SnoopyStyle Based on Frank Herbert's classic science fiction novel, this is a 3 part TV miniseries for Sci-fi channel. It is a fair attempt at the epic material. The obvious comparison is to the 1984 David Lynch version.First the easy comparison is the special effects. This version does a lot of green screen work. It's early CGI done competently for the times. It looks good enough, but the 1984 has the amazing visual style. This feels very much like a low resolution copy. It's got to be expected. I certainly wouldn't deduct any marks for it.The 1984 version was a complete mess storywise. I never read the books. This version is much more clearer. The 4 hours running times have a lot to do with that. It flows a lot better.The acting is there for the big roles in this movie. Alec Newman does a good job as the Muad'Dib. He feels like a young hero type. Backing him up, there are some great actors like William Hurt, Saskia Reeves, and Ian McNeice. The acting for the '84 version is much deeper. Overall, they're both flawed presentations of a complicated epic sci-fi series.

TheLittleSongbird Of the three adaptations(to knowledge) of the Dune book franchise, the best is the mini-series Children of Dune. It is not perfect, it has Susan Sarandon's overacting and occasionally can feel cartoonish, stilted and incomplete, but it is wonderful visually, has the best music score of the three adaptations, has good acting on the whole and is easy to follow at least. David Lynch's film, apart from a couple of good performances here and there and the amazing visuals, was severely lacking, starting with an underdeveloped and not always cohesive story, even at 3 hours the film felt too short(a 5 or 6 hour mini-series is better for Dune), there is some really bad, cheesy scripting and there is the feeling of Lynch being the wrong director for it. This mini-series is far from great, but it is a marginal improvement over Lynch's film but Children of Dune, while not perfect either, eclipses them both.Generally Dune(2000) does look good. The sets are so sumptuous in colour and beautifully rendered and the costumes are a creatively bizarre mix of styles that suit the characters very well. The photography on the whole is clean, clear and not too distracting. The special effects are mixed in quality, at times they are well-proportioned, textured and fit well within the story, but at others they have a cheap look(cartoonish and cardboard). The music is also excellent, a component that like with Children of Dune is done much better than in Lynch's film. With the music here there is the right amount of the moody and the majestic. The dialogue really doesn't come across very well, very cheesy often and far too casual, very little of Frank Herbert's intelligent prose comes through.Dune(2000) has a more suitable length than the Lynch film, is easier to follow and doesn't try to rush things through. It doesn't quite come off successfully. John Harrison deserves credit for bringing his own style while trying to respect some of Herbert's details, and doing things at a leisurely pace to give time to breathe was a good decision. There were times though where the pacing came across as too leisurely and too many parts were under-explained or left more questions than answers. The cast are a mixed bag. The best performance comes from Ian McNiece who is funny and menacing. William Hurt is very good, meaningful and charismatic not to mention cool, in his expanded character role and Saskia Reeves makes for a Jessica that is sweet and calculating. Sadly there is also PH Moriaty, whose Gurney is bland and over-compensated, Barbara Kodetova who is annoying and especially Alec Newman who is very ill at ease and too sullen. The more minor roles are not memorable and not enunciated enough.Of the characters, the only ones who are developed reasonably enough are Duke Leto(the expansion really does help), Baron and Lady Jessica, everybody else are underwritten ciphers really and some like Piter and Thufir who are criminally underused and forgettably performed. In conclusion, very mixed feelings on this mini-series. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.

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