Dune

Rating:
Summary: What Was David Lynch Thinking
Review: Before Director David Lynch (that's right ... THE David Lynch) signed on for duty in DUNE, he was approached by another budding filmmaker by the name of George Lucas. As the story goes, Mr. Lucas wanted Mr. Lynch to direct a little picture of his titled, STAR WARS: THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, a film that's arguably gone on to be not only one of the most-beloved of the STAR WARS film but also stands on its own as one of the most character-driven films in the sci-fi genre. Lynch read the script, and he declined, saying that he didn't think TESB had any real potential.

Today, EMPIRE still holds its record (and reputation) as one of the most successful films ever made, and DUNE holds a mere cult status ... and a shrinking one, at best.

If you're interested in special effects, enjoy a single outing of DUNE. If you're looking for plot, pick up the SciFi Channel's 6-hour miniseries interpretation. Viewers can argue which is the better version for years, as they will, but there's no denying the sheer boredom associated to Lynch's DUNE in most of the film's key sequences.

Rating:
Summary: Pretty good
Review: Well... I'm not really sure what I think yet. Whoever did the costumes and scenery was really brilliant. That was almost exactly the way I pictured the Dune universe. I also loved Patrick Stuart as Gurney Halleck. However, some of the deviations from the book were pointless and unnecessary. The Atreides "weirding modules" didn't need to be there, and there was absolutely no point in making the Guild navigators some kind of blobby octopus thingys. Overall, quite good, but the book is still far superior.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent book, excellent movie, POOR DVD!
Review: I've read the books, I saw this at the movies and I watched it again on VHS... needles to say I bought the DVD on release (although for less than asked here!)

The movie was slated on release and failed to break even but, as with other critical failures (Highlander comes to mind) has built a cult following over the years. The de Laurentis/Lynch team produced some of the most amazing effects of the time, and the soundtrack was utterly brilliant, winning an Academy Award. Yes the film is a much truncated adaptation of possibly the best SF novel pre Orson Scott Card, but it was a valiant effort hampered only by a Production/Direction feud, and aided by a superb cast.

This DVD release is disappointing to say the least. The sound is not 5.1 as advertised, but a poor 'phantom' surround attempt, the picture quality is reminiscent of a US sitcom series and the additional extras are almost non-existent, and worthless at best.

If you haven't read the book, do so first, it'll help fill in the gaps, or wait for the much rumoured Director's Cut (3hrs+), but avoid the US TV version as the quality is DIRE!

It's worth it just to see the film in widescreen again, and to here it in decent Stereo, but I'm dying for a decent digital remaster, PLEASE!

Rating:
Summary: lynch rocks
Review: i've watched this movie many times since i was a kid and have always loved it. it has a passion to it that the recent mini-series seriously lacked. the actors in this movie actually seemed excited about playing their parts, and showed true emotion. we knew that Leto was a heroic Duke by how he was acted. and so on. this movie does lack a lot of the political intrigue that the book spent a lot of time on, that that is where i fault the movie. but otherwise, it is excellent.

Rating:
Summary: Not Herbert's Or Even Lynch's Vision, But Still Pretty Good.
Review: As a kid and early teen this was my favorite film. It took easily five viewings for it to actually make sense, and years later things were still starting to click. I eventually read the Dune Storybook I got at a garage sale, which is an adaptation of Lynch's original storyboard and script. That explained much more for me. When I finally read the book I realized just how bad an adaptation the film was. The 3 hour version that occasionally airs is even worse: incomplete special effects, horrible prologue, bad editing, and acting scenes that belonged on the cutting room floor. Indeed, most of the footage in that version was actually taken years later from the unwanted cutting room floor pieces that were still locked up somewhere. It's ironic that they kept those pieces considering the following:

The editor's rough cut was originally 8 hours. Lynch's completed cut that De Laurentis viewed was about 5 hours, with a planned intermission. You can imagine what this producer's reaction was, and so he immediately attempted to convince Lynch to shorten it. Unfortunately, at this time in Lynch's career, money talked. In his own words: "I sold out." (from an interview with Charlie Rose) He gave up his right to the final theatrical cut, which ended up grossly over-editing the film. It still retains the warmth of Lynch's version, but removed far too many of the key scenes from the book, including the garden scene and those surrounding the Fremen bulb agriculture (you see them in the background of the Atomics scene), resulting in a cryptic, rushed quality that now can only be justified by saying it's more "mysterious". Like the original cut of Blue Velvet, done right after this one, the original completed cut of Lynch's Dune was apparently lost or destroyed by the studio. What a tragedy.

