Rating: 
Summary: No net improvement over the 1984 version
Review: If the only purpose of this version of Dune was simply to be more faithful to the plot of the novel, more thorough, it may have succeeded there and only there. Otherwise, compared to the David Lynch version, its ersatz quality shows in the worst way. The David Lynch version was brilliant as a cinematic interpretation of the Herbert novel, operating on a level of artistic force and intensity evidently quite foreign to the new TV version. This new version comes off as a dull documentary by comparison. Yes the Lynch film took considerable liberties, and it remains the best film version for those who have not read the novel precisely because it inspires the viewer to read the book, whereas the same cannot said for the TV version. The Lynch version remains unchallenged in its interpretation of the characters, setting, costumes, and speech of the original epic. The Lynch Harkonnen, as the perverse postmodernist punks, the dark distant strangeness of the Bene Gesserit, the mysterious and desperate spacing guild (as well as the convincingly bizarre navigator), were all unforgettable in the original film. There was something curiously familiar in the the Lynch interpretation, an aesthetic for his time that makes it a good cult film candidate. It's in part because Lynch avoided the now familiar TV stereotype aliens (Star Trek, etc) that we will remember the original as a genuine contribution. The Sci-fi version unfortunately contributes nothing in these areas but instead relies on re-use of jejune TVland sets and outrageous, not to mention flamboyant fruitcake costumes, as well as adding a little corny populism to the screenplay.
Rating: 
Summary: Ruining a classic
Review: Though this version of Dune was more towards the book in many ways, it lacked in certain areas that the early movie version had contained. Mainly, the characters and actors in the original were much more satisfying than this version.
Rating:
Summary: The Chani Story
Review: Let me begin by saying that it has been quite some time since I have read the original Dune. This may be why the movie seemed so distant from the book to me. I must also say that I liked the Lynch version of the film. Those things said, here goes.
I don't remember the book being about Chani and Irulan. I can appreciate the modern need to portray women stronger, but these two were not the crux of the story. Irulan was barely mentioned short of the chapter intros in the book, but became the focal point and sacrificial lamb of the mini-series. I thought the story was about the rise of a messiah. Am I wrong? It seemed to me to that Paul was playing second fiddle (badly playing...). Paul was not a whiny brat, he was the duke to be, and acted as such. I must also agree that costuming was ridiculous. The lack of stillsuits was particularly annoying. Did Paul and Chani have two sons named Leto??? I feel stupid if they actually had a son that died in the book, but the only Leto II I remember was a twin and God Emperor. How can they do this? They tried to make you feel more sorry for Chani and demolished the story. This made me want to stop watching completely. I was also very frustrated by the comic book feel of the entire show. Baron Harkonnen comes across as a member of the Legion of Doom from Super Friends, rather than a sadistic, cruel dictator. Why can't anyone do this right? Where are all of the religious undercurrents and biblical allegories? Take my advise. If you don't like the Lynch, then just read the books. Use your imagination and Herbert's brilliance to get a great story rather than relying on half-hearted attempts at films to know this story.
Rating:
Summary: It's just unfilmable
Review: Im simply convinced that some works are literary genious should be left alone, such as Dune. This version is very poorly done. I compare this to the god awful 1997 TV remake of the Shining. I suspect Kubrick and Lynch had good laughs when they saw the supposed "new and improved" versions. After seeing these TV fiascos we realize why those guys are filmaking geniouses as being true to the book does not always mean a good film. Anyway, this is why I dont like this film:While true to the book, the director took a bit too much liberty in changing some of the dialog, for example- in the shield fight between Paul and Gurney, there is some childish reference to singing soprano after Gurney shows Paul the knife in Paul's groin area. I dont think Frank Herbert put that in the novel (i would know, I only read it four times...) as it is quite childish. And whats up with the sets? It's like every bad Star Trek set meets Star Wars meets Battlestar Galactica...the costumes are equally as bad. Frank Herbert must be turning in his grave right now looking at the atrocity that his series had become. This movie was like watching the filmed sequences to the Dune 2000 game for Playstation. And to be honest the special effects were much better on the Playstation. Most of the film looks like actors walking around in front of a blue screen, with the effects added later. The planets looked terrible, I think I could have done a better job with loose leaf paper and a crayon. Speaking of the Playstation game, at least John Rhys-Davies was in that and did a better job than the actors hired for this film. Which of course leads me to the casting. All I need to say about this is that the British guy from Ace Ventura 2 should NOT play Baron Harkonnen. Baron Harkonnen is one evil, deceitful SOB, and this guy looks like he's afraid to break a nail. Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I just cant believe what a joke the Dune name has become...its now a cheesy franchise like Star Wars and Star Trek. I normally am not so hard on a film, but if someone is going to film something as epic as Dune, they really need to have a huge budget and hire the best crew to do it. This version, while admittedly pretty close to the book, still does a poor job in bringing the Dune universe to life. Lynch's visual portrayal of the Dune world was much more in line with the book than this was. The best film version availabe of dune is the 3 hour uncut TV Alan Smithee (aka-David Lynch) version. One wonders, if they could combine most of this screenplay (minus some cheesy dialog) with Lynch's visual style it would be great. But I still think this story is unfilmable. Period.
