Frank Herbert's Dune (2000)

Strong and Moving!

Just perfect...

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

Unbearable to watch if you've read the book and vastly inferior to the classic David Lynch movie. I won't describe how this adaptation betrays the book time after time, not so much in terms of the action, but in terms of the characters -- hardly any is recognizable. After all, many may watch the series who have not read the book. I will say a few things about the differences between David Lynch's flawed masterpiece (1984) and this adaptation: the acting, the cinematography, and the technology. The actors are all vastly inferior to those in the 1984 movie, even Paul Atreides, who was the main failure in David Lynch' movie. Baron Harkonnen is supposed to be gross (he is certainly is in both versions), but also smart and sinister -- the 2000 version is just gross. His nephew Feyd Rautha is supposed to be handsome, courtly, but deeply twisted, though lacking his uncle's brains and craftiness; Sting was a perfect Feyd Rautha in the Lynch movie; this one is just giong through the moves, but leaves no lasting impression. Jessica is both a mother, an accomplished politician and administrator, and a viciously effective warrior, but here she has all the charm and presence of a pouting teenager, whereas she was just about perfect in the Lynch movie. The list goes on and on -- the imperial ecologist was a stunning, if somewhat ephemeral presence in the Lynch version, but is another forgettable character here. The Lynch version suffered at the hands of the producer, but Lynch is one of the great directors and the cinematography is stunning. The three planets (Harkonnen, Atreides, and Dune) are magnificently rendered and the sandworms on Dune have to be seen to be believed, this in spite of much more primitive movie technology in 1984. (This is another of my complaints: the special effects and background scenery in this 2000 version are laughably bad -- no realism, but no poetry and inspiration either; they do not convey any sense of space, harshness or fertility, menace or pollution; they just look like 1950ss B-movie painted backdrops.) This 2000 version has no imagination and no artistry; it provides more details (e.g., the face masks are lovingly detailed) , but they add nothing -- just like the much longer running time of the three episodes (compared to the relatively short Lynch movie) covers much more ground, but does not tell the story nearly as well. I'll take the flawed gem over the plodding, unimaginative, literal new version any time, for better storytelling, for infinitely better casting and scenery, and for overall artistry.

Certainly it is hard to convey the complexities of Frank Herbert's magnificent story in film - even while just about anything seems possible in today's cinema; who'd have imagined Lord of the Rings faithfully rendered in anything but animation format? But we are talking about the beginning of the new millennium, so I give the production kudos for a rendering that is vastly superior to the Lynch film and went on to produce the equally excellent Children of Dune sequels.

This "version" of Dune has all the qualities of a Sci Fi original. Poor casting, horrible acting (think high school play), bad effects, cheesy dialogue, and just a trashy unoriginal feel to it. The costumes look like something my grandmother pinochle team would wear to a square dance.I tried as best I could to sit through this piece, but alas, it could not be done. Maybe if I was 8 and knew nothing about quality cinema. The fact that this has such a high rating on IMDb speaks about the quality of American Cinema these days.If you liked the books or the Lynch movie do not watch this.OMG the acting is so bad.

Of the three adaptations(to knowledge) of the Dune book franchise, the best is the mini-series Children of Dune. It is not perfect, it has Susan Sarandon's overacting and occasionally can feel cartoonish, stilted and incomplete, but it is wonderful visually, has the best music score of the three adaptations, has good acting on the whole and is easy to follow at least. David Lynch's film, apart from a couple of good performances here and there and the amazing visuals, was severely lacking, starting with an underdeveloped and not always cohesive story, even at 3 hours the film felt too short(a 5 or 6 hour mini-series is better for Dune), there is some really bad, cheesy scripting and there is the feeling of Lynch being the wrong director for it. This mini-series is far from great, but it is a marginal improvement over Lynch's film but Children of Dune, while not perfect either, eclipses them both.Generally Dune(2000) does look good. The sets are so sumptuous in colour and beautifully rendered and the costumes are a creatively bizarre mix of styles that suit the characters very well. The photography on the whole is clean, clear and not too distracting. The special effects are mixed in quality, at times they are well-proportioned, textured and fit well within the story, but at others they have a cheap look(cartoonish and cardboard). The music is also excellent, a component that like with Children of Dune is done much better than in Lynch's film. With the music here there is the right amount of the moody and the majestic. The dialogue really doesn't come across very well, very cheesy often and far too casual, very little of Frank Herbert's intelligent prose comes through.Dune(2000) has a more suitable length than the Lynch film, is easier to follow and doesn't try to rush things through. It doesn't quite come off successfully. John Harrison deserves credit for bringing his own style while trying to respect some of Herbert's details, and doing things at a leisurely pace to give time to breathe was a good decision. There were times though where the pacing came across as too leisurely and too many parts were under-explained or left more questions than answers. The cast are a mixed bag. The best performance comes from Ian McNiece who is funny and menacing. William Hurt is very good, meaningful and charismatic not to mention cool, in his expanded character role and Saskia Reeves makes for a Jessica that is sweet and calculating. Sadly there is also PH Moriaty, whose Gurney is bland and over-compensated, Barbara Kodetova who is annoying and especially Alec Newman who is very ill at ease and too sullen. The more minor roles are not memorable and not enunciated enough.Of the characters, the only ones who are developed reasonably enough are Duke Leto(the expansion really does help), Baron and Lady Jessica, everybody else are underwritten ciphers really and some like Piter and Thufir who are criminally underused and forgettably performed. In conclusion, very mixed feelings on this mini-series. 5/10 Bethany Cox