Dune

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.

How do you adapt a highly complex book over 400 pages long with with a similar apendex to lord of the rings with well over 20 important characters all integral to the plot with multiple worlds giant sandworms interesting technology and a history spanning thousands of years to just over a 2 hour run time in a entertaining mainstream popcorn movie. Not to mention spice, the book has huge dialogue said in the characters minds. Well the simple answer is u can't do justice to the source material with this runtime.

But for all the faults this film as I remember back in the day being passed to me via a VHS recording off TV some of us still remember those days I was blown away I had never seen anything like it as a teenager the sets the costumes the visuals, the action, just strangeness of it all and that opening score wow, got me to read the novels and what novels they are each one different from the other with profound statements on what a hero is, and if you haven't read Dune you will certainly be confused by the sheer mass of strange names and fast moving plot. Was David lynch the wrong captain to steer this ship?, I'm not too sure he greatly respected the source material and wanted final cut making a three hour plus movie but the studio wanted a 2 hour star wars clone and Dune is nothing like Star wars although there are minor aspects George Lucas might of been influenced from for his famous space opera.

One will either be confused by the complex plot or intrigued to search out Frank Herberts masterpiece of a novel.

Then there's the cast easily as good as the modern version and in some respects more faithful to the book. A miss fire of adapting the source due to the length but if David lynch was given a 5 hour runtime I shudder to think he might of just of nailed it. But the better version of Frank Herberts novel is adapted to the screen is the 2001 Denis Villeneuve part one and the much anticipated part 2 with reference to length both will clock in together around the 5 hour mark.

'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.

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.....

(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.