Rating: 
Summary: Much better than the original.
Review: First of all, and to me perhaps the most important change of all, the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (sp?) lost the pulsing sores from the original. The original version of Dune was certainly not improved by that nauseating addition, and its deletion from the second work greatly enhanced the viewing experience.Second, Princess Irulan was more than a decoration, which, while not in line with the book, was fitting of the Bene Gesserit-trained heir to Shaddam IV's throne, and, while she wasn't a major character, the closing scene was perhaps one of the two or three best I've ever seen, on the big or the little screen.Third, Lady Jessica was shown as a much stronger character than she was in the original. This is more in line with the book series, and makes her a much more interesting character. In the original, she was shown as a whining, wilted flower, and in the books, she is far more strong and complex than that.Fourth, Duke Leto was much more subtle than he was in the original movie. I see this as an improvement as well, since the Atreides style of leadership is based more on finesse and inspiration than the almost Harkonnen-esque brashness shown by Jurgen Prochnow in the original movie. William Hurt's Duke Leto allowed his actions to speak for him and inspire his troops with their sheer nobility.Since I'm running out of space, I'll summarize the rest. Fifth, Paul Muad'dib was more human. Sixth, this version's Chani was more believeable as a desert dweller than Sean Young. Seventh, the Fremen had a much greater Middle-Eastern influence in their wardrobes and appearance. Finally, the music, effects, and sandworms were better.In short, this is much, much better than the original, and I rate it as the best, truest adaptation of a book in the history of film.
Rating: 
Summary: Very nicely done
Review: I like this miniseries much better than the movie from the 80's. I have read Dune twice, both versions new and old stray from the book. But I find this one much more appealing and interesting. When I try to play the older movie at home my wife is totally disgusted by much of Harkonen's actions (many of the disgusting segments weren't even in the book in the first place-like spitting on Lady Jessica's eye). In response to the previous reviewer who thinks that anyone who likes this new version is uneducated etc., who do you think you are? To imply that someone is uneducated because they like something that you do not is a truly uneducated remark. I only wish Mr. Herbert were still here to give us his opinion of this miniseries.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I don't know how many times I've read the Dune books - I know that I started on them before the '84 film, which I saw when it came out. So I'm no casual DUNE fan. This film has problems. They are mostly to do with Princess Irulan. In the first Dune novel she doesn't have much to do. In an attempt to 'modernize' her character the director created an absurd subplot for her, which true Dune fans will find justifiably offensive. An early scene into which she has been written in is quite good 'though - I like it. There are other faults too: the dialogue, when it strays from the Herbert text, is not good. Some of the costumes look silly, particularly in the last scene. Not all of the CGI is up to snuff - although some of it is truly wonderful, for a TV movie. Some smaller roles are played for laughs - not a good idea. The Mentat Piter does not have red lips - how could they MISS that ("know a Mentat by his red lips")?!!? Once again the Harkonnens are super-baddies - but not HALF as bad as in the Lynch film. What happened to CHOAM? Ok, those sound like a very bad faults - but, amazingly, they don't drag this film down. Why not? Because, beyond those faults is a film which takes DUNE seriously. The film is very slow paced, like the book. There are many scenes in which the characters merely talk, express themselves, communicate - the accumulated effect is novelistic, you feel something real for these characters. All the major roles, even Baron Harkonnen half the time, are played straight - this is NOT post-modern camp. The Fremen culture is potrayed very realistically. It sometimes has a documentary feel. Many ancillary characters are restored. Surely it's worth seeing the wonderful Pardot Kynes and the faithful yet insidious Fenring finally portrayed? Pardot is particularly excellent. Every "location", no matter the obvious budgetary restrictions, has a sense of "place" rife with detail, from the beautiful silk Kimonos of Giedi Prime to the rows and rows of antique books in Emperor Shaddam's study. Some things I really loved: 1) The opening sequence, moved from Caladan to the Atriedes starship. It has the feel of Stanley Kubrick's "2001" and excellent visuals, the Guild Navigator in particular. 2] The "interior" sets - the best I've ever seen on a television production. 3]The performances of Jessica, Chani, Emporer Shaddam, Pardot Kynes, and most of all Paul Atriedes. 4)Stilgar & Gurney - I like the entire cast of the '84 film, who all did great work (I don't like the film itself 'though) but I REALLY love the new Stilgar & Gurney! Real fighting men, but played sensitively. 5)SANDWORMS!!! These worms, while obviously low-fi digital, are marvellously designed & executed. They are truly awesome. 6)The Guildsmen - really great look & creepy performances to boot! Overall, even with it's faults, the new DUNE has an otherwordly feel, excellent character development (even Feyd-Rautha & Rabban, surpisingly), consistent, clean-looking FX, mostly good costumes and it follows the book about 70% of the time (how many adaptations can you say that about?). Give it a try - it is worth it.
Rating: 
Summary: A much appreciated effort.
