Rating: 
Summary: A for Effort, D for Result
Review: Sometimes miscasting can produce the odd surprise. Case in point, the Vampire Lestat with Tom Cruise. Dune the Miniseries unfortunately cannot make up the gap. As a fan of the last three novels, I was pleased to see a more accurate portrayal of the legendary first book. It does delve deeper into the complex relationships between Houses Atreides and Harkonnen and the all important socioeconomical factors behind the spice. The miniseries also provides a detailed look into Fremen culture, their role in the development of Paul Atreides, symbiotic relationship with the planet Dune, and of course the sandworms. The special effects for a low budget TV series were impressive, in particular the guild navigator and highliner. In comparison with the sandworms in the Lynch movie, these worms are impressive. Where the miniseries utterly fails is in the miscasting of William Hurt as Duke Leto I and Alec Newman as Paul Atreides. Hurt sleepwalks through the role and depicts a Duke with little charisma or leadership. Half the time, his lines are muttered and the scene where he succumbs to a Harkonnen tranquilizer dart is well...I've seen better acting in adult films. Alec Newman's screen presence though admirable at times leaves us wondering how a spoiled brat could ever have become Paul Muad'Dib. I don't believe Frank Herbert envisioned him to be so petulant and immature. Gurney Halleck, Jessica, the Baron, Beast Rabban, and Feyd Rautha all come across as quite believable and the actors are to be commended. Duncan Idaho is a shell of the Duncan I imagined and the same can be said of Stilgar and Thufir Hawat. As a last disappointemt, I always felt the Bene Gesserit played a central role in the story but for some reason their part is bit, to say the least. I don't know what version of Dune that John Harrison read but he is so off the mark in their portrayal that they come across as little more than gossiping geese. Their elaborate headresses and costumes say ostentatious not austere. Nothing about their principles or influence on the central characters is ever examined It's more like they're some kind of fancy girl's prep school. While the miniseries clearly helps viewers to understand some of the inner working of Dune, Lynch's version comes a lot closer to conveying the mysticism that Herbert origianlly intended. If the two versions could be combined taking the best of both worlds, then most Dune freaks like me would smile and utter a sigh of pure satisfaction. If the last three novels are ever made into films they should clearly be superior. You have to figure that they'll get better as a result of trial and error.
Rating: 
Summary: The Complete Story Filmed - I prefer Lynch¿s art
Review: The Complete Story Filmed - I prefer Lynch's art Dune si a novel written by Frank Herbert. It happens in a futuristic world quite different from ours, yet still very similar in many respects. The story of Dune, although it does not feature many weird creatures, has something of the stories of Star Wars or of The Lord of the Ring, it really transports you into a different world. You have to figure out what are the civilizations and major players, you may feel lost at the beginning, but that's the charm of the story. The story was first filmed in 1984 by the famous director David Lynch. It was not complete, and now the author of the story has collaborated with a director to have a fidel, but long (it lasts for hours...) version of the storie in movie format (originally TV series.) The quality of the film, special effects, is very high, higher than Lynch's film which is quite older. Unlike stupidly politically correct movies made in Hollywood, the movie respects the book in featuring an all-European (white race) cast. This has become rare nowadays.
However, when I compare this movie to David Lynch's, I find it too slow, wearisome, lacking unity. And Alec Newman, the actor playing Paul (the Messianic main character) have the charisma of Kyle MacLachlan in Lynch's film. BTW, I have noted that none of the reviewers has noticed that Mahdib, the prophetic name used in the movie, is borrowed from Islam (Haddith), where it refers to a token or Messiah that will come at the end of the world. There is definitely a strong religious, metaphysical and political inspiration beneath Dune, just as in Star Wars and the Lord of the Rings. Clearly, the way the underlying ideas, the spirit, are expressed, the flow of events, the acting, etc. are much better in Lynch's version. Lynch's movie is much more charismatic, conveys the pantheistic ideas much better. I used to blame movies that would not quite respect the book they were putting into film. However, comparing those two movies have convinced me that at least in this case, it is better to make strong adaptions for the audio-visual media than the respecting the letter of the written original book media. This full story will be great for the unconditional fans of the book, but as for the cinematographic art, Lynch is more gifted. I still give the movie five stars, as it is still great and enjoyable.
