Auto boutiques-francophones Simple and secure cloud storage Personal Care Cook All-New Kindle Paperwhite Explore the Amazon.ca Vinyl LP Records Store Fall Tools

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

Showing 1-10 of 67 reviews(2 star)show all reviews
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
on July 27, 2003
Although the plot is a little easier to follow in this version, I remain a diehard fan of the original adaptation of Dune...the casting was much better in the original (this Paul Atreides was not believable to me at all), and so was the set. Yes, the Lynch version has its problems, but it still has a better overall feel than this adaptation, which disappointed me greatly.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on June 11, 2003
I was very disappointed in this version. The book is very complicated to be sure, and making a movie of it is not an easy task, but that does not excuse the lack of depth of this movie. Despite being more than twice as long as Lynch's version of Dune, the percentage of the total story showed is actually less. Some of the most dramatic and important lines are left out to no apparently good reason ("They tried and failed? No, they tried and died.") They would touch on subjects and neglect to add the one or two lines that would have explained it fully. The changes they made to the storyline had no purpose and added nothing (such as their emphasis on Princess Irulan, who they featured heavily for no apparent reason). They made a decision not to show us the thoughts of the characters (a major part of the total depth of the book) which would have been a OK if they had added dialogue to make up for it, but they just threw all that information away instead.
It was decently acted, and the cinematogrophy was quite good at times, though the special effects were unsually poor (that mouse looked straight out of a Pokemon cartoon). All in all I have to say I am somewhat unhappy I spent money on it. Read the book, or get Lynch's film (which has its own problems but on the whole was better.)
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on June 11, 2003
I was very disappointed in this version. The book is very complicated to be sure, and making a movie of it is not an easy task, but that does not excuse the lack of depth of this movie. Despite being more than twice as long as Lynch's version of Dune, the percentage of the total story showed is actually less. Some of the most dramatic and important lines are left out to no apparently good reason ("They tried and failed? No, they tried and died.") They would touch on subjects and neglect to add the one or two lines that would have explained it fully. The changes they made to the storyline had no purpose and added nothing (such as their emphasis on Princess Irulan, who they featured heavily for no apparent reason). They made a decision not to show us the thoughts of the characters (a major part of the total depth of the book) which would have been a OK if they had added dialogue to make up for it, but they just threw all that information away instead.
It was decently acted, and the cinematogrophy was quite good at times, though the special effects were unsually poor (that mouse looked straight out of a Pokemon cartoon). All in all I have to say I am somewhat unhappy I spent money on it. Read the book, or get Lynch's film (which has its own problems but on the whole was better.)
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on May 3, 2003
I'm sorry to say, I've read (like Kyle MacLachlan) Dune every summer from the age of 16 on, and I simply like David Lynch's vision a lot more than the SciFi channel's. I'll be the first to admit that it wasn't exactly like the book (and though it was closer, SciFi's wasn't either), but there are certain glaring problems with this edition. For one, with all of the money that went into special effects, you'd think SciFi could pay to get a bigger set. The matte painting's edge can clearly be seen at the back of the 10X10 meter set. As if the technical problems (which extend far beyond the size of the sound stage) weren't enough, the acting is truly sub par. Is one looks to the David Lynch version, not only do we see a movie filmed mostly in the deserts of Mexico, we see it starring a wonderful array of actors, all of whom were at their prime. As well, tacking on Frank Herbert's name to the SciFi version of the film doesn't make it his work. If one reads interviews from the early 80's, you'll see that Herbert was working along side Lynch, and approved of the script. Why oh why did SciFi then go and spend oodles of money to ruin a perfectly good legacy? Ah yes, the "newer = better" theory. What a disappointment. Ah well. The movie's made, and so is its almost blasphemous follow up. Watch at your own risk.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on March 19, 2003
I'm with the people who really wanted to like this production, but was put off by the entirely too cheap sets and use of the HORRIBLE FILTERS! Who ever compared this to Xena was doing a discredit to that show, which at least filmed exteriors in the, well, exterior. One reviewer said, "Nevermind the special effects aren't up to full-blown Hollywood CGI standards." Hollywood? It's not up to cable TV standards.
I made the mistake of watching the first part of "Children of Dune" before deciding to watch the first miniseries. The hair, makeup, costuming, effects, and sets are all fantastic compared to the original Dune miniseries. I had already read the review about approaching it as a theatrical production, but I found the direction and sets too distracting. For instance, the moons never moved on the backgrounds, even when time had clearly passed. It's an idiotic error and very careless.
