Rating: 
Summary: As close as one can hope to come to the impossible
Review: Dune is a novel such complexity that it can never actually be correctly adapted without a monolithic budget and a near infinite timescale. The primary problem presented by the novel for conversion to a visual medium is the incredibly rich world of Dune as seen through the minds of its characters. It's technological ideas and concepts have never been fully realized on a screen. But what about the remake and what it got right? What it really estblished well were the atmospheres of the great houses. You could sense the narcisism of Corrino, the sadism of the Harkonnen, and the subtly manipulated altruism of the Attreides. William Hurt and Sasskia reeves give wonderful performances as Duke Leto and his bound concubine, the Lady Jessica. Alec Newman's Paul is overly defiant throughout the first half of the movie. I know the director/writer probably felt this would give depth to the evolution he undergoes during the second half of the story, but I heard vague echoes of Luke railing against his uncle Ben because he wanted "to go to Toshi station and pick up some power converters." Paul was enamored and fascinated with his father, not frustrated by him. The true accomplishment of the miniseries cannot be appreciated without having read the books. There are many subtle moments of implied subtleties that could only be noticed by someone well acquainted with the Dune universe. It's a good Shakespearian accompaniment to the books, but it is no substitute.
Rating: 
Summary: The first attempt to make this novel into a film was better!
Review: Frank Herbert's classic novel is deflied by horrible acting and a TV budget. The effects in this film are no better than the original Dune and the acting doesn't even begin to compare? One actually misses Sting in his role as a Harkonnen in the original as one watches this lame mini-series, not to mention Patrick Stewart's much superior performance as Duncan!! While this version is in fact longer don't get your hopes up. Instead of exanding the story to include more elements of the novel or even a hint at the things to come in the second book, Dune Messiah, the film wastes time with such trashy added bits as a seduction scene between the Emperor's daughter and the Harkonnen baron's son. Even the way and the Bene Gesserits are down played in this version. Gone are the powerful psionic powers of the first film, only to be replaced with poorly portaryed knife fights and more human characters. Read the book (!!!!) and if you must see the story watch the original because the second is NOT anywhere as near well written, acted, or directed.
Rating: 
Summary: PASSES THE GOM JABAR TEST -- BUT JUST BARELY!
Review: The De Laurentis/Lynch treatment was guilty of underachievement. This version suffers from overreaching. Yet, both are guilty of the same crucial flaw: missing the heart and soul of the tale - not to mention the fact that this a story about ECOLOGY in every sense of the word, a crucial and underappreciated fact. Remember Classics Illustrated? I bet David Lynch does. And so too John Harrison? Twenty years ago, when DUNE was first being mentioned as a film, I thought Coppola would have been perfect as director. Think of all the complexity and characterization of the Godfather transposed to Arrakis! A somewhat more, shall we say naturalistic manner, would have gone such a long way in making this story more immediate, more real, without sacrificing it's fantastic dimensions. But in the final analysis, a more splendid and respectable type of failure is Mr. Harrison's. I only pray that he has learned from his mistakes before he forges ahead with the next installment. Major assests of this DUNE: 1.Vitorio Storaro's superb lighting/cinematography - hyperrealistic, surreal, poetic, creating an alien environment and mood in itself and complementing what is all too often missing from some of the direction of the actors. 2. The amazingly spectacular, superbly detailed sets that make you wish you could live within them. 3. Landscapes/vistas that truly capture each alien environment - and yes, I realize the backdrops look artificial in many of the desert scenes - it's called "theater" friends, this ain't a documentary. Even on the TV screen there were vistas that made me feel I was on Herbert's desert planet. 4. Beautiful costumes and props, all of them lovingly idiosyncratic. Major defects: 1. Oh, that too often wooden and ponderous acting! Less would have been so much more -- what I meant by naturalistic - to convey the essential humanity of this story. A cast that looked like they were trying hard but... The fault is mostly Harrison's here. 2. Questionable casting. Shouldn't there have been more variety of races? After all, the Fremen originated from Zensunni (oriental/muslim) wanderers. And the players?...well, mostly chosen right, but too frequently hitting their notes wrong. (thanks, John!) 3. Using the De Laurentis/Lynch movie as a storyboard-template? Note to scenarist and director: originality pays dividends, guys. When you want to improve or surpass something DO NOT imitate it first!. 4. Poorly blocked and redundant battle scenes, utterly lacking in excitement, with the exception of the finale's knife fight (thank Shai-Hulud!) these dared to be fast-forwarded through. So my advice to those of you thinking about purchasing this tape: as fine an effort as DUNE is, rent it instead. If you are a completist, at least wait for the DVD.
Rating:
Summary: Soulless
Review: The Lynch version of Dune has been raked over the coals for years. All Lynch is guilty of is unfulfilled ambitition - a trap succumbed to by many filmmakers who attempt to bring a complex and original novel to the screen. Are there problems with Lynch's version? Absolutely. But at least it gets to the soul of the story - and Kyle Maclachlan had a lot to do with it. The supposed advantage of this new series, which appeared on Sci-Fi, is that it is comprehensive. It is also boring and poorly acted. And I, for one, found the special effects to be worse than some of the better video games I have played on my PC. (A notable exception - the sandworms, which were done well). Fans of books invariably tear apart movie adaptations - but movies are a different endeavor, never truly meant to capture all of the nuances of the written word. The reason Lynch's version is better is that it gives insights, internal monologues, feelings - the hallmarks of the novel. For goodness' sake - in this version, I hardly knew which person was playing Yueh (a pretty essential character, I would say). Here's a tip to those interested in the story: read the book, then watch the Lynch version, warts and all.
