Rating: 
Summary: Dune (TV MiniSeries)
Review: Since it has appeared well after David Lynch's Film version, the MiniSeries will probably be compared against the film by most viewers.Overall, it is not as stylish as the film and is more 'gritty' (no pun intended !). However, it does score over the film with a greater emphasis put on the politics and the society(s) involved (ie. Baron Harkonnen is portrayed as not just nasty, but intelligent as well, the Emperor's daughter comes into view more, and the society of the Fremen is shown in more detail).
This is all far more in tune with the book than the Film (although doubtless the fact that the Film is a lot shorter has something to do with this !). Unfortunately, these improvements are offset by the characterization of Paul (who never truly seems to shine as the lead character) and Feyd (who appears a little effeminiate !).
The Worms are, if anything, better than their counterparts on film but the Guild Navigators less so, alas. The special effects are generally well done (especially the flying sequences above Dune). The 'Special Features' were a little sparse - just a 'Behind-The-Scenes' feature, Cast and Crew info, some stills and sketches and a 'Cinematic Treatment' (a series of screens of writing by a member of the production crew to help explain the story).
The overall picture quality was reasonable (although the 'Blue within Blue' eyes did not always show up properly ! It seemed to depend on what angle a character was facing the camera ! Also, the 'Cinematic Treatment' was somewhat blurry and was a little difficult to read). There were also some playback problems with Disk 1 but this may just have been my copy (it refused to play on one machine but would play on another - this had nothing to do with Region Settings). Overall though, worth watching.
Rating: 
Summary: Fabulous
Review: I'm not a very eloquent person, so forgive me if all I really say is that I thought this was fabulous. It seened to encapture everything that I imagined in the book, and had some extra scenes in it to help tie things togeher. The book is hard to read, and watching the movie helped to clarify many points of the book that were a little sketchy before.
Rating: 
Summary: Only for those who read the book
Review: First let me say I am a Frank Herbert fan. I love the books and bought the DVD from amazon. After seeing the movie I must say, yes I would still buy the DVD but I was dissapointed by the fact that if I had not read tbe book, I would not understand what was happening. I was hoping the miniseries would introduce a lot of people to Frank Herbert, but alas I don't think it will make people go out and buy the books which are fabulous. I was also annoyed by the fact that John Harrison gave Princess Irulan a bigger part in the miniseries. While Julie Cox is a talented actress, heck he's put her in places SHE WAS NOT IN the book.
Rating:
Summary: Dune-Good Miniseries
Review: With a budget of only 20 million I think The makers of this film did more than i would have expected.The casting is 100% PERFECT, I love how Arrakeen and The emperor's citylooked but the costumes killed the movie.The music was cool but the Harkonnens didn't seen very evil. To sum it up movies are never but than a person's imagination, but I my be taking that comment back when I see the new Lord of the Rings trilogy which begins in December.
Rating: 
Summary: Flawed in almost too many ways to name
Review: Like the previous reviewer, I can't figure how so many people liked this film so much. I confess that I've seen the Lynch movie more times than I've read _Dune_, so while watching it, I could not help but see how in so many ways the Lynch movie far surpasses this near-disaster, particularly in the first half. I will hereby lay out a case for why the Lynch film (hereafter referred to as tLF) blows this thing out of the water. The extra length in this miniseries version seems to be squandered. The exposition, to a scene almost without exception, is far superior in tLF. Someone should splice the analogous scenes from each version end to end, and it would be so obvious: the Pain Box scene, Paul and Jessica's escape into the desert and realization that Leto is dead, the sandworm riding scene, and so on. They keep showing Feyd in his little fighting-arena but never get to the part in the book where the slave almost kills him, so it just becomes pointless. Worst of all, I believe Dr. Yueh is shown on screen *once* before he is revealed as a traitor. Once again, contrast that to tLF, where his strong ties with the family are clearly portrayed, making the betrayal actually _mean_ something. Count Fenring appears in this version, but seems to just drawl incomprehensibly while hovering around Princess Irulan. If someone had no familiarity with the book, they would be *way* more lost while watching this than tLF, which as people have pointed out, does a good job with the whole 'internal monologue' thing which is so crucial to this story. The makers of this miniseries seem to think the additional length will somehow paper over the need for exposition. It doesn't. The only bright spot is the role of Princess Irulan, who is actually well-used in the plot to full effect here, while she barely appears in tLF. Many of the casting decisions are