User Reviews (951)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • My review covers both versions of Dune, the 2 hour release and the extended 3 hour "Smithee" version aired on television. The first cut of the film was over four hours long, but there was never any intention to release this, and Lynch himself shot scenes which consolidated the final product into a more manageable length.

    Allen Smithee, a protest pseudonym adopted by Lynch when he disassociated himself with the 3 hour version of this film, is also alluded to in Lynch's latest film - Inland Empire. A portion of a film studio in Inland Empire is "Smithee's Room" - a metaphorical insight into Lynch's feelings about Dune, and studio-controlled film-making in general.

    Given the tremendous investment made by the studio, Lynch's general distaste for the final product, the repetitive cliché soundtrack, and the occasionally bizarre use of voice-over narrative in the TV version, it seems more a DeLaurentis film than a Lynch film. Although I am very interested in Lynch's films and other projects, I am evaluating this solely from my own perspective. Despite the great director's poor opinion of this film, I enjoyed it and it is one of my favorite sci-fi films.

    Frank Herbert, author of the novel upon which it is based, approved the theatrical version, but he had the benefit of knowing what he was going to see. If you haven't read the book, these films can be somewhat difficult to understand. And if you come to the experience expecting something like Star Wars, you should probably find something else to do.

    The soundtrack is repetitive and only interesting the first time you hear the film's major theme (the Eno composition). The use of rock orchestration simply does not work in this film. Happily, Lynch learned from the experience and used rock instrumentation beautifully in later films (especially Wild at Heart and Lost Highway). The camera work is generally less inspired than the rest of Lynch's portfolio. There are occasional visually striking scenes which will remind you of the film's origin, but there are too many static shots - especially during the action scenes. The soundtrack is easy to explain - like the inclusion of Sting in the cast - this is a marketing move by the production company, not a creative choice of the director. The camera work is much less easily explained. Perhaps Lynch was asked to avoid doing anything surreal or bizarre with this film (sort of like asking Groucho Marx to avoid being funny), or the studio was trying to appeal to fans of Star Wars by simplifying and sterilizing its story.

    The recently released special edition DVD reveals some very interesting aspects of the production. Lynch's influence, not surprisingly, is best explored in the short documentary concerning the film's design. As an artist, Lynch spent a great deal of time and energy envisioning the material culture – both historical and modern – of each culture depicted in the film, helping to create a consistent and unique characterization for each. This spilled over quite naturally into costume design. The sets and costumes used in this film are really spectacular. The special effects, often derided by contemporary viewers, required a great deal more effort that the synthetic art of today's computerized extravaganzas and, the documentary concerning their production on the DVD is also appropriately respectful.

    What you will see is an intense visualization of several, fully realized alien cultures whose art, architecture and general heritage are as well realized, if not more so, than in Herbert's epic novel. To fully appreciate this, don't just check out the extras on the DVD, turn down the sound and just watch the sets, costumes, and effects move through each scenes. There is, as with Lynch's entire portfolio, a great deal to be seen. And the acting and direction are fine throughout the film.

    The longer version fleshes out the stories, themes and intricate subplots of Herbert's book more thoroughly, and maintains a much steadier pace than the cinematic release. Even so, both films, to some extent, suffer from too much story, overwhelming visualization, and a un-Lynchian frenetic pace. The later TV mini-series by the sci fi channel does a better job of telling the story in its entirety, but runs about 246 minutes and does not compare to the original in terms of design. Lynch's cinematic release, by contrast, rushes through components of the book and often feels inconsistent in pace.

    PLOT: Dune is the story of Paul "Muad'ib" Atreides, the son of Duke Leto Atreides the Just and his Bene Jesserat concubine Lady Jessica. Combining aspects of fantasy, sci-fi and anthropology, the story follows young Paul through a series of tragedies which find him seeking redemption for an entire galaxy by leading an adoptive tribal culture to a revolutionary cleansing of the malignant imperial system from which he sprung. The plot is exceedingly complex – in both Lynch versions of the film much is left out of Herbert's original work. Subplots abound, but, true to form, Lynch avoids short-cuts as much as possible and attempts to show his audience what is going on rather than resorting to a great deal of voice-over narrative in the theatrical release. The TV version, however, attempts to provide even more detail, and uses voice-over to patch up the areas glossed over by Lynch's script.

