Dune

Rating:
Summary: MacLachlan Rules the Worm, Controls the Spice
Review: This movie made me go out and buy the books back in '84 when I saw it in the theater. I've recently become appreciative of the often underrepresented MacLachlan, whose intense vocal inflections and screen presence magnify the special effects and intricate storyline. It's one of those flicks I can deal with repeatedly and easily resist boredom. You get caught up in the interplanetary conspiracy and political intrigue, even amongst the psychic Bene Gesserit witches. This movie goes beyond escape from reality, into a spiraling journey through timespace--without moving. No spice required.

Rating:
Summary: A popular misconception about the 'Alan Smithee' version...
Review: The TV version which Lynch disowned was LONGER, not shorter than the theatrical release, with much footage from the original five hour rough cut. For instance, instead of Irulan's opening prologue we get a much longer intro from an old man (don't know who). There are also scenes involving Gurney playing music, and scenes with Gurney and the Duke, plus the (disgusting)scene which details the distillation of the water of life. The footage was often badly acted and added nothing to the film, reportedly, and hence Lynch disowned it with the classic 'Alan Smithee' pseudonym.

Rating:
Summary: Flawed but provocative rendering of an SF Classic...
Review: It's an old showbiz maxim that one should always leave one's audience wanting more. By that standard, David Lynch's "Dune" should have been a spectacular success. By trying to tell this story in the time-span of a shortish feature film, Lynch has given us a tantalizing overview -- filled with fleeting situations and characterizations that were gone before I could grasp them.I've seen this film many times and keep wanting to see "the rest" of the story -- or at least every inch of film that got left on the cutting room floor.

Because, despite its flaws in coherence, this is gallant and often magnificent effort -- to my mind far more true to Herbert than the rather-too-glitzy miniseries. Just before the film's release in 1984, I read a detailed article on it in the now-defunct "SF" magazine. In the article, Lynch described his vision of Frank Herbert's "Dune" universe -- as an ancient and degenerate culture where innovation has stagnated and civilization is ruled by tradition, protocol and superstition. To realize this vision, he created an environment where everything -- buildings, clothes, technology -- is too heavy, too ornate, ponderous and overdone. Since the Guild Navigators can transport anything by "folding space", the ships don't have to be sleek and aerodynamic -- instead they're slow and unwieldy. The women's court clothes make Elizabethan garb look lightweight. There's a wonderful scene when Rev. Mother Gaius is leaving the reception room and I'll swear that her train and veil extend 20 feet behind her. The Navigator's travel tank looks like a cross between an Art Deco railroad car and a restaurant's lobster tank. All the machinery is oversized and clunky -- as it would be in a civilization that had fought a jihad to rid the universe of so-called "thinking machines."

Far from the centers of power, the world of Arrakis is life stripped down to its barest essentials. The fremen's appearance is what one would expect from people living on a harsh, waterless world where they've been hiding in subterranean compounds for millennia -- they're ragged and dirty. Only the stillsuits are whole, even these are dirty. The only bits of color and beauty they posses are their blue-within-blue eyes.

The only "world" where I thought Lynch's vision was offbase was House Harkonnen. The baron is a caricature of evil rather than the real thing -- disgusting to look at, but without the intelligence and guile to make him a truly dangerous adversary.

So many of the performances of this international cast are marvellous -- if only you got to see more of each one. Francesca Annis, Linda Hunt, Richard Jordan, Jurgen Prochnow, Sian Phillips, Dean Stockwell, Freddie Jones (Thufir Hawat)among others are all wonderful.

But to me the real standout is Kyle McLachlan. His portrayal of Paul Atreides combines a young man's impetuosity with the gravitas expected of the Atreides heir and that Something Else that makes his elevation to near godhood by the fremen eminently believable. And it is mainly the characterization of Paul in the miniseries that gives me the biggest problem -- maybe it's my age, but I just don't think spiky hair and an attitude problem a messiah make -- no matter how dazzling the sfx.

No, for me, this earlier film, with all its flaws, is as close to the "real" Dune as I think the film makers art can get. Unless of course, David Lynch were to do a re-edit to create a mini-series. I'm sure the footage exists -- I was lucky enough to see a director's cut on late night TV once (4+ hours) that nearly satisfied my craving for "more".

My recommendation? Read the book, then see this film. Then, if you like, watch the miniseries and then maybe read the book again. I think you'll agree that it is David Lynch, not the creators of the miniseries, who truly see "Dune" with Frank Herbert's eyes.

Rating:
Summary: A true-to-the-book attempt, just squashed
Review: The David Lynch movie version of Dune came out in 1984. This was the first time that the very famous Dune series by Frank Herbert had been adapted for screen, and legions of fans waited eagerly to see how it would work out. Many were thrilled, many were disappointed. It's only really now, with a 6 hour miniseries out on the same subject, that many people are viewing this movie attempt fairly.

