User Reviews

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.....

First off, an honest confession, I went to the cinema, expecting to be seeing the new film, when the credits rolled, it was this, the original adaptation.

Some time since I've seen it, but I still have the same opinions as I did when I first saw it.

It's a heavy film, you do need to be a sci-fi enthusiast to enjoy this, partly because of content, partly because of the long running time.

I'll start with my favourite aspect, the visuals, absolutely breathtaking, it is a dazzling watch, the sets and costumes are tremendous, the scale of it is hugely impressive, a big supporting cast, it really is a masterpiece, visually. Sure some of the special effects are a little dated now, but that's expected.

The story, I have read the book, so I understand the complexities of it, for a novice it can be a challenge, but it may be worth checking out the synopsis before you watch it.

The acting, is somewhat varied, I still regard the powerhouse performance as being the one from Sian Phillips, who of course plays The Reverend Mother, she is fabulous, and has heaps of stage presence.

I am not sure I have ever fully appreciated just how good an actress Francesca Annis is, talk about a true screen beauty, her presence is huge here, such a beautiful woman.

This has given me an even greater appetite to see the new one, however, this remains a classic, it still has the capacity to shock, it definitely still entertains, 8/10.

'Dune' may have a dated look due to the poor special effects but it still is an enjoyable adventurous science fiction movie. The film is awkward and feels a little rushed but the sense of adventure is well maintained. Lynch fans who haven't yet seen this movie might be disappointed because this isn't like any of his later works. Almost everything about it, except for some of the acting is over the top. But it feels like a science fiction movie because of the unusual names, the art direction etc. With the excessive use of CGI, it is nowadays sometimes difficult with science fiction movies to feeling the experience of the world the director creates. It was fun to see actors like Kyle Machlachlan, Sean Young and Virginia Madsen who were so young at the time. 'Dune' has its flaws and there are many of it but the idea behind it is creative and the film has heart to make it entertaining enough. It is certainly not among the best of its genre and nor Lynch's best but it's fun enough to roll along with.

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.

There are two groups of people who write at IMDb, the pessimists and the optimists. The pessimists love to complain about something or other in a film. The optimists try and find something good. DUNE probably ranks as one of those that feels like it's going to be good, but leaves a confusing, lackluster feeling in its wake. In an attempt to be optimistic, I will try focusing ONLY on the good parts. This might be tough.

I will give David Lynch credit (indeed, as Frank Herbert did when he saw this) for trying to take an enormous amalgamation of things and ideas from the novel and trying to turn them into a movie. Lynch's visual style is very raw here and everything in the production design seems to be under his spell.

The sets, costumes, cinematography, and choice of cast is excellent. All of them lend a flavor of difference that transcends whatever confusion is on the screen. (On the side note: I was sick of hearing Kyle MacLachlan repeating himself over and over) The creature designs by Carlo Rambaldi are very Lynch-ien, even though we rarely get to see them.

Overall, a sci-fi epic that requires a lethargic butt, an open mind, and a copy of Frank Herbert's novel to enjoy. Still, it is far superior to the TV miniseries of late (I know saying that is blasphemy to some). I refuse to rate this with stars or anything else.

Say what you will about incoherence, this is more sensuous than any Star Wars. In fact, it is the most expensive 'tripping' ever produced in film - though far from the most satisfying.

It helps to know the book and forget it as you watch this. Not being familiar with the book, you're left with a disjointed tapestry of weird costumes and special effects, some of them impressive, but if you are, and don't have to burden yourself with following the constantly clumsy explanation of the multifaceted Dune universe, you can enjoy this as illustration of a few core ideas.

Herbert's novel was the product of strange and powerful times. The US public was experiencing the Civil Rights upheaval, its short-lived infatuation with Islam and meditation, and the same year as the book came out, LSD had spilled out of some top-secret government labs into the streets and youth culture of San Francisco. The first satellite images of Earth had just been published. The Black Panthers had entered the vernacular.

So all the stuff about prescient visions, mentats and mastering mind, (herbally) expanded consciousness as the tool to the navigation and 'folding' of space, Herbert wrote with one eye on the Jordan Belson, Beatles and Maharishi crowd - the generation between film noir and Lucas that for a brief time projected truths into constructed cosmologies.

