IMDb user comments for
"Dune" (2000) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 25:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

250 comments in total

---

43 out of 59 people found the following comment useful :-
spare, slow moving, engrossing adaptation, 4 December 2000

Author: L. Lion (laughing_lion@yahoo.com) from Los Angeles

I consider Frank Herbert's "Dune" to be the greatest science fiction novel of all time. Others would disagree, but they would have to admit that it is up there, even if it isn't their #1. I'm not talking about the whole book series, I'm just talking about the original novel. So I'm a serious fan of the material.

The 1984 film adaptation was an abortion. The depth of this novel cannot be conveyed in a two hour film, and David Lynch was badly undercut by the producers, who changed things to match their own desires. In its defense, however, it contained very high production values, lavish production design, a stellar cast, and much incredible visual imagery that sticks in the mind. If you can just try to forget that rain falls on Arrakis at the end (without reason), the rock group Toto's score, the ridiculous and distracting attempt to allow the characters' inner monologues be heard on screen, and the truncation of many plot elements, you can stand it. If you don't know the novel at all, you could be lost.

John Harrison's new adaptation takes the breadth and depth of the book and really makes a go of it. He slowly unfurls the intrigues and action of the novel, allowing character to be built and introducing the nuances of the novel, sometimes in clever ways, at other times not so subtly. One gets the feeling when watching that Harrison really cares about the source material, and wants the viewer to be included in its richness. This causes it to be slow moving at times, but it becomes more and more engrossing as time goes on. For many elements of the film his production designers, who did a first rate job, borrowed heavily from the 1984 Lynch adaptation, especially in their portrayal of the Harkonnens, who are comic-book villains again without a dash of dangerous cunning. In other cases I was thrilled by Harrison's renderings - of the Fremen sietches, much more livable than in the book, and the scenes where Jessica becomes a Reverend Mother. I don't feel gypped by this adaptation - it feels proper.

The movie is hamstrung a bit by a lack of budget - considering the subject matter, $20 million for six hours isn't much, and every penny and then some is there on the screen. He makes do by using a lot of international actors, and filming in Prague and Tunisia had to help. The special effects are for the most part CGI and bluescreen and are very effective for the money spent. Production design is EXCELLENT, especially when reminded of the total outlay for the film.

The calibre of the cast in the first film was so high that they pose a hard mount for any followers to climb. The only one who is clearly better is William Hurt in the expanded role of Duke Leto, as opposed to Jurgen Prochnow in the original. Alec Newman is fairly new to the screen and was a bit old, and not self-absorbed enough, to play Paul as well as Kyle Maclachlan did in 1984, but he has developing charisma and his performance at times radiates Muad'Dib's complexity. Saskia Reeves is good as Lady Jessica, but once you've fallen in love with Francesca Annis as Jessica it would be hard for anyone to replace her. Of course the original's Patrick Stewart as Gurney Halleck, Dean Stockwell as Yueh and Freddie Jones as Thufir Hawat are insurmountable, regardless of the brevity of their roles. I rather liked the Scottish Duncan Idaho, although I don't know if his brogue will hold up well in the potential sequels.

The nicest thing, for a fan of the book, is to see so many of the great scenes of the novel finally brought to the screen that could not be included in the two-hour film. These add a depth to the proceedings that was only hinted at in the 1984 adaptation. I am thoroughly enjoying this adaptation, and hope that the expanded Lord of the Rings that will be released theatrically will have as much care as this one did.

---

26 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
Close, but not perfect, 3 July 2004

Author: Jennifer Ray (nashjar) from Nashville, Tennessee

I've seen and own both this version and the original movie version. I have to say there are things I like better about each movie. The mini-series version has much more time in which to tell this very complicated story. However, the writers seem to have felt the need to invent story lines that do not exist in the Frank Herbert books (i.e. Irulan's affair with Feyd). I did enjoy that Irulan had more of a presence in this movie, and I prefer the overall look of this film (the ruddiness reminding more of an arid desert than the cold greyishness of the original movie). I much prefer the miniseries interpretation of what the 'Weirding Way' is, showing it as a technique rather than a device. However, I miss the 'though-overs' from the original movie, and I thought Sting played a much better Feyd. A true Dune fan will need to see both movies...

