Dune

Rating:
Summary: Duned
Review: Woh! I didn't know what to expect when I first sat down to watch 'Dune'. Not having read the novel, the first hour of the movie made me think I had Attention Deficit Disorder, I didn't know what was going on. After that first hour, I gradually left my efforts at understanding behind and just revelled in its sheer spectacle.

Poor David Lynch was driven to the brink of suicide while making this picture. The success of 'The Elephant Man' must have made him believe that adapting other people's work would be a much more successful venture than trying to develop anything on his own at this stage of his career. 'Dune' is full of Lynchian touches even if his commanding vision is sadly missing. The Emperor's court looks like something out of pre-industrial Europe in contrast to the Harkonnen culture of brutal industry and festering disease (Lynch would have been in his element here). Indeed the Baron Harkonnen's face bears some resemblance to John Merrick's in 'The Elephant Man', biological explosions bursting through the skin.

'Dune' would have made a pretty good T.V. series if it had been directed by Lynch, there certainly would have been wider scope for plot and character development. As it was left in it's 137 minute version Lynch had to cut entire scenes and have them explained in one line of voice-over dialogue instead. This makes much more of the profound elements of the film seem like excerpts from a daytime soap opera, the slow zoom into the static face as the voice-over speaks the thoughts of the actor.

Locked into producer Dino De Laurentiis's and writer Frank Herbert's vision, it's not surprising that Lynch returned to small-time film making as a way of retaining artistic control.

Rating:
Summary: Still the Best
Review: A lot of fans of the book have derided the original Dune movie - for example, the addition of the "weirding modules" was totally out of line with the original novel. However, in retrospect, Lynch did a masterful job. The universe of Dune looks precisely as it should - the tough, hard, sandblasted Fremen - the noble Atreides, the grim industrial nightmare of Giedi Prime. The holes in the movie and its plotline are easily ignored when it is remembered how close to the mark the movie comes to being an accurate representation of how the Dune universe should appear.

The cast is brilliant - all the way from Francesca Annis, who presents herself with a royal, yet vulnerable air. Sian Phillips as the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohaim is perfect. Kyle MacLachlan is splendid as Paul Muad'dib, and Jurgen Prochnow is perfect as Duke Leto. Special mention must go to Max von Sydow as Liet Kynes.

It is the standard by which all other attempts at Dune (pay attention John Harrison) will be judged. So far, it has withstood the test of time.

Rating:
Summary: An Incredible, Underrated Masterpiece
Review: This movie was panned by audiences and critics alike when its highly-anticipated release occurred in 1984, and since then it has become one of the legendary "bad films" of Hollywood (think "Heaven's Gate" or "Ishtar"). But the fact remains, DUNE simply doesn't deserve this treatment, as evidenced by its steadily growing popularity over the years. Misunderstood in 1984, DUNE is more and more being appreciated for the magnificent film that it is. It was ahead of its time, but its time has come.

Why was this movie so despised? I believe that it's because it tried to be all things to all people. This movie disappointed the "typical" moviegoer who expected to see "Star Wars" but instead got a gothic, Shakespearian epic tale of political intrigue and messianic destiny. Hard-core fans of Herbert's fabulous novels were disappointed by the relatively underdeveloped characters and key omitted sequences, not to mention the un-Herbertian presence of David Lynch's stylistic elements (for example, the "heart plugs"). Hence, no one was pleased...and the movie bombed.

But DUNE bombed undeservedly. Any objective eye in either of the camps mentioned above will realize that DUNE does a yeoman's job of compressing a far-reaching epic into two and a half hours (try filming War and Peace in under three hours), providing a taste for the epic tale. The medium of film simply does not provide good translations of great books in most cases (with a few exception), so DUNE the movie needs to be appreciated for its own sake. As to those who found this movie too complex, well, don't be offended, but maybe this kind of thing is above your head intellectually.

This is the version to see (in my opinion the "Smithee" version(s) are so poorly edited that they aren't worth watching (although the added scenes are fascinating, especially as they relate to Patrick Stewart's portrayal of Halleck and the Fremen sequences). Hopefully, Mr. Lynch will realize what a great work he created with DUNE and return to produce a real expanded Director's Cut. Until then, though, this is your best bet...and by the way, consider investigating the books, both Frank Herbert's original six volumes and the new Brian Herbert-Anderson "prequel" series. All excellent.