Herbert was more erudite than most. But he was caught under the same spell - the expectation of a noble jihad of the people and wise lamas from the East coming to teach 'the way'. And you can tell that he was exposed to Eastern thought through Jungians, by his laboriously constructed mythology and (now trite) focus on a Chosen One's journey.

Lynch was a late bloomer in that scene. To my knowledge, he fell in with what was being marketed as 'transcendental meditation' in his AFI years, while filming Eraserhead. I don't know what they practice behind closed doors - my interest lies with the Chinese model and they seem cultish to me. But, there's no doubt to me that he passed on the Lucas gig, thinking he was going to work on a vision of some power.

The film outright fails because the scope of the book is too big (to think that Hobbit is being stretched into a trilogy these days), and because he lacked the right collaborators and probably the predisposition to make an 'action' Dune.

Now Jodorowsky's Dune would have been something to see, probably as cumbersome about spirituality but much more organic. But, it's worth noting a few interesting things about this, in context of how Lynch would expand in later years.

He zeroes in on the transcendental experience of 'awakening the sleeper'. He does so in an obvious manner. Rambaldi's spiceworms as blossoming desert flowers top his visual meditation. And that all of Herbert's pomp and mythological noise work against him submerging the idea.

Keep in mind the Chinese notion - from the Tao Te Ching - that the 'soft beats the hard', stressed twice in the film even though no one actually thinks or fights in the Chinese way. Discard everything that is hard, from the crass Harkonnen to the acting style (mentat Dourif!) to the sophomoric rousing of Fremen rebellion, laser battles and final redemption.

The one part that is soft is at House Atreides, the preparation for Dune. What is there? Familiar dynamics - it's soap opera if you discard the costumes. Premonitions of murder and telepathic wiring with a fabric behind reason. A woman with her box of illusory sensations. A space flight through the doors of perception.

It's heady. None of it really works, because Herbert's synchretic universe is not one of internal martial arts, what we see matters. But does any of it remind you of a David Lynch film you know?

Overlong but visually stunning adaptation of the Frank Herbert book directed by David Lynch about Paul Atredies (Kyle MacLachlan) and his destiny to lead the people of the desert planet Dune, which is the largest producer of an intergalactic spice, to freedom from an evil empire.

Although it has great production values and a cast that tries its hardest to bring out the life in their characters, "Dune" never quite comes together. It's ability to be enjoyed is hampered by it's attempts to be as intellectually stimulating as possible and as a result tending to bore its own audience and hampering our ability to make an emotional connection to the characters (example: summarizing Paul's relationship with the beautiful Sean Young).

Rock singer Sting appears to be having fun as a lunatic killer with red hair.

Film is greatly redeemed by it's production value and bizarre atmosphere.

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.

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.

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.

Every time I see this film I like it more, yet can see why people would dislike this movie, and I can sum up it's shortcoming this way:

Not close enough to the book to humour the people who have read the book, to confusing for people who have not. Thus Lynch managed to get a lot of bad press about this near masterpiece.

It is very difficult to fit the plot of Herbert's masterpiece into 130 minutes, but I think Lynch did a good job, sadly he added som stuff that was not in the book. Where Lynch does excel is in setting the mood. To help him he had probably the best possible cast for such a movie and the best musical score ever. The acting overall is excellent (except possibly Maclachlan and Jones) and for me who read the book before seeing the film, it is hard not to see Stewart as Halleck. The timing of the acting and events is almost perfect. If Lynch had had help by a better scriptwriter to curb some of his wilder additions and flesh out the plot a bit and this could have been one of the best sci-fi movies ever. As is, it is very good, but somewhat flawed.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I know we shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but sometimes Roger Ebert should have refrained from trying to judge pieces of cinema he didn't understand. He gave Dune one star. How magnanimous! The movie doesn't make sense, he said. Rubbish. Not only is the movie a brilliant adaptation of an impossible book, an epic convoluted saga larger than all the epics of human history, but it manages to do it in a hypnotic cinematic style, the sort we now associate with Lynch. The visuals and the music are mesmerising. The cinematography and special effects totally respectful of the novel's sweeping vision. The huge cast do a brilliant job of fleshing out the characters, even the minor ones. The pace and editing are cracking. The basic story of the battle between the Harkonnen and the Atreides and their Fremen allies is crystal clear to any viewer paying attention, even without being familiar with the book. I've yet to read a negative review by a professional critic that wasn't just full of spleen and devoid of any reference to the cinematic evidence in the actual film. The IMDB users have got the point of it and are far more reasonable in their assessment of the film. Mr Lynch, I wish you'd revise your relationship to the film, put aside all the studio nonsense you were subjected to, and be proud to own it.

