Dune (2000) User Reviews (314)

So far this is the...most thorough film version of Dune

[pianotm-58404 · 7/10 · 4 September 2019]

Jon Harrison's version of Dune isn't exactly what you'd expect from a SciFi TV Miniseries...but it's a SciFi TV Miniseries. Much like British Masterpiece Theater, you'd swear they got actors out of college trying to fill a work quota. The acting is Shakespeare in the Park levels of bland with all the pageantry of a repertory theater. William Hurt doesn't help considering his acting has always been bland. He even looks bored in the Marvel movies. There clearly isn't a single frame of this filmed outside, and every single desert scene looks green-screened. The costume design literally makes this look like a college project. No effort is made to produce makeup effects. On the plus side, they used actual contact lenses instead of roto-scoping for the Melange infused eyes. It wasn't the best way to do it since the camera has trouble seeing it in bright light, but it's a far superior way to do it than the other version of Dune did. So, points for that decision! That is a SciFi/SyFy TV mini-series, which means we can forgive most this. It's not as bad as most SciFi/SyFy TV productions. I've seen worse acting worst productions, so let's get into why I rated this at 7 out of 10 instead of 3 (which the acting absolutely deserves).

First, let me get the good things about the acting out of the way. For all of my riding on how rehearsed and bland the acting sounds, they aren't actually bad, and we do get to see who the better actors are, like Julie Cox's Irulan, who was absolutely a stand out performance. Giancarlo Giannini was thoroughly convincing as the Padishaw-Emperor Shadam IV. In fact, I get the feeling that all of the scenes with Irulan's education and trying to solve the mystery of Muad'dib (which absolutely were not in any version of the book) were only added so that we could see more of Julie Cox's performance. It was a good choice. Giancarlo's Emperor gets a few extra scenes out of this, too, though not as many as Cox. These two are definitely a bright point in this production. Barbara Kordetova's Chani also stands out, but this might not be a good thing as she consistently outstages Alec Newman's Paul Atreides/Muad'dib. A lot of people will point to Ian McNiece's Baron Harkonnen, but I don't see it. While he's definitely chewing the scenery, if nothing else, I actually get the strongest rep theater, low-rent vibe from his performance. It doesn't help that he actually frequently breaks the fourth wall and talks directly to the audience repeatedly. I know that's the director's fault and that it's done for theatrical effect, but it does nothing to improve my view of the acting in this production. Miroslav Taborsky's Fenring was...an interesting performance. I don't know if it could be called good, but it definitely was memorable. He also appears in most of the extra scenes with Irulan, but I didn't find his performance particularly likable. He used a strange set of vocal ticks and hand motions for his performance that I suspect was intended to indicate that there is an inherent strangeness to the character (if you've read the books, you can probably see what he was trying to do), but I really don't think it worked. I think if he had a bit more time to perfect this performance it might have been something very special. Unfortunately, it just doesn't land.

Now, onto set design. I've already mentioned that this movie has had the greenscreened out of it, and not very well. Regardless, there is nothing you can say bad about the design. The cities, interiors, and designs: if any money went into this production, this is where it went. Every detail is attended to and real work went into the design. For once, a SciFi production doesn't look like the room's been mostly made out of cardboard. You can actually believe the buildings and the city (and this only gets better in Children of Dune). I feel like with a little more budget and time behind it, this production could have been great.

Script and story are fantastic. For all of this production's flaws, it's extremely immersive. True to the book? Absolutely, but it has a lot of material that isn't found in the book, and I think they could have actually replaced that material with greater depth from the book. It speaks to the quality of the extra material that I don't think they were wrong to do this. I loved every single Irulan scene, which is what the bulk of this additional story was. Don't forget that Jodorowsky's Dune would have been 14 hours. We don't actually need anything extra. Still, I'm glad for it. Julie Cox was a bright light in a sea of bland acting. The story delves far more deeply into the book than the Lynch version did, looking at the deeper nuances of Paul's transformation, and doing one very important thing that Lynch's version failed to do: blurring the moral line for the protagonist. Is Muad'dib the hero or the villain, or something inbetween? Can heroes and villains even really exist and is everyone something inbetween; not wholly good, but not wholly evil? That was the crux of the book, and this production jumps into that with both feet. Where this production fails in the technical aspect, it more than makes up for in story telling, and even a portion of the technical aspect is well done.

