Dunas

(This movie review is for the extremely rare extended cut of Dune by 'Alan Smithee' and 'Judas Booth', which I have been lucky to have found on the Steelbook DVD)

Frank Herbert's seminal science-fiction novel of revenge and ecology has often been compared to the works of J. R. R. Tolkien, only instead of a sweeping fantasy epic, it's a sci-fi epic. It's also considered to be one of the hardest books to adapt into movie format (not that people haven't tried before and after this adaptation), probably because of its dense narrative and the multitude of characters and organizations in it, not to mention that the book has also multiple sequels that greatly expand the expansive universe already established in the initial novel.

The David Lynch adaptation of Frank Herbert's novel is, as I state in the headline, perhaps one of the most divisive book adaptations ever made. Many diehard fans of Herbert's novel dislike the movie, and many of Lynch's fans consider it to be either a success or a failure. So what do I think of it?

Well, after watching the SyFy channel's miniseries adaptation, reading the actual book, and watching Denis Villeneuve's adaptation, I would say Lynch's adaptation is both a success and a failure at various points.

The casting is pretty well-done for the film, though Kyle MacLachen is kind of wooden as Paul Atreides compared to Kyle Newman's and Timothee Chalamet's performances in the other Dune productions. It's the rest of the cast that shines. Jurgen Prochnow, Max von Sydow, Kenneth McMillian, Jose Ferrer, Freddie Jones, Francesca Annis, Sian Phillips, Alicia Witt, Sean Young, Brad Dourif, and Patrick Stewart and everyone else plays their roles to the hilt, though in the final fifty minutes of the extended cut the cast kind of starts acting over-dramatically. Some of the actors are also woefully underused, like Sting as Feyd Rautha Harkonnen and Virginia Madsen as the Princess Irulan Corrino, while certain characters from the book, most notably the Fenrings, are either composited or omitted entirely.

The script to the movie is the problem. Basically, the extended cut is a three hour film that devotes about ninety percent of the story to the first third of the Novel, then speeds through the other two thirds in less than fifty minutes. The narrative is unbalanced in other words.

However, for a mostly three-hour film, it's still pretty good, despite the rushed and over-dramatic final act. While the special effects are not the best in comparison to other 80s sci-fi and the sandworms look like a mobile version of the Sarlacc monster from 'Return of the Jedi', the sets are quite impressive and the costume design is excellent. Also, the score by rock band Toto is actually just as iconic as the Star Wars theme by John Williams and is much easier to remember than Hans Zimmer's techno-thudding-and-beating for Villeneuve's Dune.

All in all, If you can find it, I recommend finding the extended cut of Lynch's Dune on DVD. It's a worthwhile addition to any sci-fi nerd's collection, despite the divided opinions of it.

Seriously, I do not understand why so many people dislike this movie. I think you have to take a couple of things into account. First: It is a 2 hour movie telling a story that spans several hundred pages in a book - so certain losses are just natural. Second: Compared to three times recycled multi-million-dollar-trash like the new Star Wars Episodes, this movie offers something really unique: A style of its own. The mixture between scifi elements, medieval setting and the culture of the the Middle East is excellent and Lynch welded them together into one solid piece of art... even though he seems to disagree today. Within this setting the lack of non-stop-action or overwhelming SFX never bothered me. On the contrary, this movie gives you time to watch... and many scenes are worth a second look. Third: I loved the actors, who were just as stiff, ugly, arrogant, noble or nice like the characters they tried to represent.

In the end it is a question of taste if you like this movie or not. But for me, it will always have a place in my DVD-shelf...

DUNE is an odd film. After having watched it several times over the years, I'm not afraid to call it a very flawed classic. That sounds strange, but it fits for this movie. Lynch got so many things right, but in the end the shortcomings of trying to squeeze an epic story into a little over 2 hours was simply too daunting a challenge. Besides, I'm sure many went into the theatre expecting a film in the vein of STAR WARS.

DUNE is not a story with which one can delve into brainless. It does require thought, for it's inaccurate to portray it as anything less than a thinking person's story. It's not space battles, laser-gun shootouts, funny aliens, etc. There's nothing wrong with those things, it's just not what DUNE is about. It touches on everything from politics, religion, ecology, the true power of the human mind and will when fully realized, God, etc. Some heady stuff.

So imagine trying to fit all that in a movie.

Lynch got the feel, the imagery down, but wasn't able to cohesively bring the story around w/o really making it a Cliff Notes version of the story. You get the main gist, but don't get the "full story", the themes, etc. So in the end it does disappoint because you're left wondering what may have been had the movie conventions of that time allowed for a 2 or even 3 movie epic. Oh wait, STAR WARS did that. I guess DUNE wasn't viewed as bankable enough to make such an investment.

Anyway, I still like the film a lot. The visual realization by Lynch makes it a classic in my book, too bad it couldn't be matched by an equally strong script. I wonder if Peter Jackson would be willing to tackle another 3 film epic? Hmmmmmm.....

There are two groups of people who write at IMDb, the pessimists and the optimists. The pessimists love to complain about something or other in a film. The optimists try and find something good. DUNE probably ranks as one of those that feels like it's going to be good, but leaves a confusing, lackluster feeling in its wake. In an attempt to be optimistic, I will try focusing ONLY on the good parts. This might be tough.

I will give David Lynch credit (indeed, as Frank Herbert did when he saw this) for trying to take an enormous amalgamation of things and ideas from the novel and trying to turn them into a movie. Lynch's visual style is very raw here and everything in the production design seems to be under his spell.

The sets, costumes, cinematography, and choice of cast is excellent. All of them lend a flavor of difference that transcends whatever confusion is on the screen. (On the side note: I was sick of hearing Kyle MacLachlan repeating himself over and over) The creature designs by Carlo Rambaldi are very Lynch-ien, even though we rarely get to see them.

Overall, a sci-fi epic that requires a lethargic butt, an open mind, and a copy of Frank Herbert's novel to enjoy. Still, it is far superior to the TV miniseries of late (I know saying that is blasphemy to some). I refuse to rate this with stars or anything else.

'Dune' may have a dated look due to the poor special effects but it still is an enjoyable adventurous science fiction movie. The film is awkward and feels a little rushed but the sense of adventure is well maintained. Lynch fans who haven't yet seen this movie might be disappointed because this isn't like any of his later works. Almost everything about it, except for some of the acting is over the top. But it feels like a science fiction movie because of the unusual names, the art direction etc. With the excessive use of CGI, it is nowadays sometimes difficult with science fiction movies to feeling the experience of the world the director creates. It was fun to see actors like Kyle Machlachlan, Sean Young and Virginia Madsen who were so young at the time. 'Dune' has its flaws and there are many of it but the idea behind it is creative and the film has heart to make it entertaining enough. It is certainly not among the best of its genre and nor Lynch's best but it's fun enough to roll along with.