    SUMMARY: If you're a Lynch fan and not a big Herbert fan or you don't have a great deal of patience, see the cinematic release. It is the class of the lot.

    If you haven't read the book, or you are a Herbert purist who will accept only what was written, choose the Sci-Fi Channel version (review forthcoming soon) - but be forewarned - it is very long.

    If you want something that compromises between story and cinematic artistry, go for the TV version. The weakest link, but still OK.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw Dune when it first came out in 1984 and admittedly have had a lot of time to reflect on the (failings) of this movie.Most of this film's woes can be summed up in one word ... screenplay.

    But first why I liked it. Set and costume design. In one word, sumptuous. From the neo baroque Emperor's palace to the Fremen Stillgar's sietch to the'metropolis-tic' Harkonnen home-world of Giedi Prime.The costumes were indulgently impressive eg the fetishistic leather of the Harkonnens, the bizarre plastic outfits of the Emperor's Sardukar, the Elizabethan gowns of the Princess Irulan. Great efforts were made to make the various environments well worn and dirty and much of the technology appears anachronistic... of 'technology as archeology', which all fits perfectly within the Frank Herbert vision.

    Characters. For some reason most popular Sci-Fi movies involve characters that have little to define them from people of today, apart from latex masks and clothing. Under David Lynch's direction the peoples of the Dune worlds are human enough to relate to and 'alien' enough to cause wonder. And lets not forget the Stage Three Guild Navigator ... this was the most original conceptions of a character as you are likely ever to see. Scenes like this give you the courage to sit through the more unpleasant aspects of the movie. The customs of the Fremen as defined by Frank Herbert are for the most part faithfully rendered although being a serial Dune reader, I would have liked the movie to linger more on these aspects of the Dune world.

    Acting. For the most part good. David Lynch directing his favorites Jack Nance, Kyle MacLachlan and Everet McGill cant really go wrong.I particularly liked Linda Hunt hamming it up as Shadout Mapes ..."the housssse keeeper..." Dean Stockwell whilst an accomplished actor appeared a little wooden, but is not a problem really when compared to the ridiculous overacting of Jose Ferrer. What on earth was he thinking? And of course there was Kenneth McMillan. The Baron could have been no one else.

    But ...

    I am a huge David Lynch fan ... but .... what happened? His efforts to make the vast worlds and concepts of Dune more edible for mainstream audiences while necessary, did not properly respect the source material.

    In an effort to avoid the complexities of describing the 'weirding way' (properly termed 'prana - bindu' a kind of super martial art form) we are left with ... weirding modules ??!!!? ... what the hell? And to keep them in that poorly locked cupboard in the training room downstairs was just asking for trouble.

    And after all that spiel about crushing your enemy's nerves, exploding their organs, boiling their bottoms etc ... the Fremen simply go about making those silly sounds which cause little fire-pots to go off in the sand, the Emperors 'terror troops' obligingly falling over.

    It's easy to be dismissive when speaking from a time that brought us action and fight sequences like those in the Matrix or LOTR. However I felt that the scale was far to small to be convincing (this was the fight for the fate of the known universe's economic prosperity!) Individual fight scenes were obvious and telegraphed and slow and just plain boring. The final showdown between Paul, the universe's super being (actually he's not but thats another story)and Feyd Rautha, was one of Cinema's greatest anti-climaxes.I mean he's the leader of a race of people whose woman and children routinely best the Sardukar and has unimaginable mind powers (all the powers of the Bene Gesserit and more)and still he is almost defeated by the Baron's nephew after a bit of taunting about his girlfriend.

    Another incomprehensible departure from the novel was the addition of 'heart plugs'. Apart from the constant fear of getting it caught on something you'd really have to wonder why the Baron chose to have one himself. That's just silly and as it turned out fatal.

    A lot of the psychedelic special effects were pretty crappy even for 1984. What's with the folding space scene which is simply done by the Guild navigator spitting the departure and destination planets out of his mouth and then ... wait for it ... flying between them? Of course scenes like the sand-worm swallowing the spice harvester still cause wonder ... it's more that the conception of those less tangible aspects like folding space or the Sayadina taking the water of life etc really did not convince me even way back in 1984.