---

38 out of 59 people found the following comment useful :-
If only movies had spliceable DNA as well as frames..., 4 December 2000

Author: Christopher T. Chase (cchase@onebox.com) from Arlington, VA.

I was wondering if I needed to wait until viewing the entire mini-series version of Frank Herbert's seminal science fiction classic, but now having seen Part One, I know that won't be necessary.

How I wish there were some way to extract the charisma of the movie's cast, and somehow meld it with the production values and plotline of the new version. That way, fans of this sprawling allegorical tale could have the best of both worlds. Not that there aren't admirable things about both versions.

Where the magnificent photography of the late, great Freddie Francis served well David Lynch's more ethereal tendencies in the 1984 version, Vittorio Storaro's cleaner, clearer images for Harrison's miniseries could very well be a metaphorical reflection of the ever-expanding vision of its hero, young Paul Atreides (nee Paul Mu'ad D'ib.) The production design of both films is lavish, but where Lynch's film gave locations and accoutrements a more lived-in look, the mini's similar designs, though equally accurate by the novel's standards, reflect that antiseptic cleanliness that we are learning to recognize more and more with the advent of digital technology and its application to cinematic visual techniques.

With a few exceptions, the casting and therefore the subsequent performances are just as clean and clear-cut, dispensing with some of the character's humanity in exchange for the original's hystrionics of its more memorable characters.

Where Kenneth McMillan's unredeemably repulsive yet completely unforgettable Baron Harkonnen was the apex of pustulant, corpulent evil, Ian McNeice's version comes off as daintily perturbed, as if the most upsetting event in his worldview is not being served tea on time. William Hurt and Saskia Reeves capture the confident, manor-bred mantles of Duke Leto and the Lady Jessica accurately enough, but gone are the sorrowful grace of Jurgen Prochnow and the stunning Francesca Annis, whose relationship seemed tinged with the inescapable taint of a prophecy waiting to be fulfilled, and the damned, doomed parts they both played in its unfolding.

The rest of the cast, though gamely essaying their roles to the best of their ability, could hardly hope to match the powerhouse ensemble assembled by Italian mega-mogul Dino de Laurentis. For years, David Lynch was wrongfully assigned the blame for butchering his own film, when buffs everywhere know that he suffered through the ham-handed, studio-supervised editing of what should've been a landmark of science-fiction filmmaking, similar to what Terry Gilliam would endure at the same studio with BRAZIL.

Further insult was added to the injury when a four-hour cut was assembled by Universal for the TV version, which Lynch promptly removed his name from, (hence the traditional "Smithee" credit for direction, and the writing by "Judas Booth.")

While it is a splendid example of how CGI and other visual technological developments are making it possible for filmmakers to maintain accuracy and a truth to tell those stories it would've been impossible to film over a decade ago, (and for about half the cost), I for one do miss the star power and (at least) some of the remarkable acting in the Lynch version. I suspect where more money was spent on securing stars in '84 than for the sets and costume designs, the exact opposite is true for the new miniseries.

New and old fans of the tale should view and enjoy the latest version for the visuals, then go back and review the movie for the Lynchian touch, which in some odd but affecting ways came closer to Herbert's underlying messages of mysticism, miracles and seizing one's destiny than the Harrison version. In any case, you can come away with some elements of the best of both DUNE worlds.

---

32 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
Guilty Pleasures, 25 June 2001
Author: Ulrich Fehlauer (schogger13@aol.com) from Lemgo / Germany

First, a small catalog of guidelines for the 3 main types of viewers, and what they can expect from this mini series.

Type One: The Dunatics. For them, nothing can match up to the gospel according to Frank Herbert, so, choices are reduced to 2. Either make allowances towards both limitations and possibilities of the TV format to encounter the new and frivolous concept of fun, or refuse to watch this on the premise that any cinematic adaptation short of congeniality amounts to blasphemy by nature.

