Rating: 
Summary: A glaring omission of a talented actor
Review: An earlier review failed to mention the memorable performance of Ian McNeice in the role of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. The thespian really threw himself into the "weighty" part. Every scene in which he is featured is a joy.
Rating:
Summary: the effort shows
Review: i was disappointed by david lynch's adaptation of dune. 1) it was painstakingly slow 2) it was far from coherent (because of his liberal interpretations) and 3) the acting was down right horrible (including good actor like Patrick Stewart, sigh). usually good movies can stand the test of time, but lynch's 'dune' apparently fails to do just that. i am gald that i gave this mini-series a chance. i agree that it still wasn't perfect and it didn't give us the world described in Herbert's book. however, it was more convincing and coherent as a story itself. however, i think the pace is still a little too slow at times. i think the cinematography, and the art direction/set production compensate the budgetary constraint (relative to filmmaking). the characters can grow and develop gradually and more naturally this time, so IMHO, it was less problematic than the movie-version. as a dune fan, it is a must to your collection.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed, but satisfying adaptation of the classic novel
Review: As just about every other reviewer on this site has said, this version of Frank Herbert's novel has its share of flaws, but also has some great moments scattered throughout. The deliciously evil Harkonnens in this film are much easier to take than in the previous David lynch film. Another great plus this version has is the coherency of the battle scenes (the Lynch version war scenes were dark and chaotic). There are however many points where the film taxes your interest and you may find yourself saying "why don't they shut up and get on with it". Everything is wraped up well in a rousing last half hour, with terrific CGI + live action battle scenes that are completely believeable. Acting wise, the cast is OK, with a few odd faces standing out. William Hurt is almost comatose as Leto Atreides (though his screen presence is still undiminished). Alec Newman is a paradox as Paul. His performance actually improves toward the end when he finally settles into the role of the messiah. Other notable names are PH Moriarty as a fine Gurney Halleck and the always welcome Ian McNeice as the Baron Harkonnen. And the commanding Giancarlo Giannini, though in my opinion not as kingly as Jose Ferrer, he still packs a punch with his line "you do not wish to feel the full effect of my power child!" All in all, Dune is a completely respectable literary film adaptation, with sumptuous costumes, sets and fights. Definately a step up from the previous film.
Rating: 
Summary: Better adaptation, maybe, better movie, NOT!
Review: I'm sorry, but this adaptation of one of SF's best ever novels is just awful. I borrowed it from a friend last year, and switched it off in less than 15mins, I've recently borrowed it again, and made it through this time... The sound is excellent, the sets are excellent, the cast is excellent (although mostly non-moviestar), the cinematography is excellent, the adaptation sticks much more rigidly to the book, and all in all it makes for a valiant attempt. The biggest problems are the desert scenes, and the CGI's. The series uses 'translighting' - huge posters used as backdrops in Europes largest soundstage, but they look just like that - posters. The CGI's are awesome, but they look just like that - CGI's. The effects in this production stick out as effects, and it's a shame as it kept my eye from what could have been a better attempt than the 1984 movie, but it just doesn't gel. I enjoyed it, as a Dune fan, I hated it, as a film buff. (And is it just me or does the design owe a lot to Episode I?) The version I watched was the Collectors Edition UK version coming in at approx 291 mins, I'm off to buy the US Special Edition for it's reported extra 30mins, but mainly for the Herbert interview...
Rating: 
Summary: Interpretation vs execution
Review: I have to agree with those who say that this interpretation is more true to the novel than was David Lynch's adaptation. Lynch was out to tell a messianic epic in 2 hours, and I think he did quite a good job with that. This version, however, seems to have different aims. Not higher, not lower; just different. I think this is actually a reasonably good interpretation of the universe and story of Dune. I give the crew a lot of credit for interpreting and adapting a difficult work for the screen. But that's not all there is to it. Any movie, no matter how well thought-out it is, should not be this PAINFUL to watch. This movie was extremely poorly executed. There was no acting. None. Just a bunch of people wandering around trying to look stoic and mystical at the same time, while only looking vaguely constipated. (Note to aspiring directors out there: if you want your characters to be serious/dark/tragic, you can still allow them to have facial expressions.) Okay, I lied. Every once in a while, someone looked a little surprised. Without acting, the character development had to be spoon-fed to us, which I find insulting, and this really compromised the screenplay (which was, for the most part, pretty decent). The visual effects, while decent for TV, were below even the level set in the 1983 version of the film. At least it's widescreen, right? But these reviews won't change most people's minds. If you're going to buy it, you'll buy it no matter what everyone else says (I'm the same way). If you're just browsing for DVDs, take my advice and *rent* this before making a buying decision. It's [money] well-spent.