Overall, of the things that are SciFi/SyFy Channel production quality series and films, this definitely ranks in the top tier. Absolutely worth your time.

spare, slow moving, engrossing adaptation

[L. Lion · 6/10 · 4 December 2000]

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.

A Better Book Representation, but a Worse Movie

[craigbenting · 6/10 · 27 April 2001]

The problem with adapting books to the movie screen, especially huge epics like Dune, is that a certain interpretation of the original is necessary. Making a 2-3 hour movie out of this novel simply requires a lot of interpretation along with picking and choosing of the source material. So, I know a lot of people who read the book Dune and really hated the movie adaptation for all the same predictable reasons -- "Why did they change that?", "How could they leave that part out?", and "Where did they come up with that?".

I have a unique perspective on Dune -- I watched the 1984 movie first and absolutely loved it, I watched the 2000 mini-series adaptation and thoroughly enjoyed all the familiar scenes/words but with the added depth, and then I read the book. The book, of course, still was different from the 2000 mini-series and I still wanted to know why so many things were different in the mini-series than in the book -- my interpretation of the book would have been different. So, even the mini-series falls far short of the depth of the book and anyone who reads books knows they can be better than any movie.

The 2000 mini-series conveyed a much better story than the 1984 movie did, but the 1984 movie was simply a much better movie -- much better performances, much better visual effects for the most part (and 16 years earlier), and much more *excitement*. No matter how good the 2000 mini-series is, it can never be described as being as exciting as the 1984 movie. In short, the 1984 movie is worth buying and the 2000 mini-series is only worth renting unless you have no intention of ever reading or buying the book. If you're a book reader, just buy the book and skip this mini-series.

I could only give this mini-series a 6 out of 10 stars (barely above average).

It was great to see a six hour treatment but...

[cajunboy · 12 June 2001]

I know that everyone has problems with David Lynch's 1984 version of Dune, but after seeing the television version that adds some scenes, it's grown on me. I never understood why until I saw the new SciFi Channel miniseries. It was the acting. They had little to work with, but they were fascinating. The new miniseries gives the book a much more proper story treatment, but the acting falls short. My best example is the Paul-Feyd contrast. Although, Kyle McLachlan seemed too old to me, he and Sting made excellent opposites in the Lynch version. The two actors cast in the miniseries looked so much alike and were both so wooden to me that it took me half the movie to be able to easily tell when Feyd appeared. As has been mentioned in other comments, the rest of the cast is good, but the 1984 version just had such a great cast that the acting is tough to beat.

I wish that the 1984 cast had the miniseries treatment to work with and it would have been grand. Perhaps after several viewings the acting in the miniseries will grow on me. All in all, it's nice to see more of the book's depth filmed.

If only movies had spliceable DNA as well as frames...

[cchase · 7/10 · 4 December 2000]

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.

If you're Dune fan, watch it. If not, you might do better to read the book.

[FiendishDramaturgy · 7/10 · 7 January 2009]

The thing about a TV Mini-Series in comparison to a theatrical event, is that the mini-series has adequate time to tell a story, but often lacks in financial backing to tell it WELL. While this attempt does not utterly fail in the area of effects and eye candy, it does manage to redeem itself when telling the actual story. The effects are far below the 1984 theatrical version, but the story told is superior, if still falling a bit from the tree.

This may be superior in story, but lacks in organization and effects. I don't need an effects-driven movie to make me happy, but a science fiction story as rich as Herbert's Dune deserves far better treatment than it has received of either this or the original theatrical attempt. Oh, my kingdom for a good Dune interpretation!

All in all? If you're Dune fan, watch it. If not, you might do better to read the book.

It rates slightly higher than the theatrical attempt at a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Job done

[kalinyancy · 9/10 · 30 October 2023]

Stop remaking Dune, just remaster this.

My mother is a huge Dune nerd. She's read ALL the books, not just the first one, and she's read them all several times. This (along with its 2003 Children of Dune sequel) is the only adaptation she likes.

You can't do Dune in a movie, it gets too condensed. The miniseries format was always going to be perfect for it and always will be. Unfortunately, hardly anyone seems to know this version exists, and it's underrated.