Type Two: The Lynch Mob. For them, the 84 adaptation justifies making allowances towards the novel by sheer impact of Lynch's surely unique, but also highly controversial vision - sometimes even questionable, where both Herbert and Lynch share an uncomfortable leaning towards social Darwinism and Riefenstahl-type aesthetics/ideals of 'Uebermensch' and 'Untermensch', sometimes even drifting into fascist cyphers. Noble savages versus the pit full of rotting (and of course 'sexually depraved', by showing the 'classic' negatively coded combination of cruelty and latent/outright homosexuality in men, and deception/treachery and offensive sexuality in women) carcass of the old and degenerated system of the imperial hierarchy. But the belief in 'higher breeding' (birthright of leadership/superiority) transcends both and is never put in question - not even by our 'hero' after the real necessity of a political marriage was gone. Recommendation: Watch Dune 2000. With a certain selective view applied, it'll serve as a welcome spare parts depot for their thesis that the 84 movie casts a shadow which can't be shed by any future attempt. Visually, this new version has enough thinly disguised 'Lynchisms' to justify a gloat session.

Type Three: The Players. They are the least dogmatic section of viewers, first and foremost on the look-out for 5 hours of 'other-worldly' atmosphere and storytelling beyond the mind-numbing standards of SF TV. Recommendation: Have fun and a few good 'goosebump moments' beyond mere popcorn TV.

General aspects:

Looks Let's face it, this one is split. The photography, costumes (matter of taste) and the built sets are excellent but highly individual. One either loves or hates it. On the whole, it looks more like a Visconti epic than Hollywood coded SF. CGI, backdrops, matte paintings and 'outdoor' studio sets, on the other hand, are so unbelievably clumsy and unprofessional that they can easily spoil the whole thing if one isn't capable of blotting them out of one's prime perception. The budget is no excuse. Half a crew from the minimal budget wizards on Farscape would've finished classes above this shambles.

Script This is far better than most give it credit. It has flaws, but they derive mostly from particular expectations of the Dunatics or the Lynch Mob. They tried to loose a bit of the extremely sterile and formalized dialogue from the books and the 84 movie - sometimes going overboard by making them talk too '90's casual' - but on the whole achieving a good compromise between Herbert's and Lynch's extremely artificial diction and something that could be recognized as 'normal' talk in such a highly ritualized environment. On the whole, they stayed closer to the book than the Lynch version, but messed up on a few small but sometimes vital details without an apparent reason. That's of no consequence for those who haven't read the original, but a pity, nonetheless in some cases, especially the lame portrayal of the Fremen. (significance of water in all its aspects)

Acting A mixed bag, here, but mainly due to the 90's approach to characterization/diction rather than bad acting. That sometimes backfires heavily, especially in the case of the lead. The whole concept - no matter how 'updated' it's supposed to be - hinges on a rather simple but nonetheless vital construct of a messiah. So, first requirement is to emanate something 'beyond' a mere character. Messiahs are NEVER characters. They are cyphers to carry and focus ideals no mortal could match up to. Herbert's Paul has at least to function/convince as a kind of Jesus with a pump action to inspire massive battles for the greater good. In that, Alec Newman fails almost completely. Half of that is down to a simple lack of presence, and the other half to Harrison's direction. Granted, Newman portrays a more 'real' person than McLachlan's aseptic and super moralistic uber-noble, but that is the last thing required for such a role. The actor who played Gurney, though, was a total wash-out and shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath with Stewart's interpretation. But there, the pit is already reached. Most other performances range from adequate to good (in the case of non English speaking actors sometimes hampered by the sheer inability to give life to the words beyond mere translation..., with one notable and no less than exquisite exeption)