Rating: 
Summary: Could of been better
Review: Dune is one of the best books ever written and it is hard to live up to that. This version of Dune is as a whole much better than the 1984 version. This version covers the book in more detail and doesn't leave out any important parts. The 1984 version had better acting and costumes and sets. In this version the sets are cheesy with matte paintings to provide backround. The hats in this version look really stupid and the stillsuits don't even look like they would work. The best acting in this version was from Lady Jessica and Alia. The really needed to cast a different Paul and Baron Harkonnen. The production quality of the one from 1984 was it's downfall, everything was dark, I don't mean dark as in depressing, but dark as in the contrast of the screen. YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING! Despite all the things that are wrong with this version, the faults are minor and you start to ignore them into the second part. This one is a lot better than the 1984 version, in that version you would of had to read the book to understand anything. All and all this is a great TV movie; better than most. so I give it four stars.
Rating:
Summary: This is the greatest movie!!!!!!!!
Review: I wasn't sure at first if I wanted to watch this movie. My sister had rented the dvd version and I was going to read a book but I decided to watch it with her. I had seen the first movie of dune and I had not understood it at all. I couldn't even get what the movie was about. When I saw the sci fi channel's version of it I was greatly surprised. I could understand exactly what was happening. I loved it and couldn't be torn away from it until it was over. I bought the dvd version when we went to return the one we had rented and I still watch it all the time. I am so hooked on it that I even got the books and I have just finished the first one and I am now on the second. I think that William Hurt played a great Leto and that Paul's character is very cute ^-^ and fascinating. I love this movie and I hope that you will buy it or at least rent it to watch. It is amazing!
Rating:
Summary: Very good telling of a classic novel
Review: David Lynch did a good job with Dune, if you can get the 3 hour directors cut. This did a good job without having important scenes deleted. The costuming was simply stunning and the effects blew me away and I was pleased that more of the book was in this movie and it stayed truer than the David Lynch version. This is a must have.
Rating:
Summary: An interesting miniseries
Review: I liked this adaptation of Dune, I thought it was many times better then the original adaptation (The original just wasn't long enough to show everything). It can be long and boring at some parts, and many scenes are shortened, down sized, or taken out, but it is still a good story. Don't watch it all at once either. I'll admit I hadn't read Dune when I saw this mini series, but this movie hooked me. I highly recommend this movie but don't expect everything you saw in the book.
Rating: 
Summary: DAVID LYNCH'S VERSION WAS BETTER
Review: THE FRANK HERBERT VERSION OF DUNE [stunk]!!!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO SEE A GREAT VERSION OF DUNE WATCH THE ORIGINAL DUNE DIRECTED BT DAVID LYNCH ITS A MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN THIS BORING B-MOVIE MINI-SERIES THAT SCI-FI CHANNEL MADE. THIS FRANK HERBERT SCI-FI CHANNEL MINI-SEIES SHOULD BE FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET ITS SO BAD.
Rating:
Summary: Very good
Review: Very entertaining and fascinating miniseries. I admit I have not read the book, and frankly had no clue what David Lynch was on about in his 1984 adaptation (though his style and willingness to take risks in the movie was a pleasure to watch as always). If you want a coherent and enjoyable presentation of this material, here it is. William Hurt has taken some hits here but I thought he was fine, Alec Newman strong and fairly wooden, as befits an heroic figure perhaps? Watchable (just about) in one sitting (we did anyway). Although, obviously, it will have to be at the weekend! I would recommend it - enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Visually great - otherwise very lacking
Review: Obviously only people who have actually read the book will appreciate the David Lynch version. This version, while very visually pretty and interesting looking, does nothing to capture the atmosphere and characterization of the book. Personally I was offended that the producers chose to call this "Frank Herbert's Dune" as if this was an offically recognized version by the Master himself. Most of all I found it very lacking in the acting department. While I usually love William Hurt's characters, Jurgen Prochnow did a much better job in the first version. The same can be said of the rest of the characters with emphasis on the Paul Atreides character. And what is with the pronunciations in this version? Even while reading the book I never thought of pronouncing the names that way, especially the Fedaykin. That one is still a joke amongst our friends. Overall there is a lot of eye-candy in this, but I did not find it a true a version as David Lynch's.
Rating: 
Summary: Visually arresting but slow, slow, slow
Review: I really tried to like this. I had read the Dune books years ago and really wanted to get immersed in a wide-ranging epic movie. But this is just boring and slow. It moves along at a glacial pace and the actor that plays Paul has utterly no charisma - he just seems uninteresting. Even William Hurt, who undeniably is an outstanding actor, seems wooden and uninspired. On the plus side, as other reviewers have noted, the special effects are generally good and the sets, particularly the banquet scenes, are magnificent and colorful.
| 