The only part that hasn't aged well is the CGI. Though, even then, there is a certain style to the whole thing--sort of stage theatrical--that covers for some of that.

Doesn't stand up to the original.

[ozthegreatat42330 · 6/10 · 18 March 2007]

While this version expands the story, which was OK in itself, the charisma of the performances just was not there. I enjoy William Hurt as a rule, but in this case his performance as Duke Leto "hurt". Alec Newman's Paul was overly whiny. Saska Reeves was too young as Jessica and then did not even play the role in the sequel, causing a jarring break in consistency. Admittedly some of the costumes were more entertaining in this version, but the still suits of the Fremen were totally unbelievable. One could not conceive of anyone lasting very long in them sitting by a lake much less in the middle of the desert. In the long run the original 1984 theatrical version is the better bet. Plus it had the blessing of the author as well.

Close, but not perfect

[nashjar · 8/10 · 3 July 2004]

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...

Successfully gives the gist of Dune

[Spondonman · 7/10 · 25 July 2013]

I first read Dune by Frank Herbert when I was 14 years old and considered it the best book sci-fi or otherwise I'd ever read, 40 years later and after many re-reads it's still in my top 5. I've never really bothered about a feature film of it when after all the best film of any book you read is usually in your head, and the dire 1984 attempt didn't help me either. So with mixed feelings I finally saw this TV mini-series.

Thousands of years in the future thanks to interplanetary high politics and a feud the ruling Atreides family get moved from their lush planet Caladan to govern the desert planet Arrakis but which is rich in the vital drug Spice. The battle is immediately on to retain then regain their position, the young Duke Paul Muad'dib eventually attaining messianic status amongst the aborigines. As you can perhaps guess it's a helluva lot more complicated than that and virtually impossible to make sense of it in a synopsis, or drop a spoiler for that matter! With many shortcomings due to running time (a hopelessly inadequate 273 minutes) the film screenplay played fairly faithful to the novel, the atmosphere and the sets were spot on, the acting OK, crowd scenes so-so, however some of the cgi cartoonery for action scenes was done on the cheap and let it down slightly. Favourite bits: The banquet; the delicate glassy sets for the Bene Gesserit and Imperial scenes; the relationship between mother Jessica and her son Paul; Alia's glee at people's discomfort; the atmospheric enhanced colourings. Pity Thufir Hawat's role was reduced though.

This is probably one of the very few films that it's almost essential to have read the book first – this was a nice try and even though I wasn't entirely ecstatic about it at least it all made sense to me. If you watch this first you may still enjoy it but I think you'll wonder what all the fuss is about. Overall: enjoyed it now to press delete as it takes up too much space.

Weird if you haven't read the book, horrible if you have

[Saaska P · 2/10 · 16 September 2001]

This movie is an attempt to fit a saga such as Frank Herbert's into $20M and this sad fact is apparent in every CGI sequence, in every landscape, in every interior and costume. The book is such a great material for a superb movie. Unfortunately, Dune 2000 is anything but that.

Every other actor is miscast. Think of the formidable Thufir Hawat, a mentat capable of devising "plots within plots within plots", a mentat whose very name strikes fear in the hearts of his enemies. We have a fat old man who can but shout 'B*****ds!' at the charging Sardaukar. Think of the Fremen, the people who have lived in a desert all their lives, people who can kill for a gallon of water. They didn't manage to find enough lean-looking people. Think of Stilgar, the natural born leader, who radiates authority. With all due respect for Uwe Ochsenknecht, he's just not doing the job.

Granted, it's hard to find an actor young enough _and_capable of portraying such a complex character as Paul. But Alec Newman doesn't have charisma, authority and commitment that MacLachlan so powerfully communicated in the 1984 version. And his relationship with Chani looks much more like mother-and-son.

Interiors. Corrino, the Imperial House, and the Atreides, "men of honor and principle", could do better than live in flashy rooms looking like a dream of a nouveau riche. Costumes. Most of the them look like they came out of Batman and Robin. Landscapes. Think of the beauty of the desert: sunsets against the endless ripple on a sea of sand stretching to the horizon, the black-and blue of the desert by moonlight. They used poor quality gouache backdrops. If they couldn't afford a trip to Sahara, why on earth couldn't they at least get some decent photo imagery?