    I also could not believe that Lynch succumbed to the temptation of tying the whole thing up with a rain storm. In one fell swoop he undermines the logic of the entire film. The collecting of water in thousands of Sietches across Dune was meant to be part of a trans generational plan to terraform the planet. It's meant to be science - the movie simply has it happen by magic ("for he is the Kwisatz Haderach"). Given that water is poisonous to the Sandworms and that Spice is produced as part of their life cycle, Paul really is not being much of a help. His Jihad is set to destroy the Universe.

    This Movie if produced today under the right direction (and a totally new screenplay) could be the most amazing thing. If it were possible to create a hybrid director (although I would avoid contracting the Bene Gesserit for the breeding program) of David Linch(for his quirky, darkly comic interpretation) and dare I say Peter Jackson (for his sincere respect for the source material, attention to detail and childlike wonder that he evokes as he lingers over landscapes, people and customs), it would do the justice to Frank Herbert's vision which has as yet (wether by movie, extended DVD or mini-series)remained unfulfilled.

    6 1/2 out of 10 , really.
  • 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.....
  • It's the year 10,191. The universe is ruled by Padishah Emperor Shaddam the Fourth. The most precious substance is the spice, melange which is used to extend life and fold space. It only exists on Arrakis also known as Dune where the local Fremen long for a prophesized messiah. The emperor plans to dethrone Duke Leto Atreides (Jürgen Prochnow) fearing his new weapon, the weirding module. First he allows the House Atreides to run the spice production. Then he supports the jealous House Harkonnen to invade and kill all the Atreides. There is something about Paul Atreides (Kyle MacLachlan) that concerns everybody. He and his mother Lady Jessica manage to escape the massacre. They find shelter with the Fremen as he falls in love with Chani (Sean Young).

    There is a dense introduction and lots of expositions. It is way too complicated for novices on the first try. I'm sure many people glazed over. The style is impressive. It has a great unique look. The production value is all there on the screen. The cast is also impressive with some strange outsider casting like Sting, a whole lot of experience, and some newcomers who would become big stars. They all work in their own way. David Lynch is definitely going all in with this movie. It has its Lynch weirdness but he holds it back enough to allow the story to make some sense. The weirdness sometimes works but sometimes pumps up the cheese factor. It just won't make sense to most people who haven't read the books. It's probably a movie that is too ambitious to work completely. It's also way too melodramatic at times. It works better after a couple of viewings to understand what's going on.
  • Dune. At first, I only knew it from the games. Then I found out there were books, and after that, there was a movie. I'm talking 2000 here, and I've only just recently seen it. More than 20 years after the movie was made, and seeing it in this era of very cunning special fx and 3D does make it look dated a bit. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. The movie is pretty good actually. But the problem with it is, that you can't tell the whole Dune-story in just one movie: it should have been a two or even three-piece like LOTR. People completely unfamiliar with the Dune-story and world will ask themselves after viewing it: 'what the hell was that all about?' while I myself say: 'that was quite nice actually'. The budget was no less than 40 million dollars, huge huge for 1984. And it shows: the costumes, ships, decors and worm-fx are great. If it would be made in this year, it would probably be brilliant. In 1984 it was a bit limited because of technological limits, not creative ones.

    Yes, I liked it, and once more added a new dimension of understanding for me to the story of Dune. The spice, the houses, the Fremen, the worms, everything is a bit clearer now. 7 out of 10, just good.
  • isaacochoterena18 September 2021
    For a movie from the 80's it has very good special effects.

    The script of this movie can be confusing and heavy for some people but for me it results in a complex story full of emotions, I love how it handles the story so fast, the special effects are good, it has good photography and it has good acting. The reason for some things that happen is not explained, there is no plot to follow and some things are not resolved.

    For me it works well and although it can start with a slow pace, then the pace of the film is much more dynamic, it is a very good science fiction film with some negative things but it is still enjoyable.
  • I saw this film in 1984. I watched it on TV a couple of weeks ago. In 1984 I thought the movie was bad. The story made no sense, the acting looked like a high school play and the score was to the ears what a visit to the dentist is to the mouth.

    After watching this epic on television in the year 2000 I have reevaluated my opinion of it. It is actually dumber, duller and a bigger waste of time than I had previously thought.