Rating: 
Summary: EXCELLENT
Review: The Dune miniseries is one of the most mesmerizing and enjoyable epics that I have ever seen. The original movie does nothing but confuse and distort the story, almost like Lynch was filming a multi-million dollar book report and slamming everything he thought was important in as short of a time as he could. But this.....FANTASTIC! I enjoyed this more than Star Wars! Everything about this miniseries was better than the movie. The costumes were more believable, the special effects, pound-for-pound, were MUCH better, and the characters were more believable as actual human beings, rather than comic book villains and super heroes. And unlike the 1984 movie, this Dune ACTUALLY MADE SENSE. While things did have to be changed from the original novel (heck, what movie hasn't?), Director John Harrison was far more faithful to the book than Lynch was. I can't recommend this version of Dune enough.
Rating:
Summary: Paul is a Jerk
Review: My hopes that some ambitious filmaker could tackle this immense and intellectually complicated story have long since faded, but John Harrison has made an interesting film. I was overjoyed to see some of my favorite moments from the book-the changing of the water, Feyd's gladiatorial contests, and Paul's fight with Jamis. Also, the film was beautiful! The colors were rich and deep for the Harkonnens implying decadence and luxury, while the Fremen colors were bleached and pale. This made the Fremen's blue eyes stand out very well. As I watched though, annoying little things began to creep up on me. For one, the pronunciation of HARkonen irritated me to no end! It seemed that the director was trying so hard to avoid any similarities to Lynch's movie that even pronunciations had to change. Lines of dialog which Lynch took straight from the book were reworked in this movie to be subtly different, losing some of their original flow and meaning. One more thing, Paul Atreidies is a jerk! The character was portayed as strong and old for his age, but there were no contrasting HUMAN emotions to identify with. I daresay he didn't smile or cry once. In fact, no other emotions cracked that arrogant, cold visage at all. Ack! The story was told as well as it could be in this medium, but still there could have been much more! This 'Dune' left me with not a sigh of satisfaction, but a sigh of "if only...".
Rating:
Summary: Skepticism turned favoritism
Review: I'm always weary of films redone... but this one won my vote hands down. For those like me who still haven't read the book, much effort was made to explain those details that the first film left me hanging on. Loved it. The only thing that didn't work was an odd, artys group love making thing that could've been left out.
Rating:
Summary: The cash must flow
Review: Let me say right off that I have not read the book, though I am told that this TV-adaption is true to Herbert's novel. Be that as it may, "Dune" clearly suffers from the restrictions of the TV-format. In other words money. An epic like "Dune" cannot be done (well) on a TV-budget. Sad but true. The computer generated scenes/backgrounds look cheap in most cases. Only a few of the flight-scenes look OK. Actors are another issue. Less money means worse actors. William Hurt (who plays Duke Leto Atreides) is - of course - one of the few exceptions. There are two reasons why I give it two stars instead of one. Firstly, some of the fight-scenes look pretty good. Secondly, adapting a 'inaccessible' story like "Dune" to the screen is bold. And bold TV/movie projects should be rewarded because in these days they are rare. If you want a accurate adaption of the book by Frank Herbert - buy this one. If you want a good movie - get the one by David Lynch.
Rating: 
Summary: Doesn't Deserve Even One Star!
Review: -------I read the book when it first came out. The first movie, although it left a lot out, and in some places was somewhat overdone, was fairly close to the book, the actors I thought picked up the authors intent. The sets, costumes and special effects were great for that time in movie making. -------This miniseries has so many holes and changes in it, I have seen plays at the local Jr. college I thought were done better. Many of the sets were miserably dull, unreal and fake looking, the characters were changed, ( the Harrkonens looked better suited to run things here), the acting was bland, what else can I say. -------Oh yes Mr. Producer/Director, when you do a movie of a book of this magnitude, DON'T make up stuff and add it, your ego is showing more than your ability. -------For just one of many little nit picking bits,,, if you can tell me how a heel pump could possibly work with those Ho Ho Stilsuits and GI boots,,,,,, -------Overall it looked like a very low budget school play with amateur actors that barely reminded me of the original book or movie. If you want better than this just buy a few old Battlestar Gallactica tapes!
Rating:
Summary: the snore of the century
Review: At first, I was so excited about this series that I begged a friend to tape it for me when I moved overseas. I still appreciate her darling effort, but unfortunately the product of all that work hardly deserved it. I honestly don't see how anyone could see this version as better than the Lynch versions, even though Frank Herbert did say he would have liked a mini-series that explored the relationships of his characters more deeply. Dune is all about ambiance. When Herbert created it, he described it as "an ecological fugue", a fluid piece of work that flowed in and out of space and time with no real beginning or end and that wound and twisted around itself like a complex, impromptu jazz composition. Lynch, an extremely talented director, was able to pull these elements together and still give the movie completion (albeit a rather rushed one in terms of the rain). Harrison's version is rather like Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson's sorry attempts to recreate an already fully-realized world. The horrible acting was a potent negative that led to the failure of the equation, but the butchering of the dialogue was even worse. Dune itself is characterized by tone-feelings, fine shadings of thought and internal processes that can't be completely dissected no matter how many times you read it. Lynch captured these moments with key metaphoric images. Harrison was obviously attempting to do this, but failed miserably, since many of the images were contrived and he was obviously far below the budget he required to do things well. (Although, honestly, I'm not sure all the money in the world would have helped the poor soul.) I have often been disappointed by things, but never so disappointed that I felt compelled to warn other people off of something by submitting a rating anywhere. As a literary scholar and huge fan of Dune, I urge people not to feed the oneupmanship obsession that seems to have metastisized within the sci-fi film and literature community.
| 