The acting highlight is set by Ian McNeice's Baron. This is the real gem of the whole piece - and most likely to be hated by both Dunatics and the Lynch Mob. He gives an outrageous Baron! Pure ham, brilliantly constructed to bypass the extremely limited and one-dimensional boundaries of that character set by Herbert & Lynch, like acid, skilfully sprinkled over the plump exterior to outline the hidden and multi-layered menace and the REAL danger. For the first time, one can really see the magnitude and cunning of the Baron's long-term agenda. At the same time McNeice splashes the character's homosexuality at the screen like a paint bomb, thereby totally disconnecting it from his evilness. This Baron is an evil man who merely HAPPENS to be a homosexual. Here, his sexuality is his only Achilles heel - his 'weak' spot amongst ppl who use exactly that to bring him down. An absolutely brilliant acting twist to de-cloak the nature of the co-existing true evil in the same person. And McNeice's Baron doesn't only say he's intelligent and downright exceptional in his scheming skills. He proves it more than once against a whole menagerie of 'allies' constantly underestimating him.

---

27 out of 41 people found the following comment useful :-
A terrific adaptation of an epic tale., 10 March 2003
Author: Li-1

8.5 out of 10

The Sci-Fi Channel's production of Frank Herbert's Dune is a vast epic tale bristling with adventure, romance, and political intrigue. It's an epic saga that's faithfully told, staying true to its source material with well-developed characters and an engrossing plot that's complex, yet entirely comprehensible. Most importantly, it's a miniseries that's extremely enjoyable to watch; this isn't an example of slow pretension, but rather a spirited and rousing adventure. Running at nearly 5 hours, the production is always a lot of fun to watch, and never flags in pacing or momentum.

The cast is a success, particularly lead Alec Newman as Paul Atreides. In the miniseries most crucial role, Newman finds most of the right nuances and emotional complexities of the character. Saskia Reeves delivers the series' best performance as Lady Jessica, a role full of warmth and heart. It's a pity Reeves won't return for Children of Dune, but Alice Krige is a superb actress in her own right. The villains of the piece are equally magnetic. Ian Mcniece is a menacingly cunning Baron Harkonnen, while Matt Keeslar makes for an imposing Feyd Rautha. In other important roles, William Hurt, P.H. Moriarty, and Julie Cox acquit themselves admirably. The only weak performer is Barbara Kodetova, who's annoying as Chani, lacking the strength and conviction we expect from the part.

Dune is a spectacular production, aided by some of the best interior sets on screen to date. The CGI effects are excellent, given the budgetary limitations, and the giant sandworms stand out, especially in their awe-inspiring first appearance. The miniseries has a lavish, gorgeous look to it (courtesy of cinemtographer Vittorio Storraro), wisely separating it from its lacking predecessor (the Lynch disaster). Writer/director John Harrison achieves tight pacing through superb editing and storytelling. He also does a fine job delivering rousing action sequences, the knife fights are dynamic and the epic battle scenes are fast-paced and exciting. I'm certain there will still be discontent Herbert fans, but I found this a fully satisfying miniseries on almost all counts.

---

18 out of 26 people found the following comment useful :-
Superb. Even my non-sci-fi wife was captivated., 7 July 2001
Author: nz man from New Zealand

The comments immediately below from Germany sum up how you will find this film. All I can add is that last night while my wife was sleeping when I put this film in the VCR, she woke up and enjoyed watching this film. This surprised me since she is not into sci-fi films. We found the acting, script, sets and costumes were excellent, and this comes from a couple in their early 50's who can be quite critical of films. See it and enjoy - just keep in mind it is not the usual thin Hollywood story but is from one of the great writers of last century.

---

20 out of 32 people found the following comment useful :-
Almost there..., 5 August 2002
Author: hpeg from London, UK

I've read the Dune books about a dozen times and I have also watched the 1984 movie a few times, and, while it had good ideas, it didn't thrill me. So I decided to give this mini series a try.

The first time I watched it I switched off after hearing Lady Jessica use the Voice for the first time. I disliked the 'spatializer' effects in the movie, and I didn't like them in the series. Months later I decided to give it another try.

I was quite astonished. The series has lots of very strong points.

The Fremen sietches have a very arabian feel to them, just the way they were intended in the books. Having lots of foreign actors added to the overall feel of a universe populated by a race that has split out into different planets. Of course, everyone would speak Galach with their own accent.

The passage to Arrakis is very unique in its approach to the navigators and their skills and I really liked the idea.

