Dunas

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.....

Say what you will about incoherence, this is more sensuous than any Star Wars. In fact, it is the most expensive 'tripping' ever produced in film - though far from the most satisfying.

It helps to know the book and forget it as you watch this. Not being familiar with the book, you're left with a disjointed tapestry of weird costumes and special effects, some of them impressive, but if you are, and don't have to burden yourself with following the constantly clumsy explanation of the multifaceted Dune universe, you can enjoy this as illustration of a few core ideas.

Herbert's novel was the product of strange and powerful times. The US public was experiencing the Civil Rights upheaval, its short-lived infatuation with Islam and meditation, and the same year as the book came out, LSD had spilled out of some top-secret government labs into the streets and youth culture of San Francisco. The first satellite images of Earth had just been published. The Black Panthers had entered the vernacular.

So all the stuff about prescient visions, mentats and mastering mind, (herbally) expanded consciousness as the tool to the navigation and 'folding' of space, Herbert wrote with one eye on the Jordan Belson, Beatles and Maharishi crowd - the generation between film noir and Lucas that for a brief time projected truths into constructed cosmologies.

Herbert was more erudite than most. But he was caught under the same spell - the expectation of a noble jihad of the people and wise lamas from the East coming to teach 'the way'. And you can tell that he was exposed to Eastern thought through Jungians, by his laboriously constructed mythology and (now trite) focus on a Chosen One's journey.

Lynch was a late bloomer in that scene. To my knowledge, he fell in with what was being marketed as 'transcendental meditation' in his AFI years, while filming Eraserhead. I don't know what they practice behind closed doors - my interest lies with the Chinese model and they seem cultish to me. But, there's no doubt to me that he passed on the Lucas gig, thinking he was going to work on a vision of some power.

The film outright fails because the scope of the book is too big (to think that Hobbit is being stretched into a trilogy these days), and because he lacked the right collaborators and probably the predisposition to make an 'action' Dune.

Now Jodorowsky's Dune would have been something to see, probably as cumbersome about spirituality but much more organic. But, it's worth noting a few interesting things about this, in context of how Lynch would expand in later years.

He zeroes in on the transcendental experience of 'awakening the sleeper'. He does so in an obvious manner. Rambaldi's spiceworms as blossoming desert flowers top his visual meditation. And that all of Herbert's pomp and mythological noise work against him submerging the idea.

Keep in mind the Chinese notion - from the Tao Te Ching - that the 'soft beats the hard', stressed twice in the film even though no one actually thinks or fights in the Chinese way. Discard everything that is hard, from the crass Harkonnen to the acting style (mentat Dourif!) to the sophomoric rousing of Fremen rebellion, laser battles and final redemption.

The one part that is soft is at House Atreides, the preparation for Dune. What is there? Familiar dynamics - it's soap opera if you discard the costumes. Premonitions of murder and telepathic wiring with a fabric behind reason. A woman with her box of illusory sensations. A space flight through the doors of perception.

It's heady. None of it really works, because Herbert's synchretic universe is not one of internal martial arts, what we see matters. But does any of it remind you of a David Lynch film you know?

First of all I've read Herberts Dune saga and I loved the first book (the one the movie is about) and liked the rest.

Second there is a difference between the cinema version (137 min) and the TV version (190 min often referred also "special edition") which should also not be confused with the new version from 2000 (Frank Herbert's Dune). To keep it short the 137 version is great and the 190 min version sucks.

The TV version was split up to fill 2 evenings. For that they added about an hour of additional material not seen in the original version. While some of it is quite good like the prologue which went a little bit deeper into the Dune universe (Butlers Djihad) but most of it just destroys the atmosphere and the flow of the movie. On the technical side there is to note that the whole movie was Pan-Scanned which never is a good idea. Compared to the original version the quality really blows.

Now to the good one:

The movie is pretty much faithful to the book. There are things that were cut out from the book or it shows stuff that wasn't there, but what you see is CLEARLY Herbert's book which I thought is nearly impossible to translate into a (good) movie. It translates the "feel" of the book very well to the screen.

The most notable differences is that in the book Paul is at the age of 15 (at least at the beginning) while McLachlan more looks like 20 but I can live with that. The rest are minor things (like these sound modules) and some differences in continuity (the navigators needing the spice to well... navigate is revealed at the beginning).

The all actors give a solid performances. Notable are Kenneth McMillan (Baron Harkonnen) Patrick "Captain Picard" Steward (Gurney Halleck) and Sting as Feyd Rautha which really add to the movie.

The special effects range from crappy to good. The movie shines where it 's most important namely the sand worms which look fairly convincing. Personally I prefer (well done) miniature shots over those Episode 1/2 CGI effects which make especially environments look like plastic.

I think everybody who calls himself a Science-Fiction fan should have seen this movie which is a jewel under all those mediocre films that were spawned by Star Wars at that time. All the fans of the book should see it as what it is: A movie based on Dune. If you want the book word by word, don't watch the movie and read the book again.

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...

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.