First, the movie was only 2 hours and 17 minutes long. That's an incredibly short period of time for such a long, complex book. Even the six hour miniseries had to leave key scenes out and combine characters together. So any complaints about missing scenes or favorite characters has to take that into account.

Kyle MacLachlan is Paul Atreides, and Jurgen Prochnow (one of my *favorite* actors) is his father, Duke Leto. Some criticize the two for being non-emotional. If you read the series, however, you'll find that this is true to form. Neither of these men were ones to show how they felt. They were raised in the rough world of hard-core politics and daily death threats. The story of Dune is about Duke Leto's hardest time of a hard life - being forced to move to a planet he hates, to put his beloved wife and son directly into danger. Paul's life isn't much better. If anything, I give HUGE credit to the scriptwriters for keeping Paul intelligent and mature throughout the movie, just as he was in the book. The miniseries turns Paul into a sniveling, whiny brat and this drove me CRAZY. That was NOT Paul.

The backup actors are fantastic. You have Patrick Stewart (Captain Picard), Dean Stockwell, Sean Young, Linda Hunt, Jose Ferrer, and many others. They do a great job of trying to get a character across in the short time they have to do it in.

The visual style is very engaging. Their stillsuits look like STILLSUITS quite unlike the miniseries turning them into beachwear. The rich Gothic architecture really gives a sense that this culture has existed for thousands of years and has been taking advantage of the power it had.

At least one reviewer has said *incorrectly* that the DVD has scenes cut. In fact, the DVD is the exact same version as the theatrical release. There was a *TV* release that was severely cut to fit into TV-time, and Lynch hated that version so much he refused to allow his name to be put on it.

I admit that I used to be a critic of this movie. But seeing what others did to the content of this amazing book even with much more time to work with, I have to now admit that Lynch squashed an amazing amount of quality into his just-over-two-hours. I would recommend that anyone who finds the concept of Dune even slightly interesting to definitely READ THE BOOK and then watch the movie with that background in mind.

Rating:
Summary: See the Sci-fi Channel version instead.
Review: David Lynch's dune is a monumental mess. The novel's fabulous story is now incomprehensible, and the film's poor editing and unwise choice of scenes to adapt makes the film feel choppy and unfocused. The special effects are terrible, the idea of a weirding module is hilariously bad, and the battle scenes are so poorly filmed, you'd think you were watching an Italian spaghetti western (actually, it's arguable action scenes in those were better). So see the 2000 sci-fi channel rendition instead, which unfolds in a captivating, enthralling manner.

Rating:
Summary: missing links
Review: If you watched this movie when it was originally in theaters, you will be badly surprised with the number of deleted scenes and content without which it is impossible to draw a parallel with the original master piece - F. Herbert's book.

The DVD version of the movie is atrociously cut and it's hardly worth renting, let alone purchasing it.

Technically, the sound and picture are good enough - nothing about it could make the overall impression better.

In terms of characters, Alia's and Baron's personalities could have been worked out better, but in the whole context their appearance is equally mediocre.

The writer of this review watched all other versions of Dune and also read the original book - perhaps if the director had more saying, this (disappointment) would not have happened.

Rating:
Summary: surely not, perfect.... but still interesting to watch
Review: This movie, while it doesn't live up to the book's magnificance, is better in many ways than Harrison's series. Both adaptations have their good points and bad ones, but they're also complete opposites. If the good points of both films were put together, you'd have a damn near perfect Dune adaptation.

There isn't any one field to point out (audio, characters, acting, etc.) flaws in, because they all have contrasts. For example, the actress for Jessica was playing her beautifully. She's exactly how I imagined her and then some when I read the books. Paul, on the other hand, is much too old to be protraying a teenage kid. He also suffers from that 80's Hair Mop syndrome that was popular back then (a lot of the characters did, actually. They should have changed the styles for the characters).

The next flaw is the music. Toto?? Come ON already. The composed music was actually not bad at all... the Harkonnen themes were supportively eerie sounding. But the Wormride sequence music was just.... blech.

While the costumes were generally on target, the Stillsuits looked ridiculous. I guess they tried to make them look less primitive and more high-tech. The Stillsuits are supposed to have hoods, cloaks and full face masks, not hospital nose-tubes. The cloaks are supposed to help the Fremen blend in with their environment. The black ones make them look like a herd of...hospital life support escapees wearing 80's mops and tight black jumpsuits.

While the Harkonnens were rather...... interesting, they didn't match up to the book. But for some reason I found the Baron entertaining to watch. His antics gave off a good sense of psychotic atmosphere, and the Baron was definitely supposed to be psychotic. But he wasn't supposed to be a naked, flying fat man covered in fungus. I liked Harrison's version a bit better. They appeared more sophistocated, but in a deadly way. This is how they were meant to appear. Picture a combination of Romans' sophistocated brutality and dark, industrial machinery. This would be the Harkonnens as Herbert intended. And the HEARTPLUGS?? Don't get me started on those... they were a bad idea from the start. Herbert himself even agreed! I'm glad Harrison left them out.

