolutely made no sense and changed or added so much junk (e.g. giving Baron Harkonnen purple zits, making "Wierding" really stupid, and so on). And they were right. The Dune mini-series doesn't commit such obvious gaffes. It tells pretty much the whole story and doesn't add or invent insipid gimmicks just to make the movie more "cool" (such as heartplugs and the Baron harkonnen eating black slug juice?!). Did I mention they did alot better job with Baron Harkonnen? But it still stinks. 1. The acting ... . William Hurt was comatose, and Paul Atredies... who was supposed to be a deeply wise prodigy... came off as a ... wanker. Thufir Hawat, who works for the Atredies and is supposedly one of the deadliest people alive, comes off as a goofy bureaucrat. The best part of the cast was, in a 180 degree turn around from the Lynch film... Baron Harkonnen, who comes of as smart and devious (which he was) instead of really gross and insane. Give Lynch credit, though, at least he had Patrick Stewart play Gurney Halleck. 2. I'm sorry, but in Sci-Fi you have to bring SOME special effects to the table. This mini-series had pathetic special effects. We aren't talking about not living up to "The Matrix" here, we're talking about not living up to "Ghostbusters" or one of the more recent Star Trek TV episodes. To be fair, it WAS better than the Ghostbusters CARTOONS... 3. The one place where the Lynch film got it right was in feel; it really gave you the sense of being in a wierd, advanced-and-primitive-at-once far future. The miniseries had headache-inducing color schemes but that's it. Maybe if they scrimped on the miles of sumptuous fabric and paid for some decent CG effects or, God forbid, actually FILMED DESERT SCENES IN A DESERT instead of on a soundstage not fit for a "Win Ben Stein's Money" episode. And lest you think this unfair, at least Ben Stein filmed his beach-themed shows ON A BEACH. So it can be done. I really wanted to like this miniseries but wasn't all that impressed. I don't know how they goofed up with such good source material, but there ya go. To be fair, though, probably the only way to really do the book justice would be to make it into 3 feature-length movies with a humungous budget and top actors. And Patrick Stewart. But no black slug smoothies.
Rating: 
Summary: Way better than the David Lynch version
Review: Unlike David Lynch's take on it, this one you can actually follow without having read the book first. There are no annoying thought voiceovers from any of the characters, no heart plugs or "weirding module" sonic blasters, no hideously cheesy special effects. Ian MacNeice's Baron Harkonnen is much more entertaining, more sarcastic and witty than the previous one. The Fremen are painted to be more primitive than before, it's not as melodramatic, and stays pretty true to the original novel.
Rating: 
Summary: BadMoon
Review: This is afterall a work of fiction...not reallife. As such it accomplishes what it set out to do...to tell the story of Dune. It does it in a way that makes the story understandable to many more than the first one did...many questions are answered that the first movie did not. If you like a book version of a movie...no movie can live up to that...no movie can be better than your imagination. However the first Dune confused me and turned me off...this one I understand, i see the politics...the layers... the play of one caracter against another...as far as the idea of some of the caracters being wooden...i have noticed the higher the responisiblily of people...the more wooden they seem...its not how they feel...its how they come across however. The only problem with this film that i didnt like was a jump in time...actually two jumps...one when Paul all of sudden was a parent...the other...but i get ahead of myself...check it out and see if you agree and see if you find the other jump...
Rating:
Summary: Review of SciFi Channel 25th Anniversary Edition Mini-Series
Review: Call me a "classicist". I enjoyed the original movie, based on the original Herbert book, much more than the mini-series produced by SciFi Channel. The SciFi Channel's version is based on the 25th Anniversary rewrite of Dune. Does William Hurt seem to sleep-walk through the first part? I couldn't think of a less exciting portrayal of Duke Leto. And he is given top billing? Like the 25th anniversary book, this film version lacks the character development and intensity of the original. There is, in my opinion, over-emphasis on the Fremen adoration of Paul, and little time to character development; the characters of Thufir, Gurney, Duncan, Pieter hardly seem to exist.