simply ludicrous. Stilgar looks like someone's Uncle Vinny; he simply occupies space. Contrast this with Everett McGill in tLF, whose 'ironman' portrayal is very appropriate. Ironically, the terminally soporific William Hurt is only too appropriate for this film in his statue-like turn as Duke Leto. Feyd looks like a spoiled college frat kid; hardly feral and deadly. Alec Newman seems to be trying too hard for the gravitas and regality that Kyle Machlachlan brought to the role of Paul Atreides. Jessica is merely adequate here and has nothing of the quiet strength and dignity that the actress in tLF did. Emperor Shaddam IV looks like some Vegas singer whose name escapes me. Worst of all is Gurney Halleck, a distinctly unwarriorlike old man who (besides being a *terrible* actor) is a pathetic contrast to Patrick Stewart's flinty, lionhearted Gurney in tLF, a dead-on portrayal. I will concede, however, that the Chani in this version, while sometimes too emotive, is certainly better than Sean Young (prettier too). Too bad they pronounce her name like "Janey", though. Also, Alia in this version is pretty cool; she has a very adult concentration about her, whereas in tLF it was just a little kid in a black robe with a weird voice-over. Thirdly, this miniseries is visually flawed. The costumes are way over the top, and are just ornamentally distracting. The set designs, while lush, are merely elaborate rather than convincing. One gets no sense of what Caladan was like; in tLF you at least get some externals with crashing waves on the rocks so you can see what a change the Atreides had to deal with in their move to Arrakis. The desert scenes, worst of all, are so obviously backdropped that it's just painful to watch. The caves and rocks of the sietch almost remind one of the old Star Trek episodes with the big polystyrene boulders being thrown around. That's a lot of negatives, but I give this two stars instead of one because it does get somewhat better and more coherent towards the end. Also, the portrayals of Irulan, Chani, and Alia are quite good. And part of its value is, as I've been at such pains to point out, in highlighting what a good job the Lynch movie did (although adding the non-book Weirding Modules) in portraying a complex story with compelling visuals and effective actors in 150 minutes.
Rating:
Summary: This is the "American" version of Dune
Review: There is really no way to adapt this complex book to the film, unless you do it as a two week long mini-series. I think some cowboy wisdom from Bruce R. McConkie is in order here: "Don't drink below the horses." If you want the full effect, just read the primary source, the book. This is "Take Two" on adapting the great sci-fi classic to the screen. The Sci-Fi Channel learned from the "Alan Smithee" edit of Dune (1984), and kept this film long. GOOD: This adaptation corrects the two mistakes that Dune (1984) made: adaptation and editing. It is the more faithful adaptation of the novel, and you get a better feel for the plot of the book, which is what makes a better film. The problem is that Dune is primarily a milieu story, and secondarily an action story. That is the main problem adapters have in transposing the book to the screen. The second good thing is the editing. A coherent story is told, and you follow the lives of characters across time and against fate, which is precisely why we see films. Compare "Don Quixote" the novel to "The Man of La Macha" the musical. We remember the musical over the novel precisely because of the editing. Don Quixote is primarily a series of gags ad misadventures, which eventually work their way up to a point in part II. We get the kernal of Quixote in "The Man of La Mancha," without doing violence to Cervates's point. This version puts more emphasis on the Fremen culture and technology, and we are given an explanation about what a mentat is. They also got the navigator's eyes right: all users of spice should have blue in blue eyes. I'm not sure if this is a good or bad, but they give Princess Irulan a more prominent role in this adaptation. In the book, she serves as the narrator/chronicler of the life of Muad'Dib. BAD: The fist thing we notice is the sets, costumes, and lighting which make this film look like an episode of Farscape. Another issue is Casting. Kodetova doesn't look like an elfin Chiani, and she has a lot of personal strength to be imposing. Not like the elfin Sean young from Dune (1984). This can also be called the "American" version of Dune. On July 4, 1776, we lost our sense of royalty and the pageantry and majesty associated with royalty. Lynch captures this feel for royalty, this version doesn't get it. Fro example, Alec Neuman starts out by playing a "James Dean" Paul Atreides (notice the feet on the table), though he eventually squares up to being Muad'Dib. LAST WORD: Use this movie as a stepping to back to the book.
Rating: 
Summary: How come anybody liked this?
Review: I really am mystified as to why there are so many good reviews for this depressingly poor mini-series.
I will not get into details, let me just say that the directing is awful, the acting terrible and the fx sophomoric.
I had high hopes for this, as I thought a mini series was the only way to do such a masterpiece any justice. God was I wrong...
