Rating: 
Summary: Good,but no cigar!
Review: This movie could have been soo much more if they hadn't have chopped it up to make it shorter!Some decent effects,and good performances from both Kyle Machlachlan and Patrick Stewart.However,the film (because it was cut soo much)is a little confusing at times,and to reduce the confusion they hired a guy with a boring voice to read some even more boring voice overs to try and let on the bulk of the film isnt lying on the cutting room floor!
If you want a mediocre action movie,this is for you,decent effects,acting and an excellent score.However if you want to watch something faithful to the book,buy the Sci-fi channel 2001 version instead!
Rating:
Summary: Dune
Review: not the long version but otherwise ok Dune 2000 is better.
Rating:
Summary: Edits within edits within edits
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 1984 is the first attempt to transpose this sci-fi classic of classics to the screen. This adaptation didn't work because it only made sense if you read the book. I haven't seen the extended version, but think that in this case length would help. THE GOOD: This is not an Edsel; there are redeeming qualities. First, it is pure eye candy. The sets and costumes are top notch, and not only that, they are believable. Second, this version has a better feel for the futuristic royalty, and does a better job of conveying that special sense of pageantry and majesty associated with royalty, which is something we as Americans lost on July 4, 1776. Third, this is what I am beginning to call a "twofer" or a "threefer" film: some films need to be seen twice or three times to be understood, such as "Unbreakable." Did you understand Hamlet the first time you saw it? Fourth, with the high budget, you have a high budget cast. I love seeing Patrick Stewart, Dean Stockwell, Max von Sydow, and yes Sting all in one film! Lastly, this film captures the "spark," or the essential fell of the book. Despite being jumbled and over-edited, it captures the essential story of the book, a McGuffen struggle over control of the spice, with every organization against Paul-Muad'Dib. THE BAD: This film has two main problems, and everything else is a detail. The first problem is in the adaptation of the book to the screen. The book Dune is a classic on the level of Lord of the Rings, and has the complexity of the plots within plots within plots, so in the adaptation you will always leave something important out, which leads to the second criticism. This films second problem was over-editing: too much was taken out, so the story became muddled. Use "Star Wars" as a test case. There are few characters, not much is done in explaining the culture or the environment. It is basically a "damsel in distress" story with a "David and Goliath" ending. The focus is on the action of the plot, not on the milieu. Dune, is more of a milieu story, and not plot driven. This is what makes Star Wars such a good film, but a bad book, and vica versa. You can't put a milieu sci-fi story into a film. Some of the other little things are the dramatic whisperings used to represent thought. I could not make out the lines over the whisperings and the accents. In a movie, some thoughts are better conveyed by expressions, and not by lines. The premature birth was also unnecessary, and were not described in the book or on the Sci-Fi channel version. It contributed nothing to the plot, and was visually repulsive. IMPROVEMENT: The longer "Alan Smithee" version of this film should be released. I know Lynch hates it, but give the public what it wants. He put so much work into the film, why not release the better version? LAST WORD: I did not like this film when I saw it in 1984 since it was so confusing, but at least it made me "Dune Aware." After prodding from my fried Ephraim, I read the book, then re-saw the movies as I read. A-HA!! Use this movie as a stepping to back to the book
Rating: 
Summary: Widescreen doesn't compensate for lost content
Review: Dune, uncut, is a classic. This sliced-and-diced widescreen version dropped at least two vital sequences (I haven't had the time to look for more). First, Paul's call-out fight upon his and Jessica's first ecounter with the Fremen, the transfer of responsibility for the children of the slain Fremen and the passage of his water to Paul for safekeeping for the Tribe limns the character of the Fremen and their relationship to tradition and water -- a must for better understanding of actions to follow. Also cut was the process of removing the bile of the infant worm (The Water of Life). It's origin is vital to understanding one facet of the planet's importance to the Bene Gesserit and the relationship between the worms and the mystical culture surrounding them. Again, widescreen is nice but why, oh why, for a few cents' worth of tape, did they cut anything? The original, albeit in TV format, deserves a full row of stars.
