Frank Herbert's Dune (2000)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

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.

The pace through the plot is about right in this mini-series (the 1984 film was in too much of a hurry). There is reasonable adherence to the book - it would take double the time to follow everything in the book. The shortcuts are reasonable (e.g. dropping Paul's second Fremen name "Usul"). Score is good, with a memorable and pretty theme tune; although personally I would have put more into the rhythm in a few places for contrast (it's more ambient than necessary throughout IMO).One or two gripes: the spice-affected eyeballs look like they have back- lighting wired in - there was no need to deviate from the book's simple deep blue iris and light blue sclera, i.e. without going bionic on the lighting.Accents of actors are sometimes good, sometimes inconsistent. For example, if Shaddam has an Italian accent, then some of it should rub off on his children. And the Fremen accent is all over the place - sometimes Egyptian, sometimes east European. And given that the Fremen language is clearly a descendant of Arabic, then "Shadout Mapes" shouldn't rhyme with "grapes" - I'd choose either "mar-pess" or "mar- pesh" - in fact the latter would sound the more convincing to me in the context of the story.As other reviewers have hinted at, but not covered specifically, the director fails to represent the idea of prescience nor the role of the mentat properly. Instead of presenting these as visions and calculations (respectively) of the possible future, as described in the book, we see almost randomly juxtaposed images, much more suggestive of the 70's hallucinogenic culture than the book intended, in spite of its 70's publication date.Nevertheless, in comparison with what the genre usually offers, I still give it ten out of ten.

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.

Now I must say that both the 1984 and the 2000 versions have their flaws. I of course like the book best but I'll just review the 2000 interpretation.Paul Atreides: I prefer him over the 1984 Paul, he is just far more relatable. The 1984 Paul was harsh and cold, he has emotion and just has a great look.Duke Leto: Once again, he is preferable. He looks cooler, acts better, has far more screen time and is more meaningful to the story. He was one of my fav characters and his death scene was 100 times better than the crap I saw on the 1984 version. He has charisma and strength.Thufir Hawat: WHAT?!! One of the best characters of the book has been totally ruined here!! He is terribly underused, he has no charisma(MASTER OF ASSASAINS) and he wears a ridicuolus top hat! I find myself missing Freddie Jones's fantastic performance.Piter De Vries: Forgettable. That's the best way of saying it. Like Thufir, he wears a stupid hat. And he is just entirely forgettable. The contrast between him and Thufir that was so clear in the 1984 version is gone entirely and all I got was that he's an annoying adviser guy.Baron Vladimir Harkonnen: Here is where things get interesting. McNeice was a frickin' masterpiece. Gone is the ugly psycho-Baron from 1984. McNeice followed the book to the letter and brought his own style to the role. I kept hoping to see Harkonnen scenes more than Atreides scenes.Feyd-Rautha Harkonnen: My first reaction to him was: "Why isn't his hair ginger?". Looking back, I must say he makes a better Feyd than Sting did, he was just more... Feyd-ish. He was of course arrogant, but also had style, something that the 1984 Feyd(who wore the same suit for 2 years) lacked entirely.Rabban Harkonnen: His first name is not Glossu. It was said in the original book by Gurney himself: "Rabban Harkonnen". Anyway, I liked him better here, he was intimidating and if you'd been his prisoner, you would know straight away you're doomed. The 1984 Rabban was a buffoon.Duncan Idaho: While I enjoy Duncan having more screen time here, the 1984 Duncan was far better. This Duncan just wasn't... familiar. I dunno how to say it.Gurney Halleck: I think this is one of the few characters whom I like equally in all versions. The 2000 Gurney is sort of a cross between the rough ugly Gurney from the book and the Captain Picard from 1984.Lady Jessica: Like with Gurney, I like her equally in both versions. Of course, there's no denial that the 2000 Jessica is more beautiful.Shaddam IV: Personally, I liked the 1984 one far more. He immediately gave away a feeling of justice and security. He was an Emperor whom you would want to join. The 2000 version just kept annoying me with his attitude(it is sad that the new Herbert/Anderson books depict this Shaddam). Frank's original Shaddam seemed to be a cross between the 1984 and 2000 ones.Chani: Better here.Liet-Kynes: While the 1984 version had much more charisma, he lacked four things. First of all, I never knew he was Liet. Secondly, I never knew he was Chani's father. Thirdly, he didn't have his *I am a desert creature* death scene. Fourthly, it was never mentioned that he was behind the ecological reformation of Arrakis. Irulan: This Irulan was much better than the pointless 1984 Irulan. That's all I have to say.Sorry if the comparison bored you.I really liked this miniseries, it kept closer to the tone of the book. Unlike the 1984 version, it had warmth. The Fremen felt more adapted to the ways of the desert, the sandworms were clearly better.