    Still awful, after all these years.
  • Dune is very interesting, if not downright odd. However, the lore/universe has an alluring charm. Unfortunately, they don't do a good job of explaining the intricate political backstory of the movie. Another major problem is the pacing of the story, it's so too rushed. They made the mistake of trying to cram 2-3 movies worth of storytelling and lore into one 2 hours and 17 minutes movie. The production value (camera angles, special effects sets, costumes, etc.) is generally good for the time period. Some of the costumes are unintentionally comical and weird but that is what gives this movie its charm. Generally the acting wasn't great, besides the main protagonists. Over all it is an interesting tale that unfortunately fell short.
  • There are some good parts in David Lynch's much maligned version of Frank Herbert's famous novel but they are few and far between. The main score is generally excellent (except when it pointlessly switches to dated '80's guitar rock), some of the images of the endless deserts of Arrakis are quite well done, and, although primitive and simplistic by modern standards, the early use of CGI in the shielded fight scenes should be lauded. Unfortunately these plusses are greatly outweighed by the film's deficits. The producers seemed to have little faith in the actors, so almost every action is accompanied by an explanatory voice representing of the person's thoughts. Some of the acting, especially the various villainous Harkonnens, is awful. The novelty-casting of Sting as Feyd-Rautha doesn't help: he spends too much time trying to look evil by smirking and fiddling with a knife but whatever menace he establishes is quickly undone when he steps out of the steam-bath in leather pampers. Kyle MacLachlan, who plays the central character Paul Atreides, generally looks uncomfortable and out of place, which is not helped by the constant melodramatic voiceovers. Patrick Stewart's Gurney Halleck is good (although why he has to carry the little dog is beyond me), as is Max von Sydow who plays Kynes, the exobiologist and honorary Freman who introduces Paul to the desert planet. The special-effects set pieces (especially the sand-worms and the climactic battle) have not aged well and despite some nice 'steam punk' stylings, the film still looks like an overproduced 1980's Italian vision of the future. Lynch has essentially disowned the film as have many fans of the book. I didn't like "Dune" when I first saw it 34 years ago and a recent rewatch on Netflix didn't do much to change my overall opinion. There are rumours that Denis Villeneuve will soon direct a remake and, as there have been some great successes in filming 'unfilmable' books ("The Lord of the Rings" being an obvious example), perhaps the next film will better capture Herbert's stark and lofty vision.
  • 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...
  • gavin694220 April 2017
    A Duke's son leads desert warriors against the galactic emperor and his father's evil nemesis when they assassinate his father and free their desert world from the emperor's rule.

    The general consensus is that this is not a good movie. But the general consensus is apparently wrong, because it has a decent rating on IMDb. And, in fact, it is a very enjoyable film and a great adaptation of the novel. On top of that, Lynch was great with his casting choices. Brad Dourif? Perfect! And even Sting.

    The version I watched ran just over two hours. Another version runs longer than three hours. Whether this would be even better or be too much is not known to me. I would certainly be interested in checking that version out.
  • Dune was considered unfilmable. Alexandro Jodorowsky failed to get up the money for his production, as did Ridley Scott, who took up Jodorowsky's creative team. It took nigh-endless resources from Dino de Laurentiis to complete Lynch's version.

    The problems with David Lynch's Dune are many. The characters, beyond Paul, are all but undeveloped--for instance, Harkonnen is simply a grotesque figure, not a great political rival for the Atreides. Similarly, much of the plot is simply a checklist of important scenes from the movie, cheapening Paul's internal struggles with what he is, and ruining the thematic impact of the film. Lynch's storytelling is horrible--relying on character thought and exposition to tell things better shown. And Lynch's own additions are abysmal--such as the contrived weirding modules. No one and nothing is shown in the depth it acquires in the book.

    The final problems are incredible. One, Paul is clearly shown as a good-guy superhero, not a man of amazing power both spiritually and temporally, who is in questionable moral ground. Second, it rains at the end. (This would slaughter the sandworms, destroy the spice, make conventional space travel impossible, and generally wreak havoc in the Empire.)

    Read the book, which is great. Skip this garbage.
  • InspectorColumbo14 September 2004
    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.
  • I remember going to the theater to see this, and when you bought your ticket, they handed you a "cheat sheet" of definitions unique to the story. I had read the book, so I already knew what "Bene Gesserit" meant; however my friends who had not heard of Frank Herbert were pretty lost. A lot of people were expecting Star Wars and DUNE 1984 fell short from two major aspects: 1)explanation and development of the numerous complicated plot points, and, 2)the dinky early 80's special effects. Star Wars Industrial Light and Magic were literally light years ahead of what Dune presented (basically lot of miniatures that looked like, well, miniatures.)