Rating: 
Summary: DAVIN LYNCH'S VERSION OF DUNE IS THE BEST
Review: THIS VERSION OF DUNE DIRECTED BY DAVID LYNCH IS THE BEST VERSION OF DUNE EVER MADE. THIS VERSION OF DUNE HAS A GREAT ALL-STAR CAST WITH LEGENDARY ACTORS KYLE MACLACHLAN, PATRICK STEWART, JOSE FERARE, STING, AND MANY MORE FAMOUS ACTORS TOO NUMEROUS TO LIST. THIS VERSION HAS GREAT ACTING, GREAT DIRECTING, GREAT EARIE MUSIC THAT IS PERFECT FOR SETTING THE MOOD, LOTS OF ACTION, THE STORY MOVES AT A PERFECT PACE SO IT NEVER GETS TIRED OR DULL, IT IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF FUN TO WATCH. THIS MOVIE HAS INCREDBLE SPECIAL EFFECTS THAT ARE BREATH TAKING AND SPECTACULAR. THE STORY IS GREAT AND WELL TOLD. THIS VERSION OF DUNE IS THE BEST VERSION MADE, IT IS A MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN FRANK HERBERTS VERSION WHICH WAS DULL BORING AND DRAWN OUT AND WAS LIKE A BAD B-MOVIE. THIS DAVID LYNCH VERSION IS GREAT, A LOT OF FUN AND THE BEST VERSION EVER. I HIGHLY RECOMEND THIS DAVID LYNCH VERSION OF DUNE. THIS MOVIE IS SO GREAT THAT IT SHOULD BE IN EVERY SC-FI FANS COLLECTION. EVERYONE WHO LIKES GREAT MOVIES TOO SHOULD HAVE THIS IN THERE COLLECTION. THIS IS SCI-FI AT ITS BEST. THIS DVD IS IN THE WIDESCREEN FORMAT, THE PICTURE QUALITY IS SPECTACULAR, THE SOUND QUALITY IS INCREDIBLE, IT CONTAINS THE ORIGINAL TRAILER. I HOPE THAT SOMEDAY UNIVERSAL STUDIOS WILL RELEASE THE LONG VESION OF DAVID LYNCH'S DUNE WITH ALL THE EXTRA SCENES. THAT WOULD MAKE A PERFECT DVD.
Rating:
Summary: A Movie other can't Rivel
Review: When I first saw this movie I was a little disappointed in the details left out of the novel. But after seeing a more lavish production that was just an abject failure, I realized that this was a great movie of a great science fiction novel. I still think Gordon R. Dickson's Dorsai would make a better movie, but it would be harder to get the subtile shadings of meaning. It is capturing what makes a science fiction novel great in film that is hard! This version of Dune is a success at that.
Rating:
Summary: What Happened Here?!
Review: The first time I saw this film in the theatres back in 1984 I was totally impressed. When it later was released on TV I was surprised by some of the changes but still liked it. But now after many years and having reread Frank Herbert's book I find that this version of Dune was way off the beam. Yes it had many of the elements of the story(totally out of order in their occurence in the book), but in fact was fully rewriten having only the basic air of the original story. Certain parts of this movie were only part of the movie and never appeared in the orginal story and parts that should have been included were'nt. The movie should have been released as an adaptation of Frank Herbert's Dune. The version made by the Sci_Fi Channel actually followed the original story more closely with only a few alterations(order of some scenes). The more recent version was far better. Still as a movie with some interesting special effects the 1984 version of Dune is okay but not great. If there is a way to bring parts of the longer television version togather with the theatrical version and release it again on dvd you may have something. Also to do this they need to use the more recent Sci-Fi Channel version as a model when doing this.
Rating:
Summary: my my mr. lynch what the hell was wrong with you
Review: wow.if you never read the book than you will have know idea what the hell is going on here. they concentrated too much on leto than paul. i guess lynch wanted a strong background and foundation. i must say sting was pretty hot in the movie. but that's besides the point. boy dude this movie is so confusing and i'm just sitting there wondering why don't people just release the full version. dude my lord this movie was confusing. your wondering when you're watching this okay how the hell can that happen. the book dune is just like trying to explain the reason why we're alive. it's just too full and complex. you should watch the movie if you've already read the book because unlike some movies based on books (like it) this was pretty close to it except for the shorting everything and making the plot seem to easy and making paul look like a stuck up bastard.
Rating: 
Summary: Never enough
Review: I now have three different versions of this film. And I'm not talking about that lame remake. Each one is missing scenes from the other two. I wish they would just just dig up every scene ever shot and put it all into one release.
Rating:
Summary: who cares about novels?
Review: I will begin with a few of examples: Nosferatu(or Lugosi's Dracula), Bladerunner, and A Clockwork Orange. None of these have any valid 'trueness' to the novel they intented to represent yet they are all briliant "pictures" nonetheless! I find it laughable that any so called movie buff finds it necessary to inject their "hound and horny" diatribe on a particular movie's likeness to a book. Oh, the irony! Now, lest i seem to be a philistine anymore than i already appear, i'll take this version over any 'true to story' version any day. Yet five stars(actually six) would have gone to the three hour Japanese release. For those who don't get the Scifi channel: find this release! It maintains some semblance of continuity and content that the original story by Herbert(if you're in to that sort of thing) had presented. Not to mention, makes this version of Dune more understandable for the illiterate. We should watch movies for their wonderful imagery. Not just for the thought provocation. And imagery is just what this movie is all about. Then again, these reviews are all about hearing ourselves talk. See for yourselves! We've all done the whole movie/book thing (e.g. Jurrasic Park, Naked Lunch ;-)), never let that sort of thing ruin a movie experience!...
|