After watching only about twenty minutes I was so depressed I actually turned it off. My first impression was Batman of the 60's. Yes, it does have tilted cameras and garish costumes.
Suffice it to say that, flawed as it is, Lynch's movie is a much, much better adaptation than this film-school project on steroids.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent adaptation
Review: I know what you might think- that this was a film made for TV, and those aren't ever that good. This movie is the exception to the rule, and having read the book and seen the older film, I think it's the better of the two. Now, of course, the old Dune is a classic with its famously huge budget and such notable names as Patrick Stewart in it. That fact means it'll always be considered the greater film. Nevertheless, this version is more accurate to the book, and the book is the best version of Dune there is! Do not be put off by the paucity of superstars in the cast list, or by the huge 4-hour runtime. I found the miniseries to be a stimulating and attractive version of this most famous example of sci-fi literature. The special effects are well done, and the acting is superb. Without a doubt, this is something no Dune fan should miss.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best Sci-Fi's out there.
Review: It's not very often that you get to see a film that stays so closely to the original script, but this mini series definitely does that better than any movie I have seen adapted from book. It stuck to the story and emphasized the details that were needed in telling the saga and since the book was phenomonal that means that the movie was great as well. The greatest thing about this movie is that it tells a story accurately, but does not stray from the fact that it is Sci-Fi. So many times you get movies that are a bunch of futuristic ideas thrown at you for 2 hours (like David Lynch's "Dune")or the story is so prominent that it could take place anytime; anywhere. This movie does not do that. It keeps the story intact and I would have to say that it is on my very short list of good "Sci-Fi".
Rating:
Summary: What an adorable cartoon mouse!!!!
Review: In the very first sentence of Frank Herbert's novel, the author establishes a connection to the roots of greek tragedy, and all that comes with it. These were stories of kings and gods, and the sacrifices required of them were on a universal scale, their actions affecting everyone within the great chain of being. Over the next several hundred pages, Herbert created what is easily one of the most complex works of fiction in the last fifty years. Alligories for OPEC and native americans, free will, messiahs, and the trappings of fate and prophecy are all included and woven together in an elegant narritive style.
But this isn't the book.
And it really isn't fair to compare it to the book, and I was really prepared to cut the film a whole lot of slack. But it really really comes down, to casting, I think in this film. I'm not going to tell you the directing is good, far from it. It is marginal at best. But the casting of actors THIS bad really caught me off guard. It's like they decided to give jobs to all the people who auditioned for 90210 and Babylon 5, but didn't make the cut.
Actually, two of them, Saskia Reeves as Lady Jessica and most notably Julie Cox as Irulan come off quite nicely. But to move on to the center of the story, Alec Newman as Paul Muad'Dib, I have to think very very hard where to start. I read the director thought it necessary to age Paul a few years so that he could find an actor who could actually portray all that the character goes through and eventually becomes. It is now obvious to me that he was lying, the only excuses I can think of for casting Alec Newman would be unrequited love or a large Mafia debt. Newman does get worse as he goes along, while being often upstaged by his own jawline. Watch him raise the pitch of his voice whenever he is trying to act messianic. Excruciating. He also spends a lot more time greasy and shirtless than I though anyone could justify on a desert planet, no matter how many times he's wrestling another greasy shirtless guy. My favorite greasy shirtless moment is him meditating on a sand dune (in virasana; get it? vira=sandscrit for hero? yeah, the film's not that clever) wearing curiously tight black leather pants.
And speaking of greasy and shirtless (although he also comes with a mysterious triangle backpack) is Waiting for Guffman's Matt Keeslar, who now more than ever proves that all Julliard really guaranties is a dimpled chin and a New York agent.
Ok. Yes, I'm just being cruel at this point. Let me finish up by saying that P.J. Moriarty gives a performace as Gurney Halleck that makes everyone everywhere look bad.
The worst thing about my writing this review, is that I'm not wrong. In the end I can't find much to say positive about it. Harrison is not a great talent when it comes to directing, and I'll try to leave it at that. It's almost as if he deliberately avoided the aspects that worked in Lynch's version, which just highlights things that are missing from this one.
Greek Tragedy it is not, nor should it be. It should be much more than any one thing, like any good work of art. What it comes down to, in the end, is this not a work of art. It is nothing more than a TV movie. The source material demands a sweeping, operatic interpretation that rises to the challege, and that may be something the scifi channel may not have the funding to provide.
|
