Rating: 
Summary: A Better Dune Than '84
Review: I don't understand why people don't like this series. It is more accurate to the novel (unlike the intentionally weird David Lynch version). OK Paul wasn't a whiney teen in the novel, but I think this is a better way because it shows how he was as the Duke's son, then how he matures into the prophet Muad'Dib. I thought the preformances were great, espically Ian McNeice as the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen. William Hurt, despite other people's objections was perfect as Duke Leto Atreides. He displayed a sort of unwilling leader who was caught in a massive plot against his family. This is a movie rich with plot, action, and suspense. It is definitely in my DVD collection and I'd also recomend it for people who like a good story (Basic plot: House Atreides is thrown out of power by House Harkonnen, Paul and Jessica (the son and concubine of Duke Leto) survive and are adopted by the native Fremem people, Paul becomes the Fremen prophet of legened and leads the Fremen to take their planet from the Harkonnen) This is one of the greatest novels of all time and in my opinion one of the best DVD's. So give this a try and watch it. I also recomend the sequel, Children of Dune.
Rating: 
Summary: Could have done better
Review: I was very disappointed in this version. The book is very complicated to be sure, and making a movie of it is not an easy task, but that does not excuse the lack of depth of this movie. Despite being more than twice as long as Lynch's version of Dune, the percentage of the total story showed is actually less. Some of the most dramatic and important lines are left out to no apparently good reason ("They tried and failed? No, they tried and died.") They would touch on subjects and neglect to add the one or two lines that would have explained it fully. The changes they made to the storyline had no purpose and added nothing (such as their emphasis on Princess Irulan, who they featured heavily for no apparent reason). They made a decision not to show us the thoughts of the characters (a major part of the total depth of the book) which would have been a OK if they had added dialogue to make up for it, but they just threw all that information away instead. It was decently acted, and the cinematogrophy was quite good at times, though the special effects were unsually poor (that mouse looked straight out of a Pokemon cartoon). All in all I have to say I am somewhat unhappy I spent money on it. Read the book, or get Lynch's film (which has its own problems but on the whole was better.)
Rating:
Summary: Well worth the price and time.
Review: I enjoyed this movie and I'm a fan of the books. Too many people get tied up in "It really didn't represent what Herbert wanted." The movie, as Lynch's version was an interpitation of the books and story. This Director's Cut was amazing. Provided a few more hours of intresting segments and interviews. Buy this DVD with the Children of Dune for the complete trilogy.
Rating: 
Summary: Stunk, read the book instead
Review: After struggling to watch the first three hours I couldn't find the strength in me to finish off the last hour and a half. Although it followed the story line pretty well it didn't seem to really connect well (for example Paul had no real transition from a 15 year old kid to Muad'dib--just happened) This was a very poor adaptation of Herbert's masterpiece, read the book and you will know what I mean. This seemed more like an after-school special effort than an epic sci-fi movie. I was also disappointed with enormous amounts of "skin" that they put into the movie. David Lynch's 1984 version (although quite strange like all David Lynch movies) was much better. There were great acting performances in Lynch's version. This version seemed over-acted and half-hearted all at the same time
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as it could have been...
Review: Given the rather low budget the producers were able to gather, this is a solid movie. Unlike the movie from the 1980's, this is true to the book; as opposed to some contrived melodrama pulled out of some sick sad individual's mind. Like a good book adaption should, this movie conveys a number of idea's that a reader of the book may not grasp; such as what the worm's physical appearance is (which is pivotal to understand how remarkable the fremen are), the actual physical appearance of the fremen (the blue eyes and the like), and how grotesque the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen truly is (ideologically, and in appearance), so basically, it gives a person a physical model for what they read in the book. However, I'm rather disappointed the producers felt the need to shell out big bucks to bring in a "name" actor like William Hurt. Assuming he's a method actor, I don't think he took nearly enough to prepare for his role as the Duke Leto. And if he's not a method actor, he's obviously like one of the "name" wrestlers from the 80's & 90's, that independent wrestling promotions bring in, such as the Road Warriors & The Road Dogg Jesse James, who no longer care about the matches themself, and judging from their physical appearance, no longer care about entertaining fans, but only care about the money. One can deduce from the book, that the Duke Leto was a charismatic man, who had an optimistic perspective in regard to the planet Arrakis. And if one is to presume Hurt actually read the book (which is a dubious presumption to begin with), then he totally missed the motivation for the Duke Leto character. A solid analogy for Hurt's misrepresentation of the Duke Leto character, is Richard Burton's portrayal of Leon Trotsky, in the "Assasination of Trotsky"; an actor just going through-the-motions, so to speak, and taking money for a role he apparently has no interest in playing. I mean seriously, Hurt probably amassed six-figures for this role, six-figures they could have used to increase the production value of the movie; the movie appears to have been filmed in some sort of performing arts center, kind of like a Broadway play; just a little more elaborate. Aside from the infuriating presence of a prima donna actor, who has no interest in the Dune universe, the performances were top notch. I have no complaint on how the other characters were portrayed... So I would indeed recommend you purchase this movie; but I'd also recommend you try and weather Hurt's blatant misrepresentation of the Duke Leto, and watch the rest of the movie; which isn't exactly Braveheart or Gladiator, but it's not the Thin Red Line either (which is to say it's not great, but it's not total cinematic garbage either).
Rating:
Summary: Hated it!