The backgrounds are practically comic, at one point Paul and Lady Jessica are shown running against a blue screen, the effect is of a comedy sketch off Conan O'Brien. I was laughing so hard I couldn't breathe, and the moment is supposed to be suspenseful! The apparent low budget also hurts the use of extras, there are supposed to be thousands of Fedyakin, and instead there are tens of tens. Not to mention at the end, all the Major Houses are supposed to be participating in the war on Muad'Dib, but instead there are only soldiers shown in Harkonnen and Sardaukar uniforms. Also people are constantly wandering around with their stillsuits off, skin exposed to the desert. It would make me cringe if the desert weren't so clearly a soundstage. And when did Herbert decide that Fremen eyes glow? Time and again, in the book, they are referred to as DARK. So many things in this miniseries are simply careless.
My final complaint about the look of the film is in the stupid filters. It was like a madman was in charge of them, "Look I found a green one, and here's a red one! How about blue?!" The scenes are literally bathed in one-tone light and the effect is distracting and gaudy.
As to the actual acting and script: I'll stay neutral on the William Hurt issue. I've never liked him, so approaching the film from that angle, I was never going to give him a fair chance. As to Alec Newman, who some feel mis-played Paul, I would say it was the script that betrayed Paul, not the actor. He later does a very convincing Maud'dib. From the first scene of Paul, the whiny brat, being pulled out of the chair, I knew that they were departing too far from the book. While he has his moments, Paul is for the most part collected and thoughtful, and the first half of the miniseries cheerfully dumbs him down. I think they underplayed the strangeness in him, and I can't believe they skipped his first encounter with spice-enhanced prescience. To me that scene is elemental to who he is becoming. At first, I thought it was a budget choice, but then I saw the later scenes with the Water of Life. Maybe they thought it was redundant, I would certainly disagree.
The problem for me then was getting into the film on an emotional level. It was until the last third that I could really begin to let the errors go and appreciate the story it was trying to tell. I would have taken this filmed like an episode of Xena in a heartbeat over the supposedly "artistic" way it was presented.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on January 15, 2003
To its credit, this treatment's five-hour running time affords the kind of attention to narrative detail and to *pacing* that Lynch's version lacks. And the cast is pretty good--the main actors give, by and large, their all. The fellow playing Paul is especially good in the final third of the show, during his transformation into the messiah/savior.
Sadly, there appears to have been no budget whatsoever--the special effects are beyond bad, the art direction questionable, the editing, directing (and much of the acting) rote and often sloppy. Even the *dialogue* editing is poor, with bits that were recorded at different times having different timbres than other speech from the same scene.
I was floored when I learned after watching that the cinematographer was none other than Vittorio Storaro, the mastermind who lensed *Apocalypse Now*. How could such a genius have boarded this wreck of a production? If one does the work of mentally separating the cinematography proper from the special effects, it's clear that there's some talent there. But when nearly every shot is an eyesore, what's the point? The money used for Storaro and William Hurt would have been much better spent on additional graphics engineers.
It's one thing for Arrakis's deserts to look imperfect. Deserts are big and vast and incredibly hard to fake, like oceans. But even the scenes filmed in *caves* look like they were shot on a soundstage! And it's not like the actors behave as though they're in a fierce desert. Half the time the characters are out there, they're unbuckling their face masks as they approach, blatantly for the camera's benefit.
The director mentions the show's "operatic" qualities in the bonus features, as if the staginess were a strategy he embraced rather than an obstacle he lacked the money or the skills to overcome. The sand worms look great in and of themselves, but forget about believability in any shot showing both worms and people. "It's the story, not the effects," say some. But when you can't tell the story because you don't have the effects, it's a problem. How do the Fremen dismount once they're atop and somehow steering the worms? How close to home can they ride them? For that matter, where do the Fremen keep their 'Thopters? And why does the desert mouse, so small but so important, have to look like a discarded prop from "Sesame Street"? It's inexcusable. I can *imagine* Arrakis when I read the book. When I watch the movie, I'm looking to *see* it. Period.
You could maybe get away with staging a movie for a Jane Austen drama in which most of the story takes place in a mansion. But not with something of the epic scope of *Dune*, where the landscapes and skyscapes are so central to the story.