    Rather than comparing Dune with Star Wars, a more valid comparison is Lord of Rings with it's themes of religion, politics, and warfare/ competition of various subcultures including alien species like Elves, Dwarves. Orcs, etc. Peter Jackson did a marvelous job of setting up a similarly complicated story and cutting things that were not essential to the primary plot. As an example, I would have loved to see Tom Bombadill in the movie, but I also understand that you can't get people to go to three 6 hour movies. So Lynch leaves holes in the story and hands out a cheat sheet instead- not real effective and the box office reflected that...

    Just FYI, I gave Lynch 6 stars for having the guts to try it. Watching a Guild Navigator fold space by shooting spice gas out of his butt is not something you get to see everyday-

    Looking forward to the 2021 version.
  • (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.
  • In the future, there are two great dynasties. One, the Atreides, are noble, kind, and good human beings. The other, the Harkonnen, are evil through and through, but hold great power and sway with the ruling emperor of the galaxies. The Harkonnen, led by the wicked and degenerate Baron, are out to get the Atreides, naturally. With an elaborate plot, they arrange for Duke Leto and Jessica Atreides, with their young adult son Paul, to become rulers of Arrakis, a desert planet. However, it is a trap and the Harkonnen have a traitor in the midst who will help, Baron hopes, to wipe out the Atreides line. What the H do not count on, however, is that Paul may be a long awaited miracle man capable of leading the inhabitants of Arrakis to destroy the Harkonnen and the emperor's misguided plans. Who will reign at the end, the good or the bad? The book, by Frank Herbert, is easily one of the best books of all time. It is complex and, therefore, probably difficult to bring to the screen. Nevertheless, this version is truly an acceptable homage to the book. It has good visuals and tries successfully to bring out the intricate details of the book, such as Paul as the messiah of the universe, the witch-nuns who try to influence history, and the excesses of the evil Baron. The cast is superb, with Maclachlan giving Paul a wonderfully gallant presence. Do give Dune a try. It is science fiction at its best and the film makes a valiant effort to make the story accessible to all.
  • I hold David Lynch's Dune up as the perfect example of an adaptation done wrong. It's too concerned with capturing moments from the book to actually tell a story, and it even misses the basic point of the book on top of all that. If you're going to hire a surrealist to interpret Frank Herbert's Dune, you don't hamstring him at the script stage. You give him the money and watch to see what comes out. If you don't want to take that risk, then don't hire him. Keep the project on hold for a couple of years while Ridley Scott makes Blade Runner.

    The first half or so of the movie, though, is relatively coherent. Beset by an overabundance of voice over from Princess Irulan's opening monologue (that actually contains information that gets repeated twice) to little snippets from those in frame (most of which are unnecessary and captured by the performance but seem to be there in order to bring more of Herbert's work literally to the screen), we see as the House Atreides, led by Duke Leto, is moving from their home world of Caladan to the hellish desert planet Arrakis, the sole source in the known universe of mélange, Spice, from which all interstellar travel, life extension, mind expansion are derived. It's a hard, but well paying job that is displacing the House Harkonnen, the Atreides long time antagonist. This is all a plot by the Emperor of the Known Universe to allow Harkonnen to kill Duke Leto as Leto is becoming too popular in the Universe's Landsraad, it's parliament of sorts. And none of these people are the main character.

    You can tell, if you've never read the book or seen the movie, that this is a massively dense story with a lot of politics going on, and I haven't gotten to the ecology of the planet, the weird religious and magical cult of women called the Bene Gesserit, and the natives of Arrakis, the Fremen. There's a lot in this story, and Lynch (probably at least partially at the behest of his producer, Dino de Laurentiis) went about the exact wrong way to capture all of this.

    Every story is about a single thing at its core, and the story if Dune is about Paul Atreides, son of the Duke, and his journey from boyhood to manhood to leader to godhead. It's not really about the squabbling of futuristic feudal lords or breeding programs or even giant sandworms that people ride. It's about a single man's journey to being worshiped by his followers despite being just a man. That is what you have to capture first and foremost. Everything else is just detail draped on that story. The problem with that approach to adaptation is that you'll end up pissing off fans of the book who aren't getting their favorite scene or part, but you'd be adapting the story for the medium while retaining the story's thematic core and main characters.

