Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Bereamic Awesome Movie

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

bmemoret 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.

Anrkey This is the Sci-Fi channel I miss and loved. A time when you'd finish watching this and a show like Lex would come on. The story itself is really solid and with its length is able to explore Dune as it was meant to be. But unlike its predecessor from 1984, the graphics do not hold up. I can easily get lost in the visual imagery from the 1984 version to this day... but this adaptation?I recall being much more wowed when it first aired. I think some of that has to do with the time. When this was released, there weren't a lot of shows that were so extravagant in the set pieces. Star Trek being an exception along with Farscape. If I were to equate the set pieces / costume, I'd put it more in line with Flash Gordon.I've not read the book, so whether this is an accurate representation to the source material is unknown to me. I still really enjoy it for what it is on its own. If you're looking for an epic mini-series, you could do worse... say, Langoliers kind of worse.

sciencevessel I was immediately disappointed early in the series when I realized how they had poorly cast Paul, who is a central character holding the entire movie together. Paul is calm, collected, prescient with razor-sharp perceptive skills; mature ahead of his time. In the series, Paul is petulant, arrogant, rash and almost childish. He lacks much of the presence that he needs to project. The cast around him is decent (e.g. William Hurt as Leto Atriedes), the special effects good for its time, but it still falls sadly short. It won't stop Dune fans from watching it, but I leave the film feeling dissatisfied and a sense of the waste.

Armand to adapt Dune is a strange work. because the result can be only suggestion of novel atmosphere. so, if the David Lynch version was perfect for the before read the book, this series is perfect for after. it is beautiful, and this is basic virtue. it is fresh and realistic and poetic and fascinating. a large puzzle with a remarkable cast. but, in a sense, it becomes more than a brilliant/nice/convincing adaptation. it is a closed universe , a large painting in which director, scriptwriter, cast impose options, vision and honey.amber of ambition. it is a symphony and this is not a real mistake but only a form of escape from novel circle. a beautiful film. a correct adaptation. but something remains in promise skin.