This film's only redeeming quality is the original score by Toto. The music, at least some of it, is appropriately celestial, ethereal, almost subliminal in its orchestration. That said, the film's other elements are awful.

The plot is an incoherent mess. I had no idea what was going on. After the first thirty minutes, I really didn't care what was going on. Character and place names confuse and irritate; they are like something from out of a witch's dictionary. The characters are uninteresting, and I could not identify with any of them. They have no sense of humor, and always seem to be in a bad mood. (Whatever happened to antidepressants?). The dialogue is heavy duty, melodramatic mumbo jumbo. The voice-over technique is overused, and is therefore irritating. The casting is poor. Kyle MacLachlan is not convincing in the role he plays, because he lacks charisma. The worms have no personality. The special effects are mediocre at best. And the film is full of cheap cinematic gimmicks, like blue eyeballs, futuristic techno-gadgets, and a floating fat man.

It is a dreadfully pretentious and ponderous film that takes itself way too seriously. Even Ed Wood's "Plan 9 From Outer Space" has some entertainment value, derived from its technical crudeness. But, apart from portions of the soundtrack, "Dune" has no entertainment value of any kind. The film is cold and clammy. It has all the charm of a dead fish.

Over the years, I have come to the understanding that there are two schools of though here. Some people absolutely hate this movie and other absolutely love it. I'm of the latter school, regularly enjoying Lynch's twisted take on the late Herbert's fantastic story. The story follows the House Atreides on a planetary move to the spice mining world of Arakis. With it, comes the power struggle and life and death situations commonly associated with political struggle.

Dark and interesting, Lynch has managed to capture all of Herbert's story and mix it with some of his sick and twisted ideas. A must watch for Lynch and Herbert fans.

8/10

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.

In the future, there are two great dynasties. One, the Atreides, are noble, kind, and good human beings. The other, the Harkonnen, are evil through and through, but hold great power and sway with the ruling emperor of the galaxies. The Harkonnen, led by the wicked and degenerate Baron, are out to get the Atreides, naturally. With an elaborate plot, they arrange for Duke Leto and Jessica Atreides, with their young adult son Paul, to become rulers of Arrakis, a desert planet. However, it is a trap and the Harkonnen have a traitor in the midst who will help, Baron hopes, to wipe out the Atreides line. What the H do not count on, however, is that Paul may be a long awaited miracle man capable of leading the inhabitants of Arrakis to destroy the Harkonnen and the emperor's misguided plans. Who will reign at the end, the good or the bad? The book, by Frank Herbert, is easily one of the best books of all time. It is complex and, therefore, probably difficult to bring to the screen. Nevertheless, this version is truly an acceptable homage to the book. It has good visuals and tries successfully to bring out the intricate details of the book, such as Paul as the messiah of the universe, the witch-nuns who try to influence history, and the excesses of the evil Baron. The cast is superb, with Maclachlan giving Paul a wonderfully gallant presence. Do give Dune a try. It is science fiction at its best and the film makes a valiant effort to make the story accessible to all.

Dune is by far the weakest film from David Lynch ,but i dont blame him for this film,but rather studio that hired wrong director for this kind of film.I mean David before this one directed Eraserhead and Elephant man,two films that had nothing connected to a Sci Fi genre so who ever hired David it made a very bad decision.What i hated the most in a film were narrations and explaining everything and everyone to audience,special effects dont hold back very good expecely mirrors fight,script was also very bad in moments and story and characters are all over the place and everything felt wasted and cut short.Dune was a big mess of a movie