Now one could forgive all this and more, had the director managed to communicate the essence of the story. But that, too, has went out of the window. It could be understood if the director shot his Dune about something different, but John Harrison apparently has no such ambition.

Two main points of the story, Paul's oracle and Fremen dream about making Dune a paradise, were lost. Words 'Kwizats Haderach' have been uttered but twice. If not about this then _what_ Dune _is_ about? Where is the Fremen desire to see their world green, to see rain where none had been before, to see streams running where but sand has been? Where is Paul's agony of trying to avoid the Jihad?

My grudge list is not half complete but I'll shut up for now. One should not even attempt to shoot Dune with such a budget. You can't do it, and your failure may scare off people who can. I do hope one day a great director will meet a competent producer and they'll employ the finest actors and genius designers... and we'll finally see Dune come to life. Until then... horrible.

A full adaptation

[JoeB131 · 9/10 · 3 December 2011]

This was Sci-Fi's attempt to do the Dune Saga in a way the 1984 movie couldn't, which is a more complete version that was faithful to the original book. I think they did this one very well and the casting was pretty good. It did a few things that the book didn't. For instance, Irulan, who is just a narrator in the book, actually has a pretty active role as a character.

I think it's pretty good and it gets down what Herbert was trying to achieve with his novel. (Although I think that the 1984 version is a lot better than anyone gives it credit for.) The Dune novels have all sorts of machinations between various factions, and this one is no exception.

I think the weakness was the use of Czech actors for many of the minor roles... it didn't hold up quite as well as they weren't fluent in English. However, it did give their characterizations an "otherworldly" feel.

Solid Miniseries

[mmise · 7/10 · 31 October 2020]

After watching this version of Dune I was plasenty surprised. If bad CGI and some chisenes doesn't bother you this is very enjoyable and quite solid Miniseries.

Absolute garbage!!

[bijonne · 1/10 · 15 August 2001]

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....

Guilty Pleasures

[schogger13 · 25 June 2001]

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.

Great Screenplay But Poor Production Values

[Tomniboos · 7/10 · 6 February 2024]

This miniseries devotes more time than the David Lynch version (but at 4.5 hrs will be less than the two new Denis Villeneuve films). The big success here is that it manages to unpack much more of Frank Herbert's novel, expand the role of characters who were either truncated or missing from the Lynch film. It also gains more depth by including a few more scenes as well e.g. The banquet scene, the interactions with Duncan and Keynes after the death of Duke Leto.

There is one particularly large change from the novel and this is to expand the role of the Princess Irulan who now takes on an investigation role and is used as a way of helping the audience understand the story. This makes perfect sense given that viewers of the Lynch version were largely left baffled.

Where it lets itself down is in production values. Acting is variable in quality and at times below professional levels, some actors seem to be struggling to act in English and are emphasising parts of sentences in all the wrong places. Even oscar winner William Hurt seems dead behind the eyes on this just quietly reading out his lines with little passion. PH Moriarti is often incomprehensible Only Ian Mcneice really shines delivering a pantomime like performance and occasionally breaking the fourth wall.

VFX is generally acceptable though also reused a bit in places. Some really obvious backdrops lets this down badly though in places - not sure why they didn't use green-screen but you can clearly see where paintings have been stuck together in places.

The costume design is another dodgy part of this. It feels like the designers thought making a sci-fi film was a license to treat everything like an avant garde Paris fashion show. Some very silly costumes and ridiculous hats make it hard to take some scenes seriously.

Much better than the movie...

[genetk44 · 7/10 · 3 October 2018]

With caveats. I read the book about 10-15 years before Lynch's movie came out and was thrilled when his movie was announced. Sadly I was grossly disappointed by the end-product. Yes most of his casting was excellent, except for Kyle M. IMHO. That being said I thought the movie was terrible. I stumbled onto this series by accident a few years after it came out in Europe. I much prefer it to Lynch's abortion, mainly because the actual storyline seemed closer to the book and the whole atmosphere felt more "real". Yes the cgi,sets and the obvious non-Hollywood Euro-cast made it obvious that this was a budget constrained production and some of the production qualities were not quite as high as Lynch's film, I get that. But I still say this is the better version and closer to the spirit of the book. I just wish the streaming services would pick it up so we wouldn't be restricted to Lynch's abortion only.