    By taking the opposite approach, of trying to stuff as much from the book as humanely possible in to a grand two hour and seventeen minute runtime, absolutely nothing gets the kind of attention it needs to grow and feel natural narratively. However, everything does work best (not particularly well, but best for this film) in the first half.

    We see the pieces being laid out for the coming end of the first half as people explain things to each other, who everyone is, why everyone hates each other, and what's going to happen. It's kind of dull, but it works. Everything falls apart at the midway point and the attack on the Arrakeen Palace. All of the pieces have been introduced awkwardly, but they've been introduced. When everything starts smashing together, though, we have no emotional involvement and the pieces so tenuously introduced while the actual action is so incoherently pieced together that it's hard to tell what exactly is happening. For instance, the Baron Harkonnen literally just shows up in the palace in the middle of a large fight between two armies. Doctor Yueh betrays his Duke based on a couple of lines about his wife. It's also incoherently cut together on a simple technical level because it's trying to cover so much action in such a short amount of time.

    Then it gets even worse. By the time Paul and his mother Jessica escape the Harkonnens into the desert, an hour and fifteen minutes have progressed with less than an hour of running time left in the film. From this point four new important characters get introduced, Chani, Stilgar, Alia, and Reverend Mother Ramallo. Stilgar becomes Paul's main companion within the Fremen culture. Chani is his love interest. Alia is his sister. Ramallo is the catalyst for making Jessica a full Reverend Mother of the Bene Gesserit. This is a lot of stuff to shove into less than the second half of the film, and it's all competing with plot mechanics including some dense and poorly explained stuff around the Baron Harkonnen's efforts to set his nephew Feyd up as the savior of Arrakis from his other nephew The Beast Rabban (partially covered in a single line of dialogue), the Emperor needing to micromanage the situation on Arrakis because Paul is leading a revolt on the planet that is halting Spice production while the Spacing Guild is threatening the Emperor because of the situation, and Paul needs to become a full Fremen by raising an army with the Weirding Modules (one of the only designs I don't really like in the film) and riding the Sandworm for the first time. Oh, and of course there is a giant battle.

    I have no idea how anyone who isn't already intimately familiar with the source book could make heads or tails of this. It's so dense, thin, and underexplained that it becomes a highlight reel of events from the book instead of an actual telling of a story. It's incomprehensible.

    Oh, and they completely miss the point of the book. I don't usually harp on things missing the points of source material (the source material is always there, preserved, without the adaptation), but just to pile on with the movie's sins, I might as well note this. Paul should not be able to make it rain by his will alone on Arrakis. The point isn't that Paul becomes a god, but that he uses force, fear, and violence to supplant one system of power with another where the main change is that he's on top. Having him make it rain just ends up as one more incoherent choice at the end of a series of incoherent choices.

    Now, having savaged this film from a narrative point of view, let me talk about what I do actually like. The designs of this film are kind of amazing. The sets are huge, ornate, and simply fun to look at. The technology takes a similar approach as Terry Gilliam did in Brazil where Lynch used modern and old technology in new and interesting ways to represent the future (my favorite being the light that shines in Thufir Hawat's face that's supposed to relay computer information that he can instantly decode as a living computer, essentially). In addition, Lynch is really good with actors and pulled together an amazing cast here, so while characters may be short changed endlessly because of the movie's narrative incoherence, when individual actors are on the screen they do well.

    Lynch was the wrong director for a literal minded adaptation. De Laurentiis was the wrong producer for such a large undertaking since he wanted such a short end product. Adapting the entire book was the wrong decision for a two hour film. The film's not worthless, but it's so thoroughly broken on so many story levels that it's closer to a train wreck than a piece of narrative filmmaking.
  • To begin with, I have to say that I saw the movie first, and read the book years later. This seems to be important: Nearly everybody who read the book first hates the movie, but most of those who saw the movie first seem to like it.

    Now, why is this so? I cannot really understand it because, in comparition to other movies based on existing literature, what we have here is a film which stays very close to the original story and does not add many new elements.

    When I read the book, I could see the movie in front of me in nearly every chapter. So I really don't understand what Herbert-Fans had expected from this movie...