Even if Lynch had held onto final cut, the film still would not have been a reasonably faithful adaptation. Lynch was not some longtime Dune fanatic, as has been falsely reported, and hadn't even read the book when someone gave him a copy and suggested he get involved with the project. He spotted in the book something very special, but Lynch was certainly not a purist qualified to tackle it in the first place. In the film there's no mention of the fact that the date is well past the 200th century AD and 10191 is actually "after the guild", AG. We are WAY into the future in the Dune novels, about twice as far as Lynch insinuates. The human race was nearly exterminated by the human computers & machines millennia before, which is why everything in the Dune universe since is either operated by simple clock-based computers or human beings - hence the necessity for mind altering drugs, mutation, and man-machine interfaces. AI's are not allowed anymore, so humans had to become capable of taking their place, which was not without unintended side-effects. There is a Grand Unified Theory, so the only final frontier left is that of the human mind. Get it?

In Lynch's Dune, the weirding modules, while cool in their own right, totally deprive us of the original "Crusades of the Future" that Herbert was going for in his novel. The very reason for Herbert to come up with the body shields was to make projectile weapons mostly obsolete, thus necessitating hand-to-hand edged weapon combat. It's a brilliant idea, but one that has yet to make it into any adaptation except in the most limited sense. Add to that Harkonen heart plugs and red hair, and while it all works in its own, it really belongs in a different film, not Dune. The new Sci-Fi channel version was interesting, but marred by poor production quality, bad CGI, idiotic costume choices, uninspiring screen direction, and too much borrowing from Lynch (more red hair). Whose idea was it to give everyone hats, anyway? What's so baffling to me is how any version would even need to change so many details. Herbert practically gives you everything, explaining, in detail, the surroundings, lighting, clothing, positions of the characters, etc, in EVERY SINGLE SCENE IN THE BOOK. From there all you'd need to do is pick the most important scenes to recreate while trying to preserve most of the plotlines and themes. Even Lynch's script, which he apparently filmed in its entirety, is still missing some of the most important themes from the entire book.

And to add further insult to injury, there are scenes in the novel that are so cinematic that it should be obvious to include them: the burning palm trees scene, the blooming of the desert, the Baron watching the final battle with the static-electricity halos of colliding body shields and sabers in the distance. There are gorgeous, visual scenes in the novel that would undoubtedly translate well to film, yet two directors have so far ignored them. It's simply baffling. All of this said, you'd perhaps need as much length and twice the budget of, say, HBO's From the Earth to the Moon series to actually pull it off perfectly. In its own right, Lynch's Dune is a head-trip, and if you're patient enough it will pay off with stylized visuals and wonderful directing of the actors. And maybe those Forbidden Planet-inspired effects and costumes are sort of endearing, too. But the novel is just worlds better (pun intended).

SIDE NOTE: While newly remastered, anamorphic versions of the theatrical cut of Dune exist on DVD overseas, the US version is painfully lacking in compatibility for Widescreen TV's. IT IS NOT IN ANAMORPHIC. I know of no plans to change this any time soon. It kind of figures, doesn't it?

Rating:
Summary: beats the hell out of the new one
Review: Lynches version of the classic by Frank Herbert sure beats the the new souped up version that hit cable TV a few years ago. Although I admit that it might not have as much in the area of special effects. The villain Baron Harkonen was definately much more gross and dasterdly watch them both and youl see what I mean and I dont know it was more spiritual somehow.The book is very spiritual so i think the movie should be as well. Whatever! I liked it better than the new one.