Rating:
Summary: David Lynch got it RIGHT
Review: Frank Herbert's "Dune" is to Science Fiction, what Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" is to Fantasy Fiction. While I grew tired quickly of the "Dune" series, the first book (and to a lesser degree, the second, "Children of Dune,") is outstanding: an absolute heavyweight of the science fiction genre which serves as the benchmark against which other works are judged.

That being said, while we finally been treated to what most would agree is THE definitive interpretation of Tolkien's works in Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy, there is much disagreement and dissatisfaction over movie efforts to make Herbert's novel come to life. Those being, David Lynch's much-maligned movie and the Sci-Fi Channel's Television production.

Having seen both versions as well as heaving read the "Dune" novel several times, I can say the Lynch version is superior, if for no other reason than Lynch's vision is truer to the spirit and character of the Dune novel. It is in fact, so bizaare and otherworldly, David Lynch actually hits the amazing, surreal world Herbert creates in his stories dead on the mark.

Its true the Sci-Fi version simply has more time to flesh out characters and develop the plot details and intricacies, but juxtaposed to Lynch's version, the costumes, characters, sets, and the like are quite stale and unimaginative. The horrors of Dune - the cruelty of the Harkonnens - the fascinating wonders - like the Guild, the Navigators, and space travel - the mystery of the Bene Gesserit, etc., are all far more authentically portrayed in Lynch's movie.

Lynch's only limitation was the time frame (and editing that he was forced to do to meet that time frame), in order to tell the story. Imagine Peter Jackson trying to do LOTR in one or two movies and you would come up with a similar result.

Ideally, we would have a movie that took the best elements of both productions - the vision, mood, and feel of the Lynch version that takes the time to further develop the plot and flesh out characters like the Sci-Fi version. Its a shame that a four hour "Director's Cut" of the movie was never released by Lynch - however, the continuity or sense of the film isn't really an issue with those familiar with the book.

In any event, if you want something that truly has the flavor of the Herbert novel, Lynch gets it right - concessions for brevity of the theatrical release notwithstanding.

Rating:
Summary: Love it.
Review: I grew up in a little town in Indiana. If you wanted to see a movie you had to drive 20 miles to Muncie which had a classic theater downtown with a balcony and a huge red curtain in front of a movie screen that was set over what looked like a narrow but long stage. They haven't shown movies there for years, but this is one of two movies that I can still remember seeing there (the other was Terry Gilliam's _Time Bandits_). The reason I can remember this one? Even though I was eight and my brother was four, we must have seen it at least three times.

I remember at the second or third viewing they were handing out a glossary of terms and definitions to explain things. I've never seen such a thing for any movie before or since. I remember later getting the movie on betamax and late nights watching it with my dad.

Anyway, my whole family loved this movie and we still do. It's weird, it's complex (yet simple once you unravel everyone's motives), it's stunning and thouroughly entertaining. One of my all time favorites.

Rating:
Summary: Lynch's funniest work yet
Review: Planets of men, planets of women, giant worms, talking vaginas, all go battle for a planet of cinnamon.

Rating:
Summary: A Good Adaption
Review: Yes, yes... I'm a huge fan of the books. Yes, yes... this is not a perfect adaptation. Yes, yes... the special effects are not fantastic, in fact, they are quite laughable. However, given that this movie was made in 1984 and the spirit of the book is still present, I'm still going to give this a 5 star rating.

For those who have no read the book(s): There are going to be a lot of things you are not going to understand. Reading the book would be helpful. Otherwise, I can understand why some might find the movie confusing and even a little bit boring. Alas, it is the fine points of the book that makes the story interesting and fascinating. The movie gives those small details no justice. I would highly suggest watching it with somebody who has read the books so they could point out a couple of these details to you, fill in missing aspects from the book, and answer your questions. If you have no such person among your collection of friends, I would actually recommend you skip the movie and read the book(s) first yourself.