A fantastic rendition of the Dune novels

[trey-yancy-572-763547 · 10/10 · 8 June 2021]

This is one of my favorite mini-series. When the Dune movie came out, it was absolutely cringe-worthy. (What the heck is a "weirding module"? And as for the glitz and cornball dialogue, that was right out of the Flash Gordon family of guaranteed cinematic bombs - and that film bombed spectacularly.)

But as for this mini-series I was sold immediately - much more of a suspension of disbelief. No cartoon characters like the film. A serious science fiction series for grown-ups. The sequel was a bit lacking, but hot this mini-series.

As for the nay-sayers, I have no idea what's up with them. If you know the books and you understand the great cultural depth within those books and you know of the analogous nature of the entire epic, one cannot help but be impressed by this production. But at this is not a Lucas-style adventure story, I guess some might be too jaded to get it.

And by the way, to b[put things in contect, Dune was first published i 1965 - before Star Trek TOS and way before Star Wars. The level of sophistication of this story is still decades ahead of both ST and SW.

Good for TV, good for the era

[shoobe01-1 · 7/10 · 29 October 2021]

Worth it if an SF fan, much less a Dune fan. If you can handle stuff like Babylon 5, you can handle this.

It is 20+ year old miniseries, the budget shows sometimes. The production design is often great, space VFX are superior to the Lynch version (great ships) but many other FX are awful. Obvious greenscreen, obvious sets, just fuzzy and bad things. Thopters are pretty good except they are not true to the books with flapping, likely due to budget again.

Some great acting. I especially liked. Ian McNeice's baron, to the point I worry now he's actually evil. One of very very few evil laughs that are totally believable. Some other actors are... okay. Generic TV folks I won't remember tomorrow.

All in all, still felt a little too rushed. This is weird because it's somewhere north of 4 hours, but still, it lacked a bit of the epic feel and passage of time. The story takes place over a several year period, but just doesn't feel like it.

Impressive epic miniseries that redefines science fiction

[kel_har · 10/10 · 7 December 2000]

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!!

Frank Herbert's Dune

[robfollower · 7/10 · 6 December 2021]

Frank Herbert is best known as the science fiction author responsible for Dune, a 1965 epic which was one of the very first ecologically-minded novels of the genre. The story takes place on the desert planet of Arrakis, which is all at once a harsh arid landscape and a complicated, flourishing biosphere.

Frank Herbert's Dune is a three-part science fiction television miniseries based on the 1965 titular novel by Frank Herbert. It was written and directed by John Harrison. The ensemble cast includes Alec Newman as Paul Atreides, William Hurt as Duke Leto, and Saskia Reeves as Lady Jessica, as well as James Watson, P. H. Moriarty, Ian McNeice, and Giancarlo Giannini.

The series was produced by New Amsterdam Entertainment, Blixa Film Produktion and Hallmark Entertainment. It was first broadcast in the United States on December 3, 2000, on the Sci Fi Channel. It was released on DVD in 2001, with an extended director's cut appearing in 2002.

A 2003 sequel miniseries titled Frank Herbert's Children of Dune continues the story, adapting the second and third novels in the series (1969's Dune Messiah and its 1976 sequel Children of Dune). The miniseries are two of the three highest-rated programs ever to be broadcast on the Sci Fi Channel.

Frank Herbert's Dune won two Emmy Awards in 2001 for Outstanding Cinematography and Outstanding Special Visual Effects in a miniseries or movie, and was nominated for a third Emmy for Outstanding Sound Editing. The series was also praised by several critics, including Kim Newman.

A lot of the actors are eastern European, and I find that their accents work very well in giving their characters an exotic and foreign sound. Especially the character Chani (Barbora Kodetová) she was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia. I do like how Sci-Fi Channel's has everyone being more akin to ancient Feudal society. As flamboyant as their outfits are, they are about as ridiculous as real historical outfits. The special effects impressive, and the actors give dignity to their faux-Shakespearean line readings.

Dune is a complex novel featuring a detailed political society, an interesting ecology (some people think this is the finest "ecological" novel, but it is more than that), some ruminations on the nature of destiny and the future of mankind, and more. The mini-series confines itself to a very detailed replication of the plot of Dune and gives some insight into the politics and a bit of attention to the nature of "destiny". Considering the lack of a budget this series is very well done. All three episodes are on YouTube to watch.