The preciousness of water to the characters is practically the only thing in this production that's consistently believable, and movies far too often overlook this kind of verisimilitudinous detail. Yes, I'm glad I saw this DVD, and I'll be watching Harrison's next production, too. But still I must ask: Peter Jackson, where are you?! It's not too late to do this story right....
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on May 30, 2002
While many find the Lynch version of Dune flawed this one is equally as flawed if not more. Still it reveals parts of Dune that were missing from the motion picture.
While holding to the story "text" more than the motion picture they failed to adhere to the simplest elements of the story. Namely the fact that the cast did not appear visually correct. Paul and his father were not blondes, and their uniforms were definitely not brown as depicted. Only the emperor's daughter came close to her description and she was entirely overused, taking the dialog meant for other characters.
The movie also portrays the fremen and their sieches incorrectly, showing Fremen outside without still suits, and presenting an open air siech. We have a Paul who acts as a spoiled brat at the beginning of the film, which itself, the beginning that is, didn't start off well with having the Atreides starship presented as some Star Trek knock off.
Overall they present more of the book than was presented in the movie, just take some of the more obvious gaffes with a grain of salt and the feeling of Dune comes through.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on May 21, 2002
I'm sorry, but this adaptation of one of SF's best ever novels is just awful. I borrowed it from a friend last year, and switched it off in less than 15mins, I've recently borrowed it again, and made it through this time...
The sound is excellent, the sets are excellent, the cast is excellent (although mostly non-moviestar), the cinematography is excellent, the adaptation sticks much more rigidly to the book, and all in all it makes for a valiant attempt.
The biggest problems are the desert scenes, and the CGI's. The series uses 'translighting' - huge posters used as backdrops in Europes largest soundstage, but they look just like that - posters. The CGI's are awesome, but they look just like that - CGI's. The effects in this production stick out as effects, and it's a shame as it kept my eye from what could have been a better attempt than the 1984 movie, but it just doesn't gel.
I enjoyed it, as a Dune fan, I hated it, as a film buff. (And is it just me or does the design owe a lot to Episode I?)
The version I watched was the Collectors Edition UK version coming in at approx 291 mins, I'm off to buy the US Special Edition for it's reported extra 30mins, but mainly for the Herbert interview...
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on March 5, 2002
Being a fan of the books and the well done surreal texture that David Lynch achieved in the 1984 film, I am pretty disappointed in this latest version. It's long and the script is not as strong as I had hoped. The actors often give me the impression of people simply acting and reading lines rather then making me believe in the reality of the character.
As impressive as the visuals are, I think they may have been overdone a little. For example, when Paul is forced to place his hand in the black box by the Reverend Mother, to test his courage, I would have rather that no effects had happened. The imagination of what may be happening is far more powerful than a cheap CG effect of blisters and a steam.
I didn't like the whining nature of Paul at the begenning of the movie. He doesn't have the screen presence of Kyle MacLachlan from the 84 version.
In all, the 84 movie was a better, more entertaining movie. But then 84 was a very good year. The Tigers won the world series, the Americans cleaned in the Olympics, the summer was beautiful.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
on March 4, 2002
Being a avid Dune Chronicles fan, I had eagerly anticipated the release of this DVD. Perhaps my expectation was colored by my imagination about the books or perhaps it was the 1984 Dune; but when I had the chance to watch it, I was disappointed.
Although this TV Miniseries presented more details as described in Herbert's book than David Lynch's rendition in 1984, I felt strongly that the absolute lack of faithful reprensentation of the main characters ruined this version of Dune.
I also wasn't too crazy about most of the actings with this cast. A great deal of the characters were of the noble born, namely the Atreides, the Corrinos, and the Bene Gesserits, they should have carried more regal air among them. The Harkonnens weren't as sinister as what Herbert wrote. Also, the guild navigator and the "foldspace" scenes aren't as powerfully felt as in Lynch's.
As a result, we are greeted with beautifully done sceneries, CGs, vehicle models, and special effects, but nothing else. If by some chance someone took the strength of this and the Lynch editions and make a new one according to Herbert's vision, that will be the best Dune ever yet.
0CommentWas this review helpful to you?YesNoSending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
     
 
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Dune (Widescreen) (Bilingual)
Dune (Widescreen) (Bilingual) by Kyle MacLachlan (DVD - 2012)
CDN$ 21.59

Children of Dune [2 Discs]
Children of Dune [2 Discs] by Alec Newman (DVD - 2003)
CDN$ 111.56

Dune
Dune by Frank Herbert (Mass Market Paperback - Sept. 1 1990)
CDN$ 11.25