To those who have read the book: A lot is left out. I would have loved to have seen Patrick Steward take a knife to the neck of Paul's mother. The stilsuits are not complete as a lot of moisture would be permitted to leave the body with what is depicted in this movie. Even the emphasis on the preciousness of water is barely focused on (no shocking scene of Stilgar spitting at Duke Leto or the shock of the Freman at Paul giving up water to the dead for Jamis). However, as I stated earlier, the spirit of the book is still there. It is still fun to watch even after reading the books. There are a few changes made (for instance, it is completely different how Paul takes the water of life) but those changes are kept to a minimum (thank goodness).

Boy, I could list many, many things that I wish could have been there. I'm going to watch the newer (4.5 hour) version and I'm sure much will still be missing. However, I think it would take a 10 hour movie to get it all in there and then it would just come across as being extremely boring. So, for a 2 hour long movie I think this did a good bit of justice to the book.

Rating:
Summary: the worst sci/fi flick next to the Matrix
Review: I first saw previews of this film when I was 14, worms?, strange suits?, yes, yes, I had no idea that I would learn to appreciate the Herbert/Lynch realm. I then saw it a few years later and was totally blown away at what a wonderful and strange universe Lynch had created. I had never seen anything like it before and I was raised on a very sterile Star Wars. The mythology explored was fantastic. Each character had an individual notion and was strange, exotic and weird. This is a film I will remember forever. Great sets, great costumes, and the dialogue is sufficient to keep you interested. I liked the Mentats, the evil Harkoneens, the Sarkadaur were awesome! The space scenes were bizarre, the guild navigators from another universe! It goes on and on, in a believable world not of our own. No, you won't understand everything about it, but that is the good part, that your quest will take you to new levels. I read the book and all the sequels after this. Thank you Mr Lynch!

Rating:
Summary: "And how can this be?"
Review: (Please try to use your memory and your sense of humor when you read this review, thank you)

Well, how can this be that a sci-fi with (for the most part) mediorce FX and some truly atrocious acting be so good? I'll get to that after I get finished knocking it. First, I didn't really start liking Dune until the fourth or fifth time I watched it. The reason I watched it a 2nd, 3rd and 4th time was it looked really wierd the first time. For all the bad blue-screening (mostly on the worms) and unconvincing minatures and confusing and even sometimes silly battle sequences, this movie looks like it was not made on this planet or even in this galaxy. It still has that look even today.

Originally de Laurentiis gave the directoral assignment to Jodorowsky (El Topo) and he in turn hired Giger (Alien) to do the set design. When Lynch took over he didn't want another movie that looked like Alien and thus we get this completely different looking world. This made it interesting enough to keep coming back and put up with all the voice overs that for me confused the hell out of the narative in my initial viewing.

The only real narrative is Paul's(Kyle MacLachlan)who had just recently graduated from the Chris Sarandon Clenched Fist School of Acting. There is little middle ground in how the actors approach their characters, they either underplayed it or overplayed it. The casting though is very interesting. Zillions of characters, hardly any of them developed. For these reasons repeated viewings are almost essential for clarification. (I should clarify that I have never read the book) I do want to make special mention of Everett McGill as Stilgar. He makes every line he has stand out. (Only about six) The living embodiment of "there are no small parts, only small actors". His and the movie's closing lines are another reason I kept coming back enough times to get to the point that now I really dig almost everything about this movie.

Now for the good stuff. I've watched this movie probably ten times and I really like it. How can this be; for IT IS a good screenplay. That's what Lynch has always been really good at doing. Like the 'folding' of space, he folds and unfolds this story. It really doesn't have to be so convoluted but (in) that way it's much better at holding up to repeated viewings. I think I could watch it back to back right now and still be entertained through both viewings. And above all it looks really, really cool.

In conclusion, it's no 2001 but it's a hell of lot better than Star Wars and Lynch should be commended. But I would also like to see what kind of Dune Jodorowsky and Giger might have made. At least an intelligent attempt has been Dune and we can all be thankful for that.

Muad'Dib

Rating:
Summary: An eyeful of wonderful strangness... David Lynch style...
Review: As a reader of all the Dune books, I feel like I have enjoyed and suffered through the good and bad of the Dune saga (all 4 books); the best and the worst of Herbert. Seeing the movie was not a letdown for me after reading the books. The movie was an opprotunity to get together with friends and family to share recollections of the books; and delight in Lynch's fantastic interpretation of the of first book.