Review: I absolutely hated this Sci-Fi Channel's version of Dune. The weird lighting and camera angles reminded me of the cinematography used in the old Batman series. The characters were difficult to understand because of the terrible accents they used. I disliked the portrayal of the young Paul as a whining spoiled brat...so unlike the character described by Herbert in the novel. The portayal of Paul's testing by the Reverend Mother was so misrepresented as to miss the whole point of the event. The portrayal of Jessica as weak and transparent was terrible. The changes in Irulan's character disguised her true evil and made her appear to have Paul's best interest at heart. Read the books instead!
Rating:
Summary: Delve into the world of faith against tyranny
Review: John Harrison, in this long tape (four hours), manages to get the main atmosphere and the essential developments of the book by Frank Herbert. He puts a strong emphasis on the details about the various families, the connections between them and of course the Fremens. He is very careful to depict with enough details the political situation among the families, the emperor, the Guild of the various merchants, the smugglers on Dune itself, the clans, the religion and the tribal rules of the Fremens, and the various nodal points of the plot. We thus learn essential details like the fact that Paul Muad'dib is the nephew of Baron Harkonnen, through his mother, and so on. This is the main difference with David Lynch's Dune. While David Lynch puts a very visible emphasis on the rotting and rotten elements of these families and this situation, particularly the Baron of course, but also the total moral decay of the empire, John Harrison tries to give a fully believable version, hence the details that make this complex situation intellectually acceptable, in a way logical, even if it is the logic of rotten []motivations. This procedure hence gives a fully developed image of the Fremens and how then can be considered as desert power. Less extravagant and magical elements are used, more realistic elements are put forward. The shift that Paul undergoes in the consciousness of the Fremens from Paul Muad'dib, one more potential clan chief, to their Duke, that is the uncontested leader of all the tribes without having to challenge or accept the challenges from the various tribal chiefs is shown clearly as the acceptance to consider him as being over their tribal rules and at the same time as being invested with a higher religious value that explains this acceptation. He becomes some kind of living god and thus he no longer is of the same nature as the other tribal chiefs. This is very well shown. The common point between this version of Dune and David Lynch's is that both directors refuse to overuse special effects. They are quite limited in scope and dramatic force. They only come into the picture when it is absolutely necessary to show something that is invisible, like the visions and hallucinations Paul experiences after he has drunk the water of life. John Harrison is thus able to concentrate on human motivations, just like David Lynch was able to concentrate on human rotteness and decay. The two adaptations are not competitors. They are just different and both can be enjoyed. John Harrison's version is definitely fascinating in its exploration of human motivations and concrete events within the plot. The final marriage with the emperor's daughter is absolutely perfectly understandable as a political act though it may look like the negation of Paul's love for his Fremen concubine, and yet it does not compete with this love. This marriage just becomes a political alliance and arrangement that will forever remain on paper and will never be carnally fulfilled. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Perpignan.
Rating:
Summary: Not perfect, but best so far
Review: If you love Dune, see this miniseries. If you don't have time to read the book, get this movie. It is truer to the spirit and the letter of the novel than the David Lynch version, and it clearly explains the story to the newbie "layperson." Throughout, I kept having to remind myself I was not on Broadway or the West End watching one of their fine plays because of the well-scripted dialogue and the sets. My only troubles were the uninspired battle scenes--boring, boring, boring--and some of the acting. The actor who played Gurney Halleck was a letdown, for example. Lady Jessica reminded me of Diane on Cheers. Paul sometimes got a little whiny. But I loved what the director did with Princess Irulan's character--fleshed it out and made her an integral part of the story, all in keeping with Herbert's vision. Baron Harkonnen virtually stole the show. For us fans of the novel, no movie will ever be good enough because the theater of your imagination will always be clearer, sharper, and better cast than the one on your tv screen. With that in mind, watch this film and you'll enjoy it despite its flaws.
Rating:
Summary: WOW!
Review: This scifi miniseries epic is an amazing production. It is a must see, even if you've never read the book. It is visually stunning, and the cast is amazing.
Rating: 
Summary: How Perfect Do You Want It to Be?
Review: Idiocy, pure idiocy. Some folks seem to think that since they have read the book that they are authorities on how to translate the book into screen. IT IS DIFFICULT! The Lord of the Rings crowd falls into the same trap. You cannot make a perfect adaptation. The screenwriters and directors have their own versions of the characters and events in the novel. Sometimes they have to add new aspects, give other characters more purpose in the narrative. The medium requires adaptation and adaptation requires addition and subtraction. What you think is important may not be what the screenwriter thinks is important. We all read the book and get different messages.
This version of Dune, being almost 5 hours long total is about as thorough as one can achieve on the screen. To fit everything Herbert wrote in the book would require two or three seasons of episodes. The screenwriter took shortcuts in places that were completely excusable. Ultimately, this tells the story. The actors are cast well and achieve what the screenwriter intended, though it might not be exactly what Herbert intended. Yet Herbert's spirit is still alive.
For those who criticize the acting and fight scenes, why don't you watch the last few science fiction epics that have come out on screen and then make judgments (you know what I'm talking about you Yoda ...) The special effects were also formidable for a TV series. It was pretty inexpensive CGI, but it achieved as well as the ... CGI we see in many modern sci fi films.
This was a good screen adaptation of a great book. If you would let yourself enjoy the film instead of entering it with a checklist of nitpicking factors, you would like it. Be open to other people's interpretations and don't enter the experience ready to point out every aspect that doesn't conform to your own vision. If you can do better, start writing your screenplay.
|