Paul the petulant

[Azsorious · 2/10 · 17 November 2016]

I came into this with mild expectations, having seen Lynch's Dune and then reading the entire book series. Needless to say I was disappointed at best.

Paul is unrecognizable in this series, gone is the noble yet immature Atreides. Instead we have a spoiled, impudent brat. They insert pointless dialogue which never occurs in the books or movie for the sake of comic relief supposedly, something which detracts from the high-stakes nature of this epic. Unforgivably they also cut crucial sections out of the production (struggle in the ornathopter after Leto's death) and replace it with an ornathopter chase! The re-unification of Paul and Gerney is also woefully unemotional contrasted with Lynch's rendition.

TL;DR: Unnecessary additions, criminal subtractions, bad acting/casting (outside of the Baron and perhaps Irulan), action-movie-esque kitsch, gawdy set design, cringeworthy CGI.

Unless you are a die-hard Dune connoisseur avoid this mini-series. Watch the director's cut of Lynch's Dune and Children of Dune but avoid this miserable rendition like the plague.

A more convincing take on the Dune saga

[Keyan-the-Eagle144 · 8/10 · 12 July 2018]

I'd seen parts of the David Lynch Dune movie and it was decent, and when I heard that the Sci Fi Channel was doing a miniseries based on the original Frank Herbert novel, I was excited. Maybe it would do more justice than the movie. Turns out it was actually pretty darn good.

They brought in a lot of foreign actors, and not just American ones, and William Hurt was good as the father of Paul Atreides. But some of the acting was a little stiff and some might think that the guy playing Paul was a little too old. Maybe a twenty-something-year-old would have been nice. But the visuals were pleasing and the technology looked well done. I've only seen the miniseries once, and I wouldn't mind seeing it again. At least the Baron didn't look too revolting. And the sandworms were definitely formidable. The ornithopters could have been more exotic-looking but they were decent and were much better than the ones in the David Lynch movie.

Bottom line: If you were put off by the movie and want something a little more accurate and exotic, this should be on your to-do list. If it were me, I'd keep both for comparison. That way we don't have to fight. And it's not a contest. Just try to enjoy one or the other, or even both, okay?

Very good for a small/indie production budget!

[fdpugh · 7/10 · 29 June 2005]

First of all, this movie should not be compared to the original production. Decades of cinematography and effects separate the two, as does a completely different approach to the film. The only particular difference that must be noted is the storyline for the 2000 production is fairly complete- as one might expect of a mini-series- meaning it does not leave the reader feeling confused throughout and require them to imagine an introduction or resolution. In fact to be true to the book the length of the film is almost necessary.

The acting in the film is quite good. There are not many well known actors (at least for US audiences), but that has the effect of balancing the film; letting it flow around the storyline not a few select characters. There are hints of overacting here and there but usually in awkward scenes where some of the subtle meaning explained in the book would be very difficult to portray.

Special effects are not all that bad. Though the use of CGI/Bluescreen is fairly obvious. Considering the year and budget these are for the most part forgivable. There are three flaws which I cannot forgive: Footage of a Fremen raid on the Harkonnen hanger is used at least three times throughout the film, and the birds which occasionally are rendered (poorly) in the background generally distract and detract from the scenes they are inserted into. Lastly, the lighting is somewhat overdone, appearing to be more in line with theater lighting than a movie set.

Overall this is definitely a film to watch if you like science fiction. You can watch it as a stand-alone piece, or read the various books that Frank Herbert wrote for a more complete understanding of the story.

The Gutting of a Masterpiece

[herumesueni · 1/10 · 10 August 2003]

If you have never read the classic science fiction novel this mini-series is based on, it may actually be good. Unfortunately, if you ARE a fan of the book, you probably won't be able to watch more than the first hour or two. All of the political intrigue has been taken out of the film, the most important scenes from the book have been taken out, characters motivations have been changed completely, and words from the wrong characters mouths. Where in the novel Paul Atredies was a teen age boy with incredible political skill and a great understanding of the way the world worked, in this film he is hot headed and and frustrated. Avoid this movie at all costs.