    I for my part like it a lot. It has a very mystical atmosphere about it and the story develops nicely. Of course there are some elements which are simply not explained and are therefore very confusing, but somehow this seems to be a thing Lynch tends to do in every of his movies, so what? I like some simple scenes like the opening monologue a whole lot. I LOVE the music (which played in my mind all the time while I read the book), and I think the characters are very strong and (for example Letho Atreides) sometimes full of tragedy.

    The part I like the most though is the worm-part. I think the special effects are not always brilliant, but seeing the scenes with the worms, I am really awestruck because they are so impressing.

    All in all, I think this is one of the more underrated movies in Science Fiction history. It may be because the director himself was not happy with it, or because fans expected too much from a simple two hour movie. I always enjoy watching this film and listening to the soundtrack. And I would love to see a Director's Cut version.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I should have known, and actually did expect that the movie, at a little over three hours, couldn't do justice to the Frank Herbert novel that ran nearly eight hundred pages. This was one of those rare occasions where I recently read the book and called up the movie within a short period of time so that a reasonable comparison could be made. Yes, there were many elements of the novel that appeared in the film, though nearly as many elements that weren't, and merely thrown in to fascinate the viewer. One such was the appearance of Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (Kenneth McMillan), portrayed as a floating gas-bag with a face pock-marked with pus filled pimples that made him look grotesque. Or the Mentats, described here as human computers, whereas they were more effectively characterized in the novel as elite assassins. Characters in the novel like Lady Jessica (Francesca Annis) had a much larger role in the story that took place, and were much more influential in the mystical development of Paul Atreides (Kyle MacLachlan) as the youth who eventually replaced his father to lead the Fremens against the Harkonnens on the planet Arrakis.

    So it puzzles me to learn that Frank Herbert was actually fond of the David Lynch treatment of his celebrated work, hailed by many as the ultimate work of fantasy fiction. For some, maybe so, but for me it doesn't hold a candle to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy, and if you extend that argument to cinema, the same holds true. Perhaps the best thing I can say about the movie was it's casting of principal characters. Kyle MacLachlan was a good choice for the role of Paul Atreides, maybe a tad too old to portray a fifteen year old future monarch, but I don't think an actual teenager would have been right to pull off the part. Jose Ferrer imparted the proper gravitas for the Padishah Emperor, and Jürgen Prochnow made for a suitable Duke Leto Atreides. One of the miscasts though had to be Patrick Stewart as Paul's adviser Gurney Halleck, mostly because he didn't have all that much to do and had no impact on the story. There were any number of scenes in which he was left just standing around as part of the scenery.

    On adapting such a well known and admired book as "Dune", director David Lynch has been quoted as saying, "You've got to be either stupid or crazy to try something like this." With all due respect to someone who's had his share of success in filmdom, a remark like that makes one too easy of a target.
  • When this film was released in 1984, I had some misgivings, as putting Frank Herbert's epic novel on to the big screen was always going to rank with the labours of Hercules. So I went to see it and came away convinced that I has just seen the worst big-budget film of all time. Its crippling handicap was the quality of the screen writing. As I watched it, I tried to relate the portrayed characters to their counterparts in the book and found that I could not recognise a single one. I wondered if David Lynch had actually read the book before he wrote the screenplay.

    The acting was dreadful and the dialogue was worse. I have seen most of the cast in other films where they were actually permitted to act, which is just as well, or I would have grown up thinking that they were all overblown, second-rate hams. The biggest piece of mis-casting was to have Patrick Stewart play Gurney Halleck - he deserved much better than that and I hope he didn't spend too long regretting accepting this role. Choosing another at random: Everitt McGill as Stilgar was less than memorable, not being allowed to act, but simply progressing from one sonorous pronouncement to the next.

    The sets were brilliant - I have no quarrel with that part of the film - but imaginative backdrops alone cannot bolster a production where the quality of the script and acting - or rather, the direction - fell so dismally short of any acceptable standard.

    The costumes were also very well done, with one notable, and very important exception: Lynch clearly forgot most of what he had read in the book when he approved the final design of the Fremen stillsuits.

    On occasion, over the intervening twenty-odd years, when I have thought about this unrelentingly awful film, it has been more in regret than anger. Despite this, I never really gave up on it and, four months ago, when I found the three-hour extended version, at a price that made it worth the effort, I bought it in the hope that some extra added footage might give the wretched thing some credibility.