Rating: 
Summary: A heinous disgrace to the legacy of Dune
Review: This "praised" new version of Frank Herbert's masterpiece does not even begin to capture the essence of the original work. Some say that creative liberties were taken with David Lynch's version, but this version is an entire metamorphoses of the novel. No respect was paid for critical events such as the true importance of Yueh and his role in the downfall of House Atreides, the Harkonnen bloodlust seems completely absent, and Paul is a whiny disciple of Luke Skywalker. I remember hearing that this version was better because it brought in many important events left absent in the original version, but this is also untrue. Whatever elements this film adds, it disgracefully skews in a hopeless attempt to make it more digestible to an illiterate, TV watching populous. Key details such as the Bene Gesserit and their breeding program, the strength of the Spacing Guild, and the extent of the Emperor's involvement in the downfall of the Atreides are either completely ignored or distorted beyond all comprehension. Princess Irulan, intended only to play a small part in the original story as Paul's key to the throne, but more importantly, as a pawn in the Bene Gesserit schemes, attempts to take the story over, obliging herself with a role she was never intended to have. But I think it was the little details that bothered me the most. For example, no one paid any heed to water customs (why in God's name are any Fremen running around without Stiltsuits?). And it seemed the director was more concerned with casting every other actor with some ridiculous accent then attempting to suit them to the role (Duncan is an outright disgrace). I am aware that I'm among the minority that enjoyed the original version, not just because it's light-years better than this current version, but the integrity of the book was preserved, regardless of the obvious fact that it was dreadfully condensed. For anyone who truly appreciated the book, respect must be paid to the 1984 film which extrapolated some brilliant representations of the characters that Frank Herbert himself said, in some ways, contained better characterizations than his own book. Supposedly, Harrison was very familiar with Herbert's masterpiece, but his knowledge of the book certainly doesn't reveal itself in his film version. He went beyond the scope of creative liberties and constructed an appalling heresy of one of the greatest science fiction novels of all time. If you have any respect for Herbert's vision, don't view this catastrophe.
Rating:
Summary: The Doom of Dune
Review: Very disapointed in this movie. The actors/actresses potrayed the characters poorly. I didn't like the way they changed personalities of the characters. The visuals were fairly good and that is the only good thing I can say about this. The acting wasn't up to par, I felt as though I were watching a bad high school production. I ralize it was made for TV, but daytime tv has better acting. I don't recomend watching this, read the book, or watch the actual movie.
Rating:
Summary: THIS VERSION OF DUNE IS TERRIBLE!...
Review: I WAS EXTREMELY DISSAPOINTED WITH THIS VERSION OF DUNE. This version of DUNE was so BAD i felt like i was watching a BAD B MOVIE. The Acting was HORRIBLE, the special efects were so BAD it was LAUGHABLE. The Story was so long and drawn out and BORING that it was torture to watch. If you want to see a MOVIE on DUNE i would STRONGLY RECOMEND the ORIGINAL DAVID LYNCHS VERSION OF DUNE (1984) Starrng Kyle Maclachlan. DAVID LYNCHS VERSION IS A MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN THIS [stuff].
Rating:
Summary: Better Version by Far!
Review: There is no question that this version of Dune is far better than David Lynch's attempt in 1984. This version gave a more accurate presentation of the story and what truly drove Paul to do what he had to do. I only hope that if Mr. Lynch wants to improve his adaptaion that he takes both versions of his Dune and use this newer verion as model to re-edit his and maybe release a better one, but only maybe.
Rating:
Summary: just enjoy it...
Review: yeah gods take a pill people , it was great. Visually it was a sumptious feast which reminded me often of scenes in "riven". OK so perhaps the sunsets aren't the exact shade of duckegg blue as described by Mr. Herbert but get a life people and enjoy it for what it is, excellent television (and thank God there is some). Advice, watch and enjoy!!!
| 