Rating:
Summary: Wears well...
Review: David Lynch's "Dune" has held up extremely well over the years, far better than I ever would have expected.

Part of the reason, I think, is the choice of directors. Frank Herbert's "Dune" is one of those unfilmable novels (in fact, it makes "Lord of the Rings" look like child's play), and David Lynch manages to capture at least the bare essentials of the novel -- the sense of pessimism, dark urgency, and atmospherics. The latter is a sorely-missed quality, and "Dune the Movie" holds up very well compared to the post-movie theatrical wasteland of the early 21st century, and such films as "Planet of the Apes," "Star Wars Episode 1" and "The Time Machine."

Viewers would be well-advised to try and read the book first -- again, like "LOTR," some background is almost a necessity before attempting the film. The story is just too complex to translate well to the big screen, so if you haven't read the book then you might find yourself simply relaxing and soaking up the (very well done) atmosphere and the visuals.

I'm very thankful that this film wasn't made sometime in the past five years. It would be painful to see Frank Herbert's genius placed on the chopping block of some money-grubbing producer and made into (yet another) CGI-based carnival freakshow. Enjoy this film for what it is, a "true" re-imagining of the novel "Dune" as seen by David Lynch's somewhat twisted imagination.

Rating:
Summary: DUNE = BLUE VELVET
Review: When Alejandro Jodorowsy lost the rights to the film version of DUNE to Dino DeLaurentis he was understandably dissapointed. He was equally delighted when he saw the released motion picture, declaring it a terrible movie.

After ERASREHEAD, it was Mel Brooks who approacehd Lynch to direct ELEPHANT MAN, which Brooks produced. After the Oscar garnering sucess of ELEPHANT MAN, Dino D. made a deal of sorts with Lynch: "Give me DUNE and I'll let you direct your own film with minimal interference." That film turned out to be BLUE VELVET. And with that, the body of work generally associated with Lynch began.

That said, don't ignore the incredible qualities this film has: The original inspired and creative set design. The amount of props, items, equipment, weaponry and sundry paraphenalia that you've never seen before, invented for this movie. Don't ignore the incredible atmosphere, the unique and disturbing performances, and the amazing sound design, (doubly interesting because sound is a major part of the plot.) Don't ignore how different this vision is against those of Spielberg, Lucas and Ridley Scott. This is a film of incredible vision and genius. It would be a shame if you all missed that

Rating:
Summary: Dune
Review: This is one of the ultimate sci fi movies ever made. Frank Herbert wrote an excellent novel, and this movie is true to it. The visual effects, costumes, and sets are teriffic. The cast is superb! Kyle McLaughlin and Sting are great advesaries. I can watch this movie any time. It great on a good computer DVD drive too!

Rating:
Summary: In hindsight excellent!
Review: If I HAD to pick what I considered the "best SF novel so far", I would have to say it is DUNE.

That in mind, when this movie version came out originally on VHS, I was mainly disappointed, yet appreciative of the effort.

Over the years, I have probably seen this movie 20 times or more. Last week (March 2002), I watched the repulsive Dune TV mini-series. I then realised just how good the 1984 movie attempt is/was.

OK, this movie does not follow the book exactly, and it is not possible to do the book justice in under 10 hours. The movie is lacking in its characterisation of a few of the second string characters such as Gurney Hallack, Duncan Idaho, Stilgar, etc etc.

It, however, is excellently cast. The casted actors suit the characters wonderfully. Sting is excellent as Feyd, as are the actors who portrayed Paul, Alia, Jessica, the Duke, and escpecially the Australian actress who was Shaddap Mapps.

I found "the voice" done excellently and I liked, and now appreciate even more, the way the characters' inner thoughts were portrayed to the viewer.

I would have given this 3 to 4 stars in the past; but now having re-read the book (for the 20th time), watched the poor miniseries, and re-watched the VHS version, I now give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD is on my birthday wish list!