Rating:
Summary: Enjoyable
Review: There were a lot of conflicting reviews here. I'm glad I didn't let the more negative reviews put me off from purchasing Frank Herbert's Dune, because I really enjoyed it. Personally, I think some people have become so spoiled by high budget special-effects blockbusters that they wouldn't know a good actor if he fell on them. I'm impressed with what they were able to accomplish using fairly low-tech production methods. For example, they filmed everything indoors using huge backdrops instead of blue-screen techniques. The actors apparently liked this, because they didn't have to imagine their surroundings. Also, this was cheaper than filming on location in the desert while allowing them the freedom to create the Dune universe exactly as they envisioned it. All this is explained on the dvd. Also, I can't believe anybody would think this was more confusing than the other Dune movie.
Rating:
Summary: different from the books, In a good way
Review: Okay, before I start writing, it's important to note that there are a few problems with making a Dune adaptation for TV:
1. The only kind of movie that would have accurately portrayed Frank Herbert's Vision would take up a couple hundred hours of viewing time.
2. It is a made for tv movie.
With this said, I would have to say that the movie was incredibly well done, considering the resources and time constraints. It kept enough of the book to be accurate, yet it was seperate enough from the book that it was easy enough to follow in a short (relatively) period of time. Indoor sets were astounding, Computer generated characters and ships were awe inspiring, many of the political and social aspects retained their flavor, the fictional cultures were as in depth as in the book, and the acting was superb, even William Hurt, in his bizzare, mechanical way. To say that it didn't do the story justice is to complain about the very things that make any book adaptation of a movie fall short of it's creator's wishes. The one problem that I had was the first third in the series, where, arguably, the two most influential characters in the book, (barring Paul, Chani, and his parents), Yueh and Thufir Hawat, were played in bit roles, with costumes so poorly designed that it was nearly impossible to discern them from other extras. But on the whole, an excellent adaptation and an even better movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Closer, but still not enough
Review: If you have read all of the books in the series "then you would know how I feel". The power of Frank Herbert's skill is allowing the audience to fill in the gaps. A little freedom to create the caracters in our own minds. The films fall short of the richness of the text. One annoying area is the Bene Gesserit. If you know anything about the women of the Bene Gesserit, you know they are perfectly composed and in control of their emotions. Why do we continue to portray women in film to be so frail and emotional, almost everything the Bene Gesserit are not. The film is worth viewing but keep in mind that is does not come close to the detail that the novels employ. If someone were to create a cable television series that would run once a week for a few years, possibly they could touch the richness of the text, but I fear the we lack the acting talent to portray many of the characters as they should be portrayed. I recommend that you read Dune before you watch any of the films. Then at least you can see why all films will fall short of portraying the novel as written and read.
Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but totally satisfying
Review: It's foolish to expect that any cinematic production of a favorite book can ever live up to ANYbody's hopes. But given the choice between the David Lynch production, with its vastly better acting and casting and somewhat better special effects, and this rather low-budget version (both of which I own), I only now watch this version. Would that John Harrison had the resources of David Lynch when he made this version. For the first time, I really believed in an "ornithopter": they had a bird-like quality and looked aerodynamically possible. The ridiculously shaped aircraft in David Lynch's version look like they were designed by some studio model-maker who hadn't a clue what the things were supposed to do. And what's with the steam craft in the year 10191? Further, I was always put off by David Lynch's ridiculous "sound" weapon which has no foundation in the story whatever. Even more ludicrous, indeed nauseating, was his vision of the Baron's perversity and those silly "heartplugs". There is no suggestion of such sick imagery in the book, and makes his version seem rather like a punk/sadist nightmare. In no manner, watching David Lynch's version, will you ever see the real story as it was written. John Harrison, I felt, portrayed the Harkonnens vastly more accurately. All things considered, I find John Harrison's version, with all its flaws, to be as near to a "definitive" version as is likely to happen. Flaws I can live with (what movie is without them?), but I like to think that the director at least had READ the book he's filming!
Rating:
Summary: horrid acting, sets, costumes, plot, etc.
Review: What a hack job. The plot was way different than the books, in a bad way. My boyfriend and I couldn't even finish watching it we were so disgusted.
| 