And Alia... oooh man she was just CREEPY. I mean, sure she was supposed to be intimidating, but in a POWERFUL sense! Not in a Stephen King sense! She actually would have done fine, if they just used HER voice intead of that shrill, overdone voice-over.

"with many Fremen waaaariorrrrrs!" This line of dialog made me shiver, it sounded so weird....

Well the bottom line is that the movie isn't up to par with the book, but then again, Harrison's isn't much better.... if you REALLY have to pick one of these (I don't recommend either one, really), i'd go with Harrison's version. At least it's more complete and is less obscure in it's storytelling than this one is.

Rating:
Summary: don't be misled
Review: Sorry to all those who are eagerly awaiting the 4 hour version of Dune, but having a copy of both versions I can say without reservation that the theatrical version is vastly superior (and to those who suggest that anyone who says they have the extended version is either lying or they taped it from tv - send me an e-mail and I can provide the production details from the DVD case to you: you can contact the distributor yourself).
I disagree with those who say it strays from Frank Herbert's vision of Dune: it is suitably dark and full of atmosphere.
Yes, it is complex and, being so ambitious, it is at times difficult to understand - for those not familiar with Dune - but not impossible (and for me it was reason to read the book in the first place).
The production and sound qualities are first rate. If you have a good surround sound system then the DTS sound is sure to impress (or even a good stereo system will do the trick) - to me it is what makes this movie so powerful.

The extended version - here in Australia at least - is only in mono sound. In addition it is an "Alan Smithee" production, meaning that David Lynch wanted nothing to do with the butchered end product. It is not, repeat, NOT a Director's Cut, and boy does it show. Stock scenes are used again and again, and very crudely inserted in an attempt to add more detailed story telling. Even the Guild Navigator's voice has been redubbed, and lacks the threatening undertones which make it so ominous in the theatrical release.
The extended version was crudely put together to satisfy a television audience, and relies on an overkill of exposition.
So...if you want a good movie with high quality sound and picture, then buy the theatrical version!!
(PS the miniseries is equally enjoyable - just a different interpretation of a very complex story. A valid comparison of the two is difficult and ultimately futile: just approach them with an open mind and you should be able to enjoy both!).

Rating:
Summary: Why does it say David Lynch then Alan Smithee? I'll tell ya!
Review: A beginning is a very delicate time. In 1984, the long awaited film version of Frank Herbert's epic novel Dune came to the silver screen. What happened next? The worst box office disaster in history! Sad to say it, but mostly everyone who saw Dune hated it except for the few who actually read the book! I've always loved this movie but if I ever said that in public I was usually beaten with large rocks or a baseball bat. This review isn't really about the story of the film or it's direction. Its about the confusing truth of their actually being two editions of the 1984 film version of dune.

Now here is where the entire true purpose to this review comes in. Many may wonder, "why was I watching this on Sci-Fi channel and the director was Alan Smithee instead of David Lynch?" Well little Jimmy, the answer is complicated. David Lynch knew when he made Dune he was in trouble and cut the film down incredibly to make it fit the desired time limit. Lynch was slightly pleased with this cut of the film and hoped that that would be the last he would have to do with it... Wrong!

A few years when Dune finally was on TV, a special edition version was prepared containing an HOUR of extra footage. A new narration covers the film and practically spells out every bit of information to the audience this time. The studios were ready to show it when suddenly David Lynch says "Woa woa, I liked it the way it was!" and refuses to have credit for this new longer version. The studio then takes out Lynch's name and replaces it with the fake Alan Smithee who doesn't exist. With me so far?

The version of Dune available on DVD and VHS is the David Lynch version which in my opinion actually works better than the longer version. It cuts to the chase and doesn't drag as badly as Smithee's version does. For those of you who have never seen the Alan Smithee version, its not available to buy but it's shown on the Sci-Fi channel twice a year so there you go!

So, even though critics bombed it, audiences hated it, and David Lynch disowned the longer version, I still love this movie for some mysterious reason! If you're the type who likes weird artistic movies like 12 Monkeys, 2001, or Blade Runner, you will probably enjoy this. Also anime fans, this is right up your alley! For all you other people, get the hell out of here!

p.s. Toto's score is a masterpiece! Yea... of all bands... Toto...

Rating:
Summary: Get the Sci-Fi Remake, for your own sake!!!
Review: David Lynch killed the mystical world that Frank Herbert created. It diverts so much from the wonderfull book, that most of the plot is lost, and the rest is a botched attempt. So many things are left out that are key elements to characterization, that if you havent read the book, you have only a shallow idea of what is going on. But if you have read the book and then watch this, then you are disgusted. The sci-fi remake is well worth your money, and sticks to the book for the most part, making it a worthy version of Frank Herberts epic.