Unfortunately it had a few downright flops.

Paul should have been replaced. He is too old, he is too plain and he is way too 2 dimensional. The dream sequences are too unconvincing.

The Voice. It hardly appears in the series, and it's badly done. Trying to copy from the movie as a poor idea. I would have preferred a normal tone of voice, maybe some underlying sound effects and extremely voice trained actors who can snap out harsh commands unexpectedly and at will. The complete denaturalisation the spatializer gives the voice just makes me cringe.

What spoilt it even more was knowing the movie and then watching the series. You find yourself longing for the original Gurney, Leto, Feyd and Paul. Fortunately, you also adore the new Dr Kynes, Chani and Baron Harkonnen.

Finally, as was expected in any adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel that is shorter than 12 hours, I found myself explaining parts of what was going on to my friend, who hadn't read the book.

Overall, it is an excellent series, one to watch and one to buy. It is not perfect, but it is almost there.

Hints for future producers: Skip the spatializer, exploit the arabian and islamic Fremen theme, less technology, Harkonnens are evil, 6 hours are not enough.

---

21 out of 35 people found the following comment useful :-
Impressive epic miniseries that redefines science fiction, 7 December 2000

Author: kel_har from VA

If there was one word to describe this version of "Dune," I would have to say extraordinary. John Harrison has done a fantastic job at writing and directing this fantastic miniseries. Graham Revell's score, dazzling visual effects, flawless cinematography, well-developed story, and the cast all essentially contributed to masterful epic storytelling. However, "Frank Herbert's 'Dune'" does suffer from the stiff performance of William Hurt as Duke Leto Atreides. On the other hand, the performances by Ian McNeice and Alec Newman makes this entertaining. Overall, "Frank Herbert's 'Dune'" is impressive, spellbinding, and exciting. It's a must see for any science fiction fan or anyone who loves a great story!!

---

28 out of 49 people found the following comment useful :-
Behold, for it is done., 27 November 2000
Author: Andrew Reyes! (drrotwang)

Suffer no longer the rumors of a 6-hour-long cut of Lynch's (Smithee's?) 1984, er, attempt. No more need for such drivel. Mind you, I was at first willing to dislike this project -- having seen some production stills, and not knowing what to make of it. Ah, folly of youth! A few hours on the couch with a preview copy have changed my mind. This is the good stuff, folks -- the reason we keep our TVs. The performances range from good to excellent; the cinematography is clean and in some cases downright exciting. Just about the whole book is here, a few judicious cuts notwithstanding, and Dr. Kynes looks like Marty Feldman, but that's OK, I don't mind. Stilgar spits on the floor, Princess Irulan wears some weird headgear and the ships, at last, do not look like the fender of a '57 Chevy. A well-crafted, lushly-visualized and breathtakingly-realized project. Not without its faults, though those are very few. If not merely satisfying, then outright amazing. Disappointment is unlikely. Good, good stuff. -- Rotwang!

---

11 out of 17 people found the following comment useful :-
Absolute garbage!!, 15 August 2001

Author: Martin Pepperell (bijonne) from Melbourne, Australia.

What can I say? After having read Herbert's books and loving Lynch's movie version, I was extremely disappointed. I felt I was watching a reject version of Buck Rogers. The sets looked like left overs from a Star Wars TV special! I felt the acting was a bit amateurish by most. The costumes were garish and over done which gave it a '60s Flash Gordon, pulp feel. The worms! They're supposed to be Sand Worms and yet they appeared to "big stalagtites" with a mouth at the blunt end. The effects in general were pretty second rate. I won't even start about the disgraceful "Navigator" effect.

This so-called "Frank Herbert's Dune" wasn't even faithfull to his books! It should have been called "Frank Herbert's Dune - For Dummies". Key plot elements were left out, names were changed and the entire "feel" of the story was "sanitised". I didn't even recognise the Harkonnens! In fact most of the characters appeared nothing like Herbert's descriptions had depicted them. I'm starting to get upset just remembering what a tragedy it was. I'm glad I couldn't stomach the second installment....

---

---

Page 1 of 25:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history