User reviews

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.

(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.

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.

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.....

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Firstly I would like to say how much I liked the soundtrack by Toto! Secondly, I don't think this film is that bad, it's really interesting actually. The visual effects are really charming. Sting is really funny addition to the film as well. I liked the costumes.

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.

I waited until I read the novel before I watched this. I am so glad that I did, because otherwise it would make zero sense. I can understand why it was considered a book that could never translate to film at the time.

It jumps past a lot of scenes in the book, so it more or less just appears that things are happening just because. What you end up with is a fever dream, but an absolutely stunning fever dream.

It is visually beautiful in a way that only existed in the 1980s. Practical sets that were incredibly imperfect but magical in the passions that shows through them. One fever dream set after another, dripping with absolute madness at every angle.

The acting is superb. Brad Dourif as Piter is phenomenal. Sean Young as Chani is stunning, though missing a lot of the character development. The whole family Harkonnen is beyond entertaining. Kyle MacLachlan does well with the role of Paul, though a lot of the character from the book is missing in the movie.

Is it perfect? No. Not at all. Relationships and bonds between characters are pretty much non-existent. The effects used for the shields looks like an abomination. Things happen without reason and the movie jumps ahead at a pace that makes it almost impossible to follow at times. Characters come and go and come back without reason. They omit characters and full-on story lines from the book. It is far from a perfect movie.

Look, this book is almost 900 pages long. There is no way you are fitting that into a movie with a run time that is less than 2.5 hours. So you end up with just a bunch of scenes jammed together like a wild psychotic trip. But even so, watching this movie was so enjoyable. I feel that it truly captures the feel of the book, and it is made with so much passion and love that it bleeds out of every fiber of this movie.

I can't give this higher than a 7 because it really is just over two hours of nonsense without the knowledge of the book. But dang did this movie hold true to the spirit of the novel. I loved every second that I watched this.

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.

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...

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.

I read "Dune" in 1984, prior to watching David Lynch's adaptation but with his film's visuals in mind (thanks to the magazines of the time). I fell in love with the book (of course) and soon after with the movie.

Problems during the course of its production, unwise (if not poor) decisions regarding its visual effects and the pressure of condensing a very complex material in 2 hours mark all conspired against the quality of the piece, the main victims here being the story telling (which is really not great) and the pace (which is somewhat unbalanced and even clumsy).

But despite of all its major flaws, I believe that David Lynch's film remains a unique piece of cinema for which a major re-assessment is long overdue and much needed.

Lynch is a creator-director renowned for its vivid and otherworldly imageries and "Dune" is no exception. In fact the film is full of striking moments (Princess Irulan's opening sequence, the visit of the 3rd stage Navigator to the Emperor, the Harkonnens first introduction, the Atreides ships entering the immense Guild high liners etc...).

Its design in general makes it a fascinating picture to watch. The sets were sumptuous (even by today's standards), the costumes superb and varied, Freddie Francis's photography outstanding and the extraordinary all-star ensemble cast provided some wonderful and memorable performances.

"Dune" might not be flashy and "futuristically" demonstrative (quite the contrary in fact) which actually add to its charms but it is all gravitas and nobility, unconventional, challenging, strange and... (well okay, granted:) intellectual. These were some of the reasons why the movie was almost universally paned upon its release (ironically by the very same critics that would complain about the formulaic and predictable nature of Hollywood films).

The movie simply fell victim of the expectations as it did not come out as the pop-corn blockbuster some quarters have expected back then (which in itself is very strange considering the tone of the original material and the very nature of the director).

Whether one love(d) or loathe(d) this film, "Dune" could hardly be accused of being banal or clichéd now, could it? For its defence the film main merit is to exist at all. "Dune" is a book that cannot be adapted effectively (as proved years later by its somewhat insipid TV adaptation) and yet the film is there in all its beauty and relative failure.

As noted in some other reviews on here, the TV version of the film which was atrociously re-cut and CRIMINALLY re-framed, boasts however some never seen before footages and scenes that could have benefited the movie if only producer Dino de Laurentiis had agreed to release a three hours epic.

Hey! There's an idea! Wouldn't that be cool if David Lynch was granted a director's cut? I know that would sure make me a happy bunny. And I also know that there are some of you out there that would agree...

Frank Herbert put on a good face and said he was pleased, but you could see the truth and the suffering in his eyes. He died shortly after release, probably to escape the horror. This movie sets special effects back by about a century or so, is a monument to bad acting and bad direction, and redefines "hopelessly muddled plotlines." Sad, because it's such a great book. If you've read the book you can barely figure out that it's supposed to be the same story. If you haven't read the book, you won't be able to understand even one thing that's going on. The sandworms are a joke, the stillsuit design completely ignores their purpose, the ornithopters are stupid, the space ships look like some kid playing with his mom's dishes, and the blue eyeballs look exactly like what they are-- some guy with an airbrush going over the movie frame by frame to try to convince you that these people really do have blue eyeballs. Not to mention that the musical score is a travesty. Can you tell?-- I hate this movie.