    It was a forlorn hope. This extended version is an even bigger train wreck than the original theatrical release, and was clearly re-worked for television - it is easy to spot the blanks for the commercial break cues. The editing is quite incompetent and added scenes that have no context in the story line at the place where they were inserted - for example, one repeated scene showed the same Harkonnen ship approaching the landing field at Arrakeen. Another piece of sloppy editing early in the film had Reverend Mother Helen Gaius Mohaim being transported to Caladan, the home world of House Atriedes, by the same two Harkonnen pilots that took Jessica and Paul into the deep desert on Dune, after the Harkonnen attack.

    There was one particular, poignant part of the novel that both versions of the film left hanging, and which deserved to be included. That was the death of Thufir Hawat, at the end, after the Imperial forces had surrendered to Duke Paul Atreides. In the film, this life-long servant of House Atreides was left standing among the Imperial captives, gazing vacantly at the ceiling, suffering from the terminal effects of the residual poison that the Harkonnens had infected him with after they captured him on Dune and subverted him to their own service. In the book, however, the dying Hawat was given a poisoned needle by Emperor Shaddam and Reverend Mother Mohaiam and ordered to assassinate Paul, this 'upstart Duke', when he stood before him. Hawat disobeyed, and as he he stood before Paul, he turned to the Emperor in a magnificent gesture, holding out his hand with the needle in its palm and said, "See, Majesty? See your traitor's needle? Did you think that I who've given my life to service to the Atreides would give them any less now?" Then he collapsed and died in his Duke's arms.

    I have read that David Lynch wanted nothing to do with the extended version, and he was right to disown it. Even so, with the original release, there was so much that he could have done to turn Frank Herbert's novel into something memorable. Instead, he made an abomination that deserves to dumped into the same rubbish can as that dreadful Starship Troopers.
  • Yes, I've read the novels and, yes, they might crown a short list of world building sci fi masterpieces. What this movie, which I've seen multiple times, succeeds in doing, is manifest the spirit of this incredibly thought out universe. It also succeeds in other respects, but I'll leave that aside.

    It is interesting that the latest version, not a bad film at all, is almost a storyboard replica of the first. But all it adds is a bit of computer polish, and lacks the eerie ambiance that was so poignantly enhanced by the first's soundtrack.

    Folks love hating on this. Folks be folks. Thank you, Mr Lynch.
  • I first saw this in the late 80s n found it to be a confusing mess cos of not having read the books but still found it action packed.

    Revisited it recently after hating the new version cos of its boredom n lack of action.

    Well, none of em is closer to the books (having read the books now) but this older version shud be applauded for being a bit entertaining n having a big star cast for those days.

    Was a bit disappointed to see the hottie Virginia Madsen in a tiny role.
  • For those of you who have perhaps read Frank Herbert's original Dune, and are considering viewing this movie, here's some advice: don't. Swish orange juice, toothpaste, and clam chowder in your mouth: you'll get the same effect.

    Herbert wrote an epic masterpiece that should be regarded as the Hamlet of science fiction (actually, it is very vaguely adapted from Hamlet). David Lynch scripted and directed a butchery of this novel. He made so many mistakes, it is impossible to cover them all. Here's a general idea: the novel is summarized, not adapted. The movie contains about half of the elements involved in the story, and watching it makes you feel like you're falling asleep and missing half the plot. Everybody in the story has an agenda, but you get to see only half of these agendas, and are left to imagine the others. Character development was mediocre, and paled in comparison to the rich depth given in the novel. The writers obviously did not understand Herbert's technologies, because the movie displayed loads of horse dung where there should have been intricacies that would say, "Star Wars, eat your heart out." There was poor acting from everybody but Jurgen Prochnow as Leto, Patrick Stewart as Halleck, and Sting as Rautha. And finally, the special effects of the time simply weren't up to snuff for Herbert's vision. From the blue eyes to the force fields, everything looked horribly cheesy. If the folks had waited a decade, or maybe used something better than a third-grader's sketch pad, then they would have had stunning visual effects.

    Overall, what we are left with here is a definitive flop. I can only hope that the TV miniseries version that aired last year did a better job. On a scale of 1 to 10, this movie is somewhere around absolute zero (-273.15, FYI).
An error has occured. Please try again.