Review: As some of my "colleagues" have said before, you can't expect Hollywood (or cable TV)to hit it on the head 100%. Changes are to be expected, as are omitions. Let's face it, this story is almost too big for any film or television portrayal. We just have to hope and pray that enough integrity is retained to make this incarnation worthwhile. Is is the science-fiction enthusiasts who cringe in fear when it is announced that our most beloved stories and characters will be represented on large or small screens. Too often we see the efforts come up short. Thus is our fate. To Hollywood, science fiction is more eye-candy than art. It's nice to see that the sci-fi cahnnel had their hearts in the right place with this one. The characters are competently performed. Chani and Stilgar shine. While I found the Baron more annoying than threatening, I appreciated that he was portrayed as a cunning strategist, than simply a babbling psychopath. A big thanks for bringing out the political drama. The Lynch movie was way too vague as to the reasons why the Atreides were being sent to Dune in the first place. Also, applause for returning the weirding way to it's original maifestation as a method, not a tangible weapon. And finally, the eye candy is delightful. Of course as CGI technology has progressed, it was only to be expected. The sandworms are outstanding. The blue-eyed effect is also much more striking.
Rating:
Summary: Lost Horizon
Review: I wonder why all the reviews on here say that this series is "fantastic, brilliant and compelling"? I bet that most of the people that wrote those reviews are A)under 14 years of age B)Lack Intelligence ie: MTV generation C)Sci Fi Geek-oids that cant admit this was pure crap. Expecting the best, fearing the worse, I waited almost one year for this series to come out. It wasn't worth the wait. This is probably the worse piece of garbage to come out on television pretending to be literary and related to Frank Herbert's masterpiece. Just as the "new Dune" books are pathetic & a disfavor to Herbert, so too this movie was. Why bother with all the hype, the lies of faithfulness, when in the end, its just another MTV series in great color with cool looking people who act tough but offer us nothing? It appeared as if it was a soap opera. I was reminded of how "fake" this rubbish was by noticing that not one of the actors was dirty, sweating or had their hair in disarray while on the planet Arrakis. Is this a desert planet that is "so" hostile or a studio? Obviously it was a studio because everything in it looked "fake", fake acting, fake sets, fake battles, fake dialogue. Can it be this movie is fake, you bet. Echewing any form of realism in favor of cheap action events in the vain of "Hercules, Xena, and Lexx, etc", it was more like a rich man's troubled dream. The most troubling part I have with the mini was the horribly weak characters that were portrayed. Characters so strong that they shape the entire universe to their wills in the book were shown as being weak and incompetent. Jessica denies thousands of years of breeding programs to offer her Duke what he wants in defiance of all the Bene Geserit training but she acts like a woman who couldn't even comb her hair without help here. Paul is a whining complaining child in this series, we expect him to lead the Fremen (He says to the Fremen that he can beat them all?)? The Bene Geserit looked like women at a party (nice costumes, I loved the flowery hats). The Guild was weak and seemed like morons in the sideshow (great hand moment, so freaky *yawn*). CHOAM wasn't even mentioned. The Mentats were completely forgotten. Even the worms weren't given the mystical quality they deserved, some special effects moron even gave them 'eyes', any student of biology knows that worms don't have eyes!! . There was no mythology in this series, it was empty of anything resembling magic or mysticism. The main point is that the characters were watered down so much that I didn't get any sense of power, evil, control or revenge. The actors were mediocre and just plain awful. They didn't understand the words that they uttered, most couldn't even utter them since they were from Europe. This was laughable throughout the series. Gurney looked like a bag of old rusted bones & yet he was hacking away at Sarkaduar warriors (which looked absurd in the Renaisance black hats, oh my, deadly cooks!). The battle scenes were implausible, here are the Fremen with 2 little daggers and they are murdering the Harkoneens & Sarkaduar who have las-guns, Maula pistols and projectile weapons? Please, are we so stupid? In that battle scene the 'thopter even dropped a few bombs in the middle of the fight. The Fremen looked awful, uninspired, and unrealistic as desert inhabitants, just like extras on the set. Look at the scene when they all stab the Beast Rabban, it was so staged. The costumes were silly! The list goes on and on...This was too much to watch. We demand something intelligent, but this is not it. GRADE 0 OUT OF 10...Save your money, have some sci-fi geek who thinks this was the best thing since Pasta to tape it for you.
Rating:
Summary: Sci-Fi's Best TV Movie/Mini-series ever!
Review: Although effects are not mind blowing(such as the first time we saw "Jurassic Park"), this mini-series shows what the Sci-Fi channel can achieve when it works for it. I started losing interest in Sci-Fi till this gem came along. Is it the best sci-fi movie ever? If you're a fan of epic sci-fi(which would include the book version of "Battlefield Earth"), yes. If you like action sci-fi, then check out "The Matrix". If you liked this movie you'll want to get the DVD edition since the video basically sucks with sound and picture quality. Dune may take a while to finish or a couple viewings to fully understand it, but if you're a fan of Frank Herbert's sci-fi masterpiece, you'll definitely